"They say a few cells are not "life.""

_______

Not the constitutional issue.

"A premie isn't very "viable" without an incubator."

_______

And the 14th Amendment would mandate their availability for all zygotic "persons."

"his tripe is so easily refuted, it's hard to see how anyone could fall for it."

___

They are compelled to bask in the continuing glow of their own Clean Hands Moral Wonderfulness. They transcend mere facts and logic.

"people shouldn't kill people."

______

Stipulated.

But, fertilized ova are not "people." Sorry.

Moreover -- if tangentially O/T -- picking on "Darwin" is another of those low-hanging fruit banal canards. Better to endlessly find nit-pick-ad-nauseum fault with the writings of a 19th century naturalist than to take on the Mount Everest of subsequent science his work spawned.

Early in this thread I got dissed by some anonymous clown poster who claimed he didn't need to read the post on the topic in my name link, just as he didn't need to read stuff by "flat-earth" proponents, summarily declaring my observations to be in that league without having to take the trouble of actually reading them.

Fine. Try to imagine how much I care.

I have [1] examined the relevant issues in some detail, [2] have personally walked the "pro-life" talk (when it was damned inconvenient), and [3] find no need to hide behind an anonymous screen name.

BTW, "determining when a human life begins in terms of ethics and morality" is not the issue, constitutionally speaking. Is a fertilized ovum "alive"? Yes. It this life "human"? Yes. Does that --ipse dixit -- make it a "person"? Only to those in the thrall of their beloved Red Herrings.

That you and I and others can openly have our own views about "ethics and morality" is a function of the rule of law. Law that remains -- for now, anyway -- secular, all of the attendant difficulties notwithstanding.

Read my post. Name in link.

So, please enlighten me as to when it becomes a "person", along with a definition of what you think a "person" is."

____

Well, notwithstanding that the proper burden of proof is not on me, but on those arguing for the moral and legal necessity for restriction of womens' autonomy...

Justice Scalia:

"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."

I agree with that. Period. In the legal sense.

Now, of course, Roe tried to "split the fetus" into 3rds.

"Moment of conception" cannot work.

Read my post.

this thread has fizzled. It was going nowhere fast anyway. This topic usually degenerates into a flaming Yahoo board.

I was gonna have some fun with Mr. 165 IQ with the Gorgeous wifey, but, whatever, had to go to my grandson's baseball game.

Hope y'all had fun.

"Is anyone aware of a text stating or implying that the priest is, in fact, affirmatively inducing an abortion?"

____

What, exactly would that prove? (Beyond quelling your curiosity.) That, because someone said/wrote "x" by way of assertion millenia ago, it ostensibly proves something?

Irrelevant.

Link in my name.

Untenable narcissistic Clean-Hands Moralism.

The long answer? "NO!"

Yep. Covered those problems in some detail in my blog post. Link in name.

Thank you very much for the kind words.

Y'know, we now have IVF (In Vitro Fertilization), but should we ever get to the technological point of universally available IVG (In Vitro Gestation), i.e., a biomechanical womb, only then could a blastocyst be rationally accorded pre-birth "personhood." Until such time, a woman's prerogative should prevail, as much as Self-Appointed Morally Wonderful others not like it.

Interesting. Huckabee lent his voice to that campaign. See my blog post (link in name), where I address his irrational stance.

More broadly, I continue to find it perversely amusing that religious zealots never hesitate to try enlist the might of the State in enforcing their untenable doctrines, all while out the other side of their mouths concomitantly wailing oh-so loudly for Separation of Church and State where it's convenient (e.g. mostly w/respect to the tax-exempt fleecing of their flocks).

I have a plan.

When embryos become citizens, I intend to find a lawyer who'll help me file a class-action lawsuit on their behalf.

_____

You won't have to look far. See my post.

"As my wife and I were residing in Knoxville at the time, we had more than just a passing familiarity with this highly visible, acrimonious case [Davis v Davis, post-divorce IVF dispute]. In fact, we knew the activist "pro-life" attorney who intervened to sue separately for "foster parent custody" of these frozen embryos (he was denied; the frozen embryos were ultimately destroyed)."

Yep. You won't have to look far to find someone eager to test the theory in court. Probably a lot of deep-pockets Fundie money around to underwrite such a thing.

"(They're also going to demand christening during the embryonic stage, so they don't end up in purgatory in case they get miscarried, aborted, or die in labor. I'd expect pro-life priests would be psyched to christen embryos.)"

______

Bring on the Mormons. They'll take care of everything (for a fee, of course). Hell, they even "baptize" dead Jews.