[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.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. What's more difficult is that asking people who believe in one (or another) specific event as the initiating event for humanity what their logic is for such a decision has, on this thread at least, resulted in name calling and accusations of "moral relativism". It would be far more enlightening to hear an argument as to WHY one specific initiating event creates moral consequence or should create legal consequence as opposed to just stating that it is so, or that it is so because one particular flavor of religion deems it so.

I began contributing to this thread with the hope that others would share their reasoning on this topic, but, alas, there has been very little in the way of reasoning and very much in the way of name calling.

jas3

[MichiganConservative]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. What's more difficult is that asking people who believe in one (or another) specific event as the initiating event for humanity what their logic is for such a decision has, on this thread at least, resulted in name calling and accusations of "moral relativism".

You were given the reasoning at least 3 times by at least 3 different people and yet you refuse to acknowledge that and continue to assert that no one will answer your questions. jas3, arguing with you is like arguing with the little child that responds to all your arguments with "yeah, but you're fat"; pointless.

Do not talk to me again.

[metmom]

I began contributing to this thread with the hope that others would share their reasoning on this topic, but, alas, there has been very little in the way of reasoning and very much in the way of name calling.

I read this thread beginning to end and found ONE instance of what might be considered name calling. ONE is *very much*? Where's the rest of it?