Replies

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

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 then is the fundamental difference between a baby 10 minutes before she travels through your vagina, when she is traveling through your vagina, and when she has emerged from your vagina? Basically environment. Is the baby an adult? No. The baby cannot care for itself at all. So it has to be in the proper environment to continue to progress.

The distinction between 13 and 26, generally, is a singular event. It happens once. It is a demarcation between 2 specialized cells secreted by sexually mature humans and a one-celled entity with a human's full complement of chromosomes. The cell membrane also undergoes a chemical reaction at this point to make it distinct from that of an unfertilized egg. This is a cingular event, and the rest is a natural progression from this point.

And no, this distinction is not arbitrary. There is a cingular "event" that has occurred. There is a before and an after. I know some people like to say "what about heart beat", "what about brainwaves". What about puberty? What about voting age? What about college graduation?

As to unfertilized eggs and parthenogenesis, I say so what? We are not bees. In my system, it is logical that an unfertilized egg is just that, and not a very young human.

My other answer, for people who disagree and/or are moral relativists, is that abortion should be legal up to the 163rd trimester because that's when I think you have a soul. If someone pisses me off and are past that, maybe I'll change it to the 180th trimester and practice my new post-birth abortion procedure out on them. /sarcasm