Again, you've raised an interesting point, palmer! In any given menses cycle a woman and her husband might bring about fertilization and a new life, but that new life may fail to implant in the uterine wall. This is the earliest form of a miscarriage and there are devices as well as pills which can cause this process to prevent an ongoing pregnancy. This 'natural' miscarriage process does throw some kink in the argument for life protection from conception onward, but consider this: acknowledging that nature does sometimes fail to support nascent life, does that give we humans the right to force such an action, circumventing nature? And as this issue impacts our manipulations of embryos, should we be messing with individual human life, to manipulate it for exploitative purposes then discard that exploited individual human life?
I'm encouraged by the debates here regarding a possible compromise over legality of something tragic and currently far from humane, abortion policy in America.
This is the earliest form of a miscarriage and there are devices as well as pills which can cause this process to prevent an ongoing pregnancy. This 'natural' miscarriage process does throw some kink in the argument for life protection from conception onward, but consider this: acknowledging that nature does sometimes fail to support nascent life, does that give we humans the right to force such an action, circumventing nature? And as this issue impacts our manipulations of embryos, should we be messing with individual human life, to manipulate it for exploitative purposes then discard that exploited individual human life? MHG, I would not want to be the judge who has to decide whether a woman had a "natural" miscarriage or it was induced by a pill or some other "non-natural" process. If forced into that situation I would say "did you realize you were killing a cell that would develop into a full human being?", and then drop the case. I don't think there's much point in making moral distinctions over humans with no human features other than DNA without compromising the more important debate over what level of human features and thoughts is worthy of protection.
As for manipulation of embryos, I find no overriding medical justification for doing that. Are there other ways to treat disease? Almost certainly. Are there any instances where killing an embryo could save a life? Probably not. My overriding concern is that science and scientists have no basis for making a moral decision whereas a mother carrying a child has an increasing emotional bond with her baby that can be used to help make a moral decision.