Thank you Bex for your response.

I was pointing out that IF you are going to use one law to support a position that you then need to consider all laws (and perhaps, supreme court decisions?). Perhaps the law on murder should be changed - should we not question it?

Your definition of human life is invalid, as there are things covered in your definition as human life that clearly are not: an empty pregnancy sac is clearly not a human life, yet your definition includes it.

. . . . <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wyjbammegu.jpg">

Clearly A = B + (something else)

Something not included in your definition/s.

Or the buddhist belief that we should respect all life, but this is a red herring and it does not add to the definition of what is human life, where we draw the line. We know life is not sufficient, B has life. We know human DNA is not sufficient, B has human DNA.

Likewise an organ removed in an operation has living cells and human DNA, but nobody would confuse an organ with a human life.

What does A have that B does not have? What makes A = human life while B does not?

This too is obviously false when 70% of zygotes do NOT have the necessary information to become human beings, because they fail to do so even with the best medical care.

An appeal to emotion, and another false statement. The organs removed above have the genetic code of a human being, but they are NOT human beings, they are not "made into" human beings by having the genetic code. If not being fully human is "subhuman" then anything that is B is subhuman by this definition, because it clearly is not A (human). B does not become human by wishing it.

Does it make it more human? We do know that - whatever the reason for death - they (over 60% of the preemies admitted to the neo-natal intensive care) do not have everything they need to live as a human being. They don't have everything you need to have to get all the way from B to A.

Yet it was common before modern medicine for most babies to die in the first year, so common that many societies would not recognize a baby until the first birthday (another arbitrary definition point for human life).

However this will still not suddenly place embryos where there were none, nor repair damaged, incomplete or missing organs inside the (genetic) abnormally developing fetus.

Nor does a zygote. 70% of them fail.

Especially those where there is only a pregnancy sac? Especially those (55%) that are flushed down the toilet without you even knowing they were there?

I'd put it at about 96% -- I think that is the latest consensus for the difference between human and chimpanzee (look at the long fingers). Sorry, but I did this just to show that you cannot tell how human a fetus is from a picture.

I thought the fiaso over Terry Sciavo was a disgraceful exhibition of grand-standing politics in this regard, an embarrassment for America of people actually wanting to make decisions for a family that were the family's right to decide, legally and ethically and traditionally.

Over 60% of the preemies admitted to the neo-natal intensive care die even with the best medical care. Legally families have the right to refuse life saving medical treatment of children until they reach the age of majority. Traditionally families have had this right. Different people will make different choices, and ethically we need to respect the right of families to make those decisions.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]