Originally Posted By: sinij
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.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this because I'm not arguing that it is human, but that there's a decent chance that it will become a human. There is no chance that an egg all by itself will become a human, unless, as I mentioned before, you're an astrophysicist and want to talk about the infinitesimally small chance that "anything" can happen.


Originally Posted By: sinij
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?
I'm really not sure where I stand on human cloning. But I have a feeling that if it works a lot of religious folks are gonna be really upset that man could do what only God is supposed to be able to do. Either that or perhaps we'll get definitive proof of the existence of a soul. Right now my stance is much the same as with anything else. Should it be done just because we can? No. Should it be done to further our understanding? Sure. Should it be done for "cosmetic" reasons? No. Who knows where this will end up though?

Originally Posted By: sinij
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.
Obviously good and bad in this context are subjective. For the person who wanted a child a stillbirth is bad. For a person who has no connection there is no consequence. For a person who didn't want a child, then its a good stroke of luck.

Originally Posted By: sinij
I now know where you are coming from. I am sorry for your loss.
Thank you. This is just an example though as I was too young to feel much attachment. My primary driving force is the woman who opted to abort my unborn child and left me with no say in the matter.


Originally Posted By: sinij
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.
Fair enough.

Originally Posted By: sinij
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.
This is a dangerous slope of reasoning and not a small part in the justification of slavery and the slaughter of millions of people in 1940's Germany. You have but to substitute your race of choice for "female."

Originally Posted By: sinij
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.
Fair enough. Given this then I assume that you do not support late term and partial birth abortions?

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]