My bad: I should have said:

[P]eople go to a fertility clinic because they're having trouble having a baby, not because they're perfectly fertile but worried about the health of any early stage embryos whose lives might be created and ended without their knowledge.

The omniscience you're referring to here regards evidence, correct?  If so, I agree that is sensible.

1. Thank you!
2. Not in the case of late-term abortions.  If Kermit Gosnell is a murderer -- which I think is true -- and if we know who the women are who sought his services, then it only seems reasonable to me to prosecute them and perhaps their partners for soliciting murder.

Fair point.

I don't accept that.

We spend untold treasure finding ways to save lives of those who would have been written off only decades ago.  If human life is equally valuable at all stages of development,it seems reasonable to expect similar investment.

Perhaps there's nothing we can do currently, but -- given the gravity of the situation (the deaths of millions of children each year) -- it seems morally incumbent on pro-lifers to find ways to reduce the incidence of fatal genetic errors.  I'm being purely speculative, but perhaps we can pre-screen eggs so that only genetically healthy can be fertilized (still leaves the problem of what to do about sperm, I know).

Thank you, this is very interesting.  Before I go into specifics, I should say that I stand (at least somewhat) corrected.

Fair point on the latter one, but this still sounds like a weak response given that we are talking about the life & death of a child.

Fertility clinics don't address my question: people go to a fertility clinic because they're having trouble conceiving  not because they're perfectly fertile but worried about the health of any early stage embryos whose lives might be created and ended without their knowledge.

That said, the assisted hatching does sound like the exact kind of research I had in mind, so I stand corrected.

Midge,

Would you agree that this tradition -- which strikes me as quite sensible -- is incompatible with calling abortion "murder"?

Marcus Licinius Crassus, Skip.

It's worth noting that Crassus was truly the worst kind of corpratist, making a great deal of his wealth buying-up the auctions of Sulla's condemned political enemies.  And while the sources never say so explicitly, I'd wager good money that anyone who decided to start a rival fire brigade to compete with Crassus' was likely visited in the night by heavily-muscled "business associates" of the Triumvir.

He was far more a high-born gangster than a vicious John Galt.

Many thanks for the clarifications.

Question for the doctors: when does an embryo become a fetus?  The wiki article states the 9th week of pregnancy.  Is that correct?

I don't have a problem with pro-lifers and I haven't called them hypocrites.

I said I find a contradiction between their thinking (that all human life is infinitely sacred) and their actions (showing relatively little interest in preventing  early natural miscarriages).

KC and Katie O provided substantive answers to my question -- appreciated, you two -- and I have conceded some ground to each of them, though I think the point still stands that pro-lifers' rhetoric often outstrips their actions.  I hoped this discussion would avoid the direction it took, but Salvatore makes the same point.

There, you have me; I concede there's (currently) little we can do in such situations.

But only among people having trouble conceiving.  Is there interest among women who can conceive to find ways to ensure that as many healthy fertilized eggs implant as possible?  Not to my knowledge.

Preventing natural causes of death is "playing God"?

For crissakes, this began when I suggested asking Ron Bailey whether or not my impression is correct!  I am unaware of such research and -- when I've asked pro-lifers for evidence of it -- I've been consistently met with indifference or resignation.

Fair point regarding intrusiveness.

But stipulating that I am not an MD -- which, again, is why I'd like to ask Ron Bailey the question -- I find it hard to believe that nothing that can be done preventatively (e.g., to ensure that a higher proportion of otherwise healthy fertilized eggs implant).

Again we're talking about the deaths of tens of millions of people a year.

Nor do I, as I have said twice.

I never said it was hypocritical.

My point is that given how much we spend on medical care & research to mitigate other forms of natural mortality, it seems odd that pro-lifers' reaction to natural miscarriage rates is a shrug of the shoulders.

Pro-lifers -- and most other folks, including myself -- are willing to spend tremendous resources to save the lives of mid-to-late stage fetuses; the same does not appear to be true for early stage ones.  That doesn't seem to conform with the idea that their lives are infinitely sacred.

Here's what I'm getting at:

1. Pro-lifers argue that newly-fertilized embryos are of equal moral worth to human life at all other stages.
2. Pro-lifers -- at least as much as everyone else -- believe in funding medical research to decrease mortality.
3. HOWEVER, pro-lifers express relatively little interest in discovering ways to mitigate the astronomically high fetal mortality rates in early-stage pregnancy.

Assuming those three are correct, this implies one of the following must be true:

1. When push-comes-to-shove, pro-lifers do not actually believe that all life is equally precious.;
2. Pro-lifers do not believe newly-fertilized embryos are worthy of research dollars, despite believing that newly-fertilized embryos are equal to humans at other stages of development; or
3. Pro-lifers are funding this research and I am unaware of it; alternately, previous research into the matter indicated that nothing feasible can be done about it.

Have I missed something?

Katie, I concede there is a huge distinction between murder and natural death.

I don't think this analogy works because the death penalty debate doesn't revolve around issues of the humanity/personhood of the criminals, only whether their deeds warrant execution by the state.  In contrast, the abortion debate is all about what counts as a human/person.

Could we all agree that Francis was factually incorrect?