[hocndoc]

Science is often arbitrary. As is law.

Any decision as to whether an act of killing a human is legal or not will be "arbitrary" (Just ask anyone who wants to kill some class of humans). In fact, if that line is drawn at any point other than when the oocyte and sperm cease to exist and the embryo begins, the declaration is more "arbitrary," because it will definitely depend on variable values such as function, intelligence, or ability. (or gender, religion, race)

[palmer]

Science is often arbitrary. As is law.
Any decision as to whether an act of killing a human is legal or not will be "arbitrary" (Just ask anyone who wants to kill some class of humans). In fact, if that line is drawn at any point other than when the oocyte and sperm cease to exist and the embryo begins, the declaration is more "arbitrary," because it will definitely depend on variable values such as function, intelligence, or ability. (or gender, religion, race)

I agree that drawing any line will be arbitrary, and drawing it after conception is more arbitrary than drawing it at conception. My point is that drawing it at conception is a religious distinction. Drawing it before the embryo takes on human qualities would suit me but puts me on a slippery slope since people's definition of human could vary. I would apply my personal definition of humanity to cases where I have any involvement.

As if it wasn't obvious from my spending all Saturday night on the computer, I have no personal involvement and have never had any. But my empathy should make me reflect on the current slaughter and support more pro-life causes. I have not, but I should.

As for the law, I think the line can be drawn for obvious cases like partial birth abortion. This strengthens the moral argument without applying religion. Drawing other lines is acceptable to me as long as they are based on secular morality. I obviously would not support laws insisting that a zygote is a human being.