Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Therefore, based on scientific observation we can safely assume that a fertilized egg will become a human.


I already covered this - no we cannot assume "that a fertilized egg will become a human". Even if you ignore in vitro, odds are still stacked against fertilized egg. More fertilized eggs _fail to become a human being_ than become a human being.


Quote:
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.


Soon it might become possible to fertilize stem cells (for example taken from my fingertip), cloning is not outside of realm of possibility today, and one day we will be able to grow human beings in vats. How would you reconcile your throwback views with all of this, or are you going to try to push bad legislation (like Ron Paul) that would hold our nation's scientific and social progress back? How are these views and legislation arising from them are that different from the burning of books and forbidding knowledge on fear of excommunication that happened in the past?


Originally Posted By: sinij
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.


Possibility exists even before fertilization, you simply cannot reconcile your view unless you also adopt anti-contraception position.


Quote:
Yes bad things happen in nature all by themselves, without your help.


Bad? Good? Why do we need assign moral labels to natural things? They happen. Not everything is a moral choice, even less things are _your_ moral choice.

Quote:
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.


I now know where you are coming from. I am sorry for your loss.




Originally Posted By: sinij
Please define "viability."


Viability is a point where if fetus removed from a women's body its life can be supported by state-of-the-art medical equipment. I reserve the right to adjust my opinion as science progresses.

Quote:
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?


Because I strongly believe that fetus is part of female body, and should be entirely up to female to decide what to do with it.

Whatever you think of a fetus, it is less of a human being than female. You can claim all you want that just-fertilized egg is a human being (and I still disagree with you), but if you put it in perspective of a grown female, that fertilized egg is less human, less sentient, less anything than female.

As a result I see rights of full-fledged human being more important than less-than-that being.

Quote:
So, by your own argument you've conceded, de facto, that the "ball of tissue" you want to abort is a child.


Incorrect.

Quote:
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.


In my world I define sentience as a transition from life to a human being. I also acknowledge futility of trying to define exact process or exact moment when it happens.

If you want to get a "number" - somewhere between late second and mid third trimester.

[Linked Image]