Replies

From what I have learned about human development, fertilization is the most logical point to say "an individual human life has started." I do not draw a distinctino based on whether this occurs in vitro or in vivo, with a penis or with a turkey baster. From then on, it's a steady progression through normal development, if in the proper environment. I think it is silly to say that one embryo is less human if it is in a dish rather than a womb. I think that's as silly as saying a two-month old left outside on a cold winter night is less human than one tucked into a crib because one lived and one died. To me, those are arbitrary, irrational demarcations. I think environment, size, whether she's "wanted", and many other criteria are arbitrary and irrational to use to define a human being. I find people weak and emotion-driven when they use genes to select which kid to have.

From what I have learned about human development, fertilization is the most logical point to say "an individual human life has started."

But what about it makes it logical? Why not after the child is born. Some people (not I) would argue that after birth "From then on, it's a steady progression through normal development, if in the proper environment."

What is it about the fertilised egg that qualifies for your definition of deserving of legal protection (and destruction of which has moral consequence).

Pardon me for saying so, but isn't the distinction somewhat arbitrary? One cell has one compliment of DNA, another has two. Therefore the latter is deserving of legal protection?

Also, I wonder how you feel about the destruction of unfertilised eggs? Many animals and plants can reproduce without sperm in a process called Parthenogenesis. In April 2004, scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture used parthenogenesis to successfully create fatherless mice. The same process could be used to reproduce humans. Does that change your view at all?

Would an egg that was manipulated to start dividing on its own without sperm to the 8 cell stage and then destroyed create the same moral problems for you as one that was fertilised, grown to 8 cells and then destroyed? I ask, because I am trying to understand what it is specifically that you deem to create moral value in the process. Maybe it is just the process of division that you think creates moral consequence?

jas3