In THIS article is what irks me. Here is the quote:
"Suleman (she is the grandmother to the Octuplets) said her daughter had embryos implanted last year, and after finding out she was pregnant with multiple babies was given the option by doctors of selectively reducing the number of embryos. The woman declined."
Why is it the first thing the doctors ask the soon to be mom if she wants to kill some of her children? I love the grandmother's response:
"What do you suggest she should have done? She refused to have them killed," Suleman told the Times. "That is a very painful thing."
So of course this all leads to the question of when "life" (however one may define that) begins. It is a debate that has gone on literally for centuries staring with philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates and Plato - and one I am not going to attempt to solve. But let me give you food for thought:
In a world where scientists are attempting to determine if there was ever life on mars, life being defined in its very basic form, why in the world are we still arguing about when life begins in the body of a woman? If a small amount of water residue can be defined as a potential life, why not the embryo/zygote that is only minutes old?