I think the real issue that Rich is getting at is whether the blastocyst constitutes human life, or — and these are my own distinctions, not Rich’s — a human being. That the blastocyst is life according to a straightforward biological definition is undeniable. It is also, biologically, human. But is it a human being?

At some point, a discussion of what constitutes “human life” or a “human being” or as Stephen has pointed out, a person, leaves biology behind and ends up in the much trickier realms of philosophy and ethics.

I am far more interested in beginnings, which is what I hope Serenity will be, once it opens on September 30th.

On one of the more serious links was this:

Now the question becomes whether blastocysts created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (popularly known as cloning) is life or not.

A blastocyst can take in nutrients, expel waste, and grow, which are some of the fundamental characteristics of life. Now, I know there is plenty of controversy about what constitutes life and what doesn’t, but I doubt anyone could seriously argue that blastocysts are not alive. So, am I just misunderstanding the point of that statement, or is the author completely clueless about the basics of biology?