DIYbanter - View Single Post - OT

(Doug Miller) wrote in message .com...
In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
The drawback is that an
abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
of lives.

Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.

Does that make it right?

And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?) as
a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact.

Its cells contain human DNA.If it isn't human, what is it?

One could equally

[but incorrectly]

hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only becomes human when
it is capable of surviving outside the womb without extraordinary
measures.

To do so is equivalent to maintaining that a baby born sufficiently
prematurely is not human.

The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
point from embryo to human.

That's because there is no transition. A human embryo is human from the
beginning, just as a dog embryo is a dog from the beginning.

Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.