So, would you say that your dividing line falls at the point in development where implantation would occur, even if the embryo is being developed without implantation?
If so, I guess this makes a certain amount of sense. At the point of implantation, a large majority of implanted embryos will grow and be born. Something that derails the process at this point is more the exception than the norm.
I don't happen to share this view, as I have explained before. But it does make a certain amount of sense.
That's a fairly accurate way of putting it, with the caveat that I view actual implantation as the sine qua non of fetal "viability" (if I may use a word that I earlier disavowed).
I don't happen to share this view, as I have explained before. But it does make a certain amount of sense.
With all due respect, it doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me the equivalent of saying that because most people are going to die from natural causes anyway then it is ethically acceptable to deliberately target and kill some of them. Implantation as a dividing line between when it is acceptable to kill and/or experiment on a human being-in-fact is completely arbitrary because a human being's location or access to nourishment has nothing to do with the intrinsic dignity and worth of that human being.
Cordially,