Reply #54: But Hatch's "definition" proves it isn't about the "life"

[Inland]

There isn't any difference between the blastocysts except location. In one, there is a woman who can be commandeered to bear the child and the blastocyst is life. In the other, there isn't and the blastocyst may be killed. Exact same set of cells, exact same genetic makeups, exact same type of conception of sperm meeting egg. But no woman and the "definition" is conveniently changed to be "not life".

Forget the semantic definition game. The plain fact is that if there is no woman to control, there isn't a life worth keeping frozen much less bringing to term. Put another way, Orrin isn't interested in paying tax dollars (or even making private enterprises pay dollars) to keep the blastocysts frozen, get them adopted, or anything of the sort. It's not about what needs to be done to keep these things alive. It's about having a woman handy and who gives a shit if she bears the burden?

They can deny an intent to control women all they want, but the fact is that criminal penalties do just that--establish control, either by making them avoid the abortion to avoid the punishment or by placing them in jail after the fact.

I have a lot more respect for those parties who are against these fertility techniques because they believe they actually create a life that then must be saved then the 99% of anti abortionists whose sole interest is making the woman pay for play.