Is this just a bunch of cells?

The pro-choice, abortion-as-non-homicide argument is dead. Congratulations to RTLs, but the abortion-on-demand-as-justifiable-homicide argument will be much more difficult, probably impossible, to beat.

It is indeed unfortunate for right-to-lifers that just when in-utero imaging technology has convinced everyone that the unborn are living persons, transplantation technology is convincing us that we are entitled to control the contents of our bodies, and to avoid major medical/surgical traumas, EVEN at the cost of other (innocent) persons' lives. The RTL movement is therefore forced to claim SPECIAL rights, not equal rights, for the unborn. Personhood alone won't get it done.

" 'I weep for you,' the Walrus said, 'I deeply sympathize!'
With sobs and tears he sorted out those of the largest size
Holding his pocket handkercheif before his streaming eyes."

By the way, the literal meaning of the word "innocent" is "not harmful" from the same root as "noxious" and "nauseous". In this sense the unborn are most definitely not innocent. They cause trillions of dollars worth of harm every year.

"No one ever invented a polite word for a killing yet!" --Rear Window.

I'm happy to annoy you and I hope you are equally annoyed by abortion clinics who attempt to quell apprehension by telling their clients their preborn child is just a bunch of cells.

To the point of this post, we're not talking about an animal, such as a goldfish or a cow, but a human and there was no assertion that the basis for the sanctity of human life or the assignment of rights should be tied to instrumental characteristics, such as fingerprints, brainwaves or cognitive ability). Instead, the article simply replied to the assertion that the child is a "bunch of cells" as opposed to an organism.