[Straight Vermonter]

The lefty author never actually gets to the point. She does not even make the weak pro-murder arguments the lefties usually make.

Simple logic tells us that at one moment there is no life at another there is life. Therefore something must happen at the interval between these 2 moments. The only time during gestation that we can find such a dramatic moment is at the meeting of the gametes.

From that point on there is development and change but the person is already there. The "magic" of life has already happened.

[BearArms]

The only time during gestation that we can find such a dramatic moment is at the meeting of the gametes. From that point on there is development and change but the person is already there. The "magic" of life has already happened.

The question I think she is posing, though, is what makes a human embryo different from a chicken embryo in terms of moral status? She's saying that the fact that the human embryo is a member of homo sapiens is not enough to entitle the embryo to rights that would supercede the rights of it's adult human mother.

If the pro-lifer responds that genetic membership in the human race is enough, the question of "why?" must be answered. It is very difficult to answer that question without resorting to arguments founded in religious or spiritual beliefs.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Yeah, you start asking them if it's a life 1 second after birth, then at birth, then 1 second before birth and backward until they realize how goofy their argument is.