Replies

"One could make a dozen similar arguments that the specialization of the first neural cell or the first cardiac cell is a singular event. It happens once. The division from one to two cells is a singular event; it happens once."

More sophistry. None of these events would happen without the INITIATING event---the triggering of the growth of an individual human by the union of egg and sperm.

Yes, but the triggering of the growth by the union of egg and sperm results in a live birth less than half the time, even excluding intentional abortion by the mother. It is more likely than not that a fertilized egg will not implant, or if implanted will not be carried to term.

So given that a fertilzed egg is still only the a probability (and less than a 50% probability) of life, why chose the actual fertilization as the singular event which *IS* life and not something before or after it?

From my seat, the initiating event is the act of sex, not the fertilization of the egg. So should I be morally opposed to the use of spermicides, if I deem the initiating event to be prior to fertilization? I can't see any logical reason for moral consequence being established at the moment of "initiation" more than for a dozen other possibilities.

"So no fertilization = no moral consqeuence in your book? I'm sure can't be the whole picture. At what point does an unfertilized but still dividing egg deserve protection and why?"

And yet MORE sophistry. The "whole picture" is whether or not human life is to be valued and protected, no matter WHAT the phenomenon is that initates the process that will lead to that specific unique human---be that process the union of egg and sperm (which is the only process we have available today) or the injection of a cocktail of chemicals into an egg cell.

It is not sophistry at all. Some posters on this thread have imbued fertilization with magical properties that create a moral threshold before which there is no moral consequence to the destruction of an egg or of a sperm, but after which there is moral consquence to destruction of the combined sperm and egg. I am pointing out that eggs no longer need to be fertilized to create humans. And in fact you've tipped your hand by stating that the real issue is not fertilization, but when human life should or should not be protected. I think everyone on this thread agrees that human life should be protected, but there are various definitions of what counts as human life. Catholics might want to protect sperm, others might want to protect a fertilzed egg, others might want to protect a developed fetus, and others might want to protect a baby only after it has been born. I'm told that Peter Singer thinks a baby deserves protection only well after it is born.

I'm on the side that says "human life has value and should be protected". You're on the side that says murder is OK if the result helps someone else.

I think that murder is defensible in some cases. For example in self-defense, I would argue that murder is morally justified. Quakers would disagree with me. I also think that capital punishment is morally justified in certain cases. However, I don't think that murder is OK "if the result helps someone else." By that test one could murder another for essentially any reason.

The question here is whether or not the destruction of seven cells is equivalent to infanticide or to murder. I think rational people can disagree on that point. And I have not yet formed an opinion on the matter, despite your vitriolic assertions to the contrary.

jas3

Some posters on this thread have imbued fertilization with magical properties that create a moral threshold before which there is no moral consequence to the destruction of an egg or of a sperm, but after which there is moral consquence to destruction of the combined sperm and egg.

The root of the problem is that humanity is a continuum in fact, and any arbitrary binary quantization for the purposes of determining that humanity will be defective as a result yet people are wont to do it. As long as they make this incorrect assumption, all the reasoning that follows will be invalid. It really is that simple, but ignoring that fact makes things so much more tidy if you do not want to think too hard about a complex question.

Interestingly, the English Common Law has always recognized humanity as a gradient and would absolutely reject the idea that there is a clear line between when an object is a human being and when it is not.

"Yes, but the triggering of the growth by the union of egg and sperm results in a live birth less than half the time, even excluding intentional abortion by the mother."

Irrelevant.

"I am pointing out that eggs no longer need to be fertilized to create humans. And in fact you've tipped your hand by stating that the real issue is not fertilization, but when human life should or should not be protected. I think everyone on this thread agrees that human life should be protected, but there are various definitions of what counts as human life.

No, the real issue is whether or not a fetus is human, at whatever stage of development it's in. I say it is.

"Catholics might want to protect sperm, others might want to protect a fertilzed egg, others might want to protect a developed fetus, and others might want to protect a baby only after it has been born. I'm told that Peter Singer thinks a baby deserves protection only well after it is born.

I think you need to study the Catholic position a bit more. You are wrong. The Catholic church's position is exactly mine, and for the same reason. Nothing whatsover in the Catholic position about wanting to "protect sperm".

"I think that murder is defensible in some cases. For example in self-defense, I would argue that murder is morally justified. Quakers would disagree with me. I also think that capital punishment is morally justified in certain cases."

Neither self-defense nor capital punishment qualify as "murder". Abortion does.