[jas3]

I don't base by thoughts on birth control or fertility medicine on when a soul inhabits a body. I find it amusing that one of the people who really liked and popularized this soul argument was Bill Clinton when justifying his veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.

I find it irrelevant what Bill Clinton has ever thought about anything. The proper way to analyze a problem is NOT to find out what Bill Clinton thought about it and to take the opposite position.

So if you don't base your thoughts on birth control or fertility medicine on when a soul inhabits a body, then on what moral basis can you oppose the destruction of an 8 celled blastosphere. Either it has a soul, and the destruction of it is wrong (and you should then answer my questions above to defend that position), or it doesn't have a soul, and destruction of it is morally inconsequential.

So which is it?

I absolutely can see how vacuuming a living 6 month old healthy fetus (with a developed nervous system and which can experience pain) from a woman's womb is morally different from a woman chosing from which of several batches of cells she wants to bring a baby into the world. Can you?

jas3

[MichiganConservative]

...or it doesn't have a soul, and destruction of it is morally inconsequential.

Gee, thanks for the false dilemma. I said earlier that I base my arguments on my study of human development and embryology and the premise that murdering humans is wrong.

So maybe you believe murdering humans is ok in some cases, such as when they're realy small.