Replies

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

I think you meant 23 and 46

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.

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. There are hundreds of developmental stages all of which could be chosen at will to serve as the arbitrary cutoff at which any person could decide is his definition of the singular event. I don't think you are seriously considering voting age or puberty or college graduation. But why not pick the first heartbeat or the first brainwaves?

The reason I asked about parthenogenesis is that it is not hypothetical to suggest that scientists will soon create an embryo that is 8 cells (or more) without human sperm. Under your definition, it would not be morally wrong to destroy this embryo. But I am fairly certain that you would want to revise your definition if presented with a 3 week old fetus that was not fertilized with sperm, but which was due to be destroyed. I'm sure you would consider that to be murder. So it is NOT just fertilization that imbues moral value on an embryo.

And before you comment that this is a hypothetical, I would note that there is quite a bit of speculation that lesbians will soon be creating homozygous embryos that are not fertilized and come entirely from only one "parent".

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?

jas3