Replies

Easy, when I can measure it (egocentric grin).
I still can't figure out why you're picking at this point, why you think that defining and dividing sequences of events changes the status or state of the not-quite-14 day old embryo.

Even within the continuum, energy and matter undergo changes that are discrete. Choosing which change is significant as the end of one reaction and the beginning of another is not necessarily arbitrary -dictionary definitions notwithstanding - although, for us humans, it may seem to be since it's a matter of ability to measure and detect and report.

With better reflexes, technology, and knowledge, I might be able to detect the letter sooner than a presbyopic unenhanced middle aged lady. The fact that the good-reflex-me can detect the beginning of the appearance of the letter sooner than the middle-aged me does not change the fact that there was a first change on the screen.

For that matter, even if the observer has a cataract and sees yellow, does not change the actual light given off.

The fact that there are infinitisimal steps in fertilization does not change anything. The fact that scientists will disagree on when the cell may be called a zygote as opposed to a fertilized oocyte, does not change anything - there is a time when there is no human being in the fallopian tube or petri dish, and then a time when there is.

At that point, there is a new human being that has the right not to be killed intentionally by another human, unless the new human is a danger to the life of human being(s).

Carnley denies that the zygote "is a human life" because he wishes to justify killing zygotes and embryos.

My individual specialized cells do not have the right not to be killed, since they are a component of me, and, unless quite a number of them are killed, I, the human being will continue to live.

Oocytes and sperm cells do not have the right not to be killed, either. They are motile, specialized cells, but they never demonstrate "Growth with Reproduction, Inheritance, and Variability." Even the stauchest no-contraception advocate will not consider that a human being's life is taken with spermicides or condoms or if ovulation is blocked.

At your rate, we'd be defending life "before you were a twinkle in your father's eyes."