Fortunately, the moral debate will soon be mooted by scientific advances.

Tough times ahead for embryo advocates?

Once again, the styles of the titles of your posts. This is an interesting ongoing conflict: Justin Case vs. Leon Kass.... Interesting adversaries.... The question is difficult, but I think I would have to sacrifice frozen embryos to save the lives of sick children and adults. I don't like abortion. I was once for it, on the grounds of a woman's sovereignty over her own body, which I continue to uphold. Problem is, there is another body involved, which pro-abortionists never seem to get around to acknowledging. Perhaps not immediately from conception, but at some point in the pregnancy, and pretty early in the pregnancy, the creature develops a brain remarably like that of "homo sapiens", and then the embryo or fetus becomes something more than a cluster of cells, becomes a baby. At that point, I've concluded that abortion is justified only in such cases (rare) when it is necessary to save the woman's own life. At some point, I'm going to have to start blogging about this controversy.

You mentioned technological advances. I recall hearing of a science-fiction novel, Solomon's Knife I believe was the title, in which a doctor discovers a method whereby the fetus can be non-violently transferred to an artificial womb and nurtured there. That way, the woman has her body all to herself again (the original argument for abortion), while at the same time the baby gets to live instead of being dismembered. That would be a positive-sum solution for everybody. I wonder, though.... Seeing how abortion has become an atheistic sacrament or sacrilege (akin to the infamous Black Mass) for some, a way of spiting the hated Catholic church, they might well oppose such a solution on some pretext or other.