Originally Posted By: sinij
No, it would be just a fertilized finger, you see with it being a finger, outside of uterus and not the right type of tissue, it would be impossible for it to go through a process of turning into a person.

You are making very logical conclusion here - fertilization process alone does not turn a bunch of tissue into a person.

Yet for some reason when I asked you about fertilized egg outside of human body, that has about the same chance of developing into human being as my fertilized finger, you replied that it is a person. You need to reconcile this logical inconsistency.
There is not logical inconsistency on my part. There is an inability to recognize and process a qualifying statement on your part though. You see, its the "if/then" relationship that makes all the difference. Perhaps you should read this again, take your time, we'll wait.
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
if your fertilized finger turns into a human then yes, I would. You see the difference is that over and over and over again we've observed that a fertilized human egg becomes a human. Therefore, based on scientific observation we can safely assume that a fertilized egg will become a human. If you manage to create a human from the tip of your finger, we'll all gladly affirm that it is human once you've proven it works a few times. That's called science.
As to the fertilized egg outside the womb, since it is possible to implant a fertilized egg into a surrogate womb and have it carry to term, my argument stands.


Originally Posted By: sinij
We also over and over and over again observed fertilized human egg not becoming a person, even with natural process is not in any way disturbed. For example implantation rate is somewhere around 50%, so almost half of all fertilized eggs _naturally_ fail to develop into a fetus.
My argument is based on the idea that since it has the potential, even if its only a 50% chance, to become a human with the same rights that you and I have, then it should be awarded those rights as soon as that possibility arises. Since its not possible for an egg or a sperm, by themselves, to become a human I don't extend my conclusion further back than a fertilized egg.

Originally Posted By: sinij
This is not correct. See link above. Plus read about miscarriage , Stillbirth .
Yes bad things happen in nature all by themselves, without your help. Many couples are incredibly heartbroken each year when a baby dies prematurely. That doesn't make the baby any less of a person or any less loved. I personally lost a sister to a still birth. She was just big enough to fill the palm of your hand, and she was definitely human.


Originally Posted By: sinij
Would you also attempt to deny me control over tip of my fingers just because I demonstrated that it could produce a human being?
Nope, you're free to do with your finger whatever you like, until it develops the potential for human life, at which point it must be afforded the same right to life that you enjoy. Just like a woman is free to do whatever she likes with her reproductive system until it develops the potential for human life, at which point that life must be afforded the same right to life that she enjoys.

Originally Posted By: sinij
I can be very confident in saying that freshly fertilized egg does not have a capacity nor immediate ability to exhibit sentience. Just as we accept that gut bacteria does not posses sentience, nor would a fertilized egg. It is just a bunch of tissue that has a _potential_ and _chance_ to develop into something else that does have a capacity of sentience.
Its that potential that makes all the difference.


Originally Posted By: sinij
My stance on men's rights is that while women are entitled to full control over their body they should be allowed abortion all the way to viability. Men on other hand, should be entitled to absolve all financial ties (ability to declare intention to not support) up to the same point - viability. After that point it is shared custody with equal rights.
Please define "viability." What if the man, who, by your rules, can say "I'm not paying for that child because I advocated aborting it," chooses the other route? What if he wants the child? Who gets to decide? Clearly you've already abdicated the point that it will become a human child, else why would you need the right to refuse to be financially responsible for said child? So, by your own argument you've conceded, de facto, that the "ball of tissue" you want to abort is a child. In your world, is it expulsion from a birth canal that confers "life" onto a human? Have you ever known anyone with an eidetic memory? Some of them can remember in utero events.

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]