I hesitate to wade into this debate, but after hearing Michael Steele this morning tell Tim Russert that rather than dispose of unwanted embryos they should be adopted, I just can't keep quiet.
Let me state very clearly up front, that I adamently believe that a woman's body is her own and that she, not the government, has the absolute right to determine whether or not to reproduce.
But here is my thesis for today:
"Life" does NOT BEGIN at conception.
"Life" EXISTS BEFORE conception.
The egg and the sperm are live cells.
This is what makes the "life begins at conception" concept so absurd. You cannot take "dead" tissue and create life (unless your name is Mary Shelley or perhaps Dr. Frankenstein).
The cells in my left pinky finger are alive too but they do not represent a discrete human being just because they are alive. If they did, then I should be able to get a tax deduction for my pinky.
It is absurd to state that life begins at conception -- at least from a biological perspective.
The concept that life begins at conception is a religious concept.
It cannot be adopted into the rule of law.
First, we shouldn't adopt religious doctrine into the rule of law.
Second, as mentioned above, if I want to define "life" as being merely live tissue, then any portion of one's body would constitute "life". If we protect this "life" under the law, then every paper cut that destroyed cells would constitute murder. It is absurd.
Hearing Michael Steele state that embryos should be adopted just illustrates how absurd the Radical Right's concept of "life" has become.
Let us take care of those who are here already. Particularly those that are suffering. Let us make good use of those embryos by allowing scientists to use them for stem cell research.
Religion is religion. Law is law. The two should never mix.