There is no single magic moment that separates individual human from not.
LOL. That's a non-sensical answer. You would like to resort to "magic" so you can dehumanize a fully human individual. There is a very clear biological moment that separates an egg with potential for life into a zygote. There are afterwards various stages of development. At each point, you have a LIVING human being with its own unique DNA, metabolism, and development.
To claim otherwise is stupid.
No. It is quite intelligent to approach this issue from an objective, science based point of view to determine a RATIONAL basis for declaring the beginning of life for legal purposes. What is stupid beyond all measure is the idea that the answer to that question can be left up to the whims of the mother or someone pushing a political agenda.
Some claim it's when the baby is birthed, some claim it's at the point when an egg is fertilized by a sperm.
I find them equally indefensible positions.
Not really. Very shortly after fertilization you have a unique living, human entity. That's fully defensible.
I think there are other positions that are defensible from a biological standpoint. I think there is a better case for terminating a pregnancy with a "morning after" drug that acts on the zygote. It is slightly less but IMO still an argument that can be made to terminate the pregnancy before cellular specialization starts (around day 5). Pregnancy from a medical pov does not start until implantation which occurs 8 to 10 days after fertilization. Based on this and estimates that 30% to maybe even 80% of embryos do not implant... I think you can make a pretty good argument that we should not "assume" pregnancy until after 10 days. To me that would make "blind" procedures to assure pregnancy does not occur a possibly reasonable dividing point.
I'm not a hardcore "from conception" person. I think we can and should come up with an objective basis for the legal definition of the beginning of life. But the moment you introduce the completely false narrative of the woman's "choice" that all breaks down. Pro-lifers are often characterized as the unbending side of this argument and some are. However, it is the "pro-choice" side that almost universally fights against a medical determination for the beginning of life.
I think most reasonable people would admit that a newly delivered baby is just a tad more human than a zygote.
Really? How so? Let's test drive that argument. Is a 5 year old "a tad" more human than a new born? What makes them human? Does size make someone more or less human? Level of development? Environment (or location)? Level of dependency?
None of those things make someone more or less human.
If we are to have a "compromise" on any point after conception then it needs to be rational. I would say that the beginning of pregnancy isn't a bad point. By the time of the first heartbeat however... I don't think there is a reasonable question as to whether you are dealing with a living person that should be afforded protection.
Which means there is a developmental process......or a continuum if you will.
Roe vs. Wade was genius in the way they addressed this.
No it wasn't. Not even close. It completely ignored the MOST important aspect of the whole issue- when does life legally begin. It is the worst decision in the history of the court followed closely by the homosexual marriage issue. I don't say that simply because I disagree with those things from a "moral" standpoint. I say it because the court literally conjured new rights out of thin air. I disagree with abortion but am perfectly satisfied with letting the people of California through their legislature implement different laws than Missouri. Same with marriage except I think SCOTUS missed a GREAT opportunity to force government OUT of what is historically a religious institution and ALWAYS a contract based on relationships that the government should NOT assume interest in.
States could easily convert to a civil contract structure allowing any two people of any relation to create a household and determine the terms of their own contract with regard to property, child custody, guardianship, etc.
I am really not interested in stuffing one way of doing things down everyone else's throat. I am interested in protecting the rights and liberties of everyone... which protect my own.
