The egg planting on the uterine wall is not a point of viability. This is actually one of the more interesting "points of division" I've ever heard. There's no difference between a zygote which implants naturally, one which is impeded by an IUD, or one which is flushed out with a morning after pill.
There is no difference in the zygote in and of itself but there is a difference of context. If implanted, the conditions (context) gives the zygote a positive chance of completing it's development.
When the zygote implants, the woman's body changes to accomodate and ensure the development of the fetus.
If the zygote is not allowed to implant the conditions do not exist for further development. Contraceptives prevent the conditions to exist for the zygote to have a positive chance of development.
I don't understand the reasoning that people "should" want to protect the embryo. I get that's your personal preference, and I wouldn't want to take that away. I consider myself an extremely moral person, try to live by the golden rule, and I don't feel any need to protect embryos. I can imagine in some circumstances wanting to protect my own embryos, but can't imagine a single one where I would want to protect somebody else's embryos. (And I should note that I would never sacrifice myself for my unborn child, where I would sacrifice myself to save the life of either my own children or other people's children.)
The choice to keep or abort a pregnancy is a personal choice. It is not a question of you or I wanting to protect someone elses embryo. Nor should it be.
It about what importance we personaly place on human life in general and not being hypocritical to that conviction.
In my opinion, it is hard argument to make to separate one point of a human's life from all the other points in that life. Without the begining stages of human life there is no child, or adult or person that would result. A human life is a continuum of many stages.
Knowing that, how could I argue that the begining stages of a human life is any less important than the later stages from a moral standpoint?
If I start thinking it's my business to get involved in other people's reproductive lives, I'm afraid I'd come across as a busybody, because I think there are quite a few people out there who are having too many kids. I would certainly never try to tell people that they should have kids that they don't want or can't afford. Fortunately, I realize it's not my business. My parents were happy to have six, and I'm happy to have my two. Other people can do what they please, and I promise to keep my nose out of their business.
And I wish to keep out of your business. I was just simply expressing an opinion in response to a person's question.
Not really. You can't force someone to feel a moral responsibility if they view the embryo differently than you do. The fact that the embryo cannot survive outside the womb is more reason that it's not an actual person with rights to be protected.
Moral responsibility os a personal conviction. I was expressing mine.
I do not agree that the fact that a embryo cannot survive outside the womb as a reason to deprive it of the right to exist or be protected.
In a very real sense we all rely on others for survival. We rely on other people to grow and process our food. We rely on other people to make our clothes. We rely on other people to produce the power for our houses, make our houses, make or provide transportation, for protection, to stand up for our rights when we can't do that for our selves. The list goes on.
Where's all the hype and importance we place on human life? First, I think you're calling embryos "human life" and then equating them to human beings, and second, I don't think we place that much importance on actual living human beings.
The "hype" is in our constitutions, and bills of rights, the spirit of our laws, in our rehtoric, in our religions, in our art and literature, in our science, in our philosophies. As I said before, we give great lipservice to the importance of human life but our actions are sometimes opposite of the rehtoric. That is hypocritical in my opinion.
I only equate "human life" with "human being" in that you cannot separate "human being" from "human life". Without the human life, there is no human being.
Thousands upon thousands of children die everyday due to malnutrition, war, and preventable diseases. Most of the world's population lives in poverty. The history of humanity is littered with slavery, wars, oppression, poverty, genocide, and disease. There are children in 21st century North America who go to bed every day hungry or beaten. So no, I don't think that humanity as a whole places a lot of importance on other human beings, let alone the "potential" of zygotes and embryos.
As I said before, Our actions do not always live up to our ideals. All the things you mention are not moral. If we wished to be moral we would do the things necessary to eliminate those things.
I'm personally much more concerned about the potential lost when so many in the world are still impoverished and oppressed. What great minds are wasting away in ghettos and garbage piles or behind veils? What potential is being lost when children aren't fed or educated? Those are millions of real people, and I can't be bothered to care if Mrs. Wilson down the block has a miscarriage or if her teenage daughter has an abortion.
Again, our actions do not always live up to our ideals. We know what we have to do to be moral. Are we willing to do those things?
