> I'm not talking about some ridiculous argument of being put in a human hostile environment.
Yes, you are. Hello? Test tube? Not capable of supporting the development of an embryo.
> The argument of the baby's being to *survive on its own* is a pretty weak one.
We're not talking about a *baby*. We're talking about less than a dozen cells.
We're talking about a HUMAN BEING, no less human than anyone on this planet who has been born, just at a different stage of development. If you destroy this *clump of cells* you are killing a human being.
I really don't understand why environment is an intrinsic quality of humanness and should be used as a test for humanity. It seems to me you are using an external variable to the system you are trying to define to define it. But hey, when your ethics are all situational and you're a moral relativist, whatever make you feel good. If it feels good, do it.
It's funny, orionblamblam, how you talk about the Chinese outbreeding us, when the nihilistic, hedonistic lifestyle you are advocating has lead to the drop in birthrate in the West and will lead to its destruction.
But whatever, hey, go suck on your bong some more.
Capable of supporting human life long enough for it to start to grow, so someone can decide which ones are *worth* keeping based on some arbitrary standard and the rest are killed (forced stopped growth).
The limiting factor here , right now, is technology. If technology were advanced enough to allow growth through the full normal 9 month gestational period, you'd have a human newborn baby, most likely indistinguishable from one conceived and nurtured natually. No difference in humanness due to it's environment.