Replies

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

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.

What's the first one that could be called "the start"? I like to err on the side of preserving life.

And like I said before, your first day of college is a cingular event. I guess you're just a moral relativist.

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.

Go back a week or so and read what I posted on the Plan B thread. I dealt with a similar situation. I already answered that.

Why do you care what I think? I don't think you do. You seem to be a moral relativist just trying to play gotcha. I have a logically consistent position, whether you think so or not. You've read about 5 of my posts to you that were fairly specific to the general case, so how could you get my whole thinking about this.

So I really don't think you give a rat's ass what I think about lesbians, even though it's not a hypothetical. You read an answer to a question, then throw up more situations. Whatever. I'm tired of this.

"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.

"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.

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.