Replies

It is a metaphysical mistake to say that there is an instant or moment where conception takes place. The completion any particular process (e.g. DNA strands joining together) can't take place instantaneously because the individual atoms making up the DNA are interacting with non-DNA atoms and are already starting their post-completion processes.

What you write is very interesting. It sounds like you know a lot about the nitty-gritty science involved in conception. How long does it take for the DNA from an egg and from a sperm to combine into a "new" cell?

I apologize if I said conception takes only a moment. Maybe I should have said that there is a moment during conception (in which one "becomes a human") and that moment during conception takes only a moment.

Remember to give me a little credit though.

At least I was closer to the truth than the pro-aborts.

They say a fetus begins being a human being only the moment after it's totally outside the womb.

To them, it takes conception + 9 months + labor to make a human. Talk about s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the moment.

Who's made the bigger mistake...the pro-aborts or me?

What you write is very interesting. It sounds like you know a lot about the nitty-gritty science involved in conception. How long does it take for the DNA from an egg and from a sperm to combine into a "new" cell?

I don't know. I was speaking metaphysically: any physical change that involves more than one atom can't happen instantaneously. It would be impossible, for example, for two atoms to exactly coordinate their actions.

You can postulate a moment that one becomes "human" during conception. I would rather say (with certainty) that the fertilized egg is human at some point during or just after conception. That way the human a real thing and not an abstraction.

Then we get to the difficult issue of legal protection. I agree a human should not be killed, but I can't agree to any punishment for the perpetrator. The perpetrator could not possibly realize that a microscopic object with no human form and no ability to sense anything or communicate in any way is human. Protecting humans must ultimately appeal to our ability to empathize with them, not an abstract legal status. Unless you can demonstrate how we can empathize with such a human, I don't think protection is realistic.

Your post to palmer is interesting.

The typical pro-lifer makes the following claim:

From the moment of conception, we have a person.

The typical "pro-choicer" makes the following claim:

We do not have a person until the moment the infant's body is fully outside the womb. And if it has been removed from the womb by force, we still don't have a person.

Here's what I'm saying:

There is a stage, in the womb, at which a developing human becomes indisputably a person. After that point, this person must be afforded legal protection. When a consensus is reached on what the "indisputable" point is, abortion after that point must be made illegal.

There is also a stage, in the womb, during which reasonable people differ on whether a person exists at all. Some people strongly believe that a person exists. Other people believe just as strongly, and as sincerely, that a person does not exist.

It is not legally permissible (or ultimately, practically doable) for pro-lifers to use the law of the United States to force those who differ with them to behave as if they share their beliefs -- although pro-lifers are free to use any and all other legal means to persuade others not to choose abortion, and to make other alternatives to abortion (such as adoption) as easy as possible, so that they will be widely used.