"I would ask what is so special about a zygote, though, that isn't about, let's say, an egg cell. One would say that the difference is that an egg cell is fertilized by the sperm... but that's a chemical change, just as all the nurturing in the womb it takes to become sentient is a chemical change. So why draw the line at the former instead of the latter?"
Because the egg and sperm are both parts of another human being, with either a partial or a complete copy of their genetic material. As soon as the sperm and egg fuse, however, the genetic code of a new, separate individual is formed.
In what scenario would something insentient need to be protected?
edited 10th Feb '11 7:16:30 PM by Grain
Anime geemu wo shinasai!^ It's an abortion thread.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffGreat art isn't really comparable to the situation in the OP. For one thing, however much you value a work of art, you don't get to force anyone else to carry it in their reproductive organs.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffMaybe, but the OP's question only applies to the "life begins at conception" idea, and Wanderhome answered it.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=12973029060A77040100&page=1#12
This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.
This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.
"Isn't there a rule somewhere that says there's an upper limit of the number of threads on a single topic at one time? Why should there be yet another abortion thread in OTC?" - English Ivy
Except that it's NOT an abortion thread; this argument is often used for embryonic stem cell research debates as well, as I mentioned earlier...
^ Except, again, the question in the OP doesn't apply to them, since they're fully matured (or at least developed) human beings.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=12963954850A37092400&page=20#478
An argument I often come across in debates about abortion and/or embryonic stem cell research, is that it doesn't matter that a fetus or embryo doesn't have feelings, or an ability to experience what is happening to it, because it is a human life... a life in the purely biological sense, in that it meets the criteria of life and has human DNA.
I would ask what is so special about a zygote, though, that isn't about, let's say, an egg cell. One would say that the difference is that an egg cell is fertilized by the sperm... but that's a chemical change, just as all the nurturing in the womb it takes to become sentient is a chemical change. So why draw the line at the former instead of the latter?