_________________________________
Did you know that over 94% of personal computers have hidden corrupt dangerous files with over 150 hidden errors and bugs on them?

Precisely, that is the very core of fascist economy.

The only point that makes sense is conception, any other point can never be defined. There is no fundamental difference between abortion and infanticide.

I’m sure they’d prefer to be called red than fascist but I can imagine a situation where we are doing business in the way that’s still ‘private’ but configured to serve the nation’s righteous struggle against climate change, c.f. WW2 Mitsubishi, Krupps, Faben etc.

If we were discussing a sheep we’d happily agree that the zygote is a biological “sheep” at 2 weeks as it is at 20 or 200 weeks or when it’s in the oven roasting (tasty!).

For some reason “human” is an honour we easily award ourselves but have great difficulty bestowing on others!!

Yes, there’s a hell of difference between a 20 year old and an implanted embryo but we have a istory of creating differences where none exist. We’re only 60 years from putting posters in windows scientifically describing “jewishness”. Yes, low I know, but we are capable of reasoning support for practically any moral position!
========

Drawing clear lines of legal “personhood” become more difficult as the survival of premature babies improves.

The recently departed head of Auckland paediatrics said in NatRad interview last week that 22 weeks is survivable. Most of us already know that.

While some 22-week premmers go on to have developmental or learning problems many others do not and are indistinguishable from the norm.

Note that 26 weeks is the limit of NZ abortion, which is a month beyond what can survive in NZ intensive care. Thus, survivability isn’t the deciding factor in abortion, it’s law, i.e. the political power of the biologically mature lawmakers.

Also, as you probably also know, Pete Singer argues that personhood should only be applied when the entity is ‘independent’. Infanticide is then plausible and indeed many people would never reach ‘personhood’.

Singer’s approach is vastly different to the approach of an intensive Pediatric unit.
From a purely materialist point of view, the entity Singer and a paediatric doctor are both considering at 22 weeks of age is biologically “human” yet they arrive different conclusions.

I submit that one can only reject the personhood of the zygote as human if you can describe the standard of “personhood” that judges it deficient.

Singer places it at 3 years old. The departing head of Paediatrics might put it at 22 weeks or less. Something is awry.

Emotion:
This is the most common factor used to define when someone is human. Everyone will come up with a different line if we rely on this, as everyone thinks differently. Psycho Milt feels that they were not mourning the loss of a human life ending in an 8 week abortion. My wife is currently pregnant, and if she had aborted at 8 weeks we most certainly would have been mourning the loss of a human life, we considered our child human then. Is Psycho Milt correct or am I? It is impossible to decide. Emotion cannot be the basis of this decision.

One further note on emotion. Shea makes the assumption that “a fertilised egg is not human”. This is an assumption based on emotion. It is perfectly valid to believe this, if you wish, but the only reasoning that can justify it is an emotional belief that at this early stage of maturity the egg does not appear human.

Emotion is an unreliable guide.

Religion:
I am a Christian, and that certainly shapes my beliefs about abortion very strongly. But not everyone believes in Christianity, or even in God. I cannot use arguments from religion to define this issue to an atheist. Religion is a valid reason for my beliefs, but not necessarily an effective reason to support and explain them to others.

Science:
Science is the one objective field that we can fall back on. There is a clear scientific point where a human comes into being. Before conception, there is only a sperm and an egg. Neither is human, they do not contain enough chromosomes and cannot grow. When they combine, they form a new organism that is genetically distinct from both parents, and is capable of surviving and growing.

Science is clear that it is conception when a new organism is formed. Is this organism a human? Scientifically speaking, yes. There is no point after conception where it scientifically changes from sub-human to human. To argue that it becomes human later is to argue from emotion, which as I have shown is unreliable.

How do you define a human? There is no definition that will stand up to scrutiny apart from the scientific one. Is a bacterium that has just been produced not really a bacteria until some time later? Of course not. Is a fish in an egg not really a fish? Of course not. A bacteria is a bacteria. A fish is a fish. And a human is a human.

For years some argued the Australian Aborigines were sub-human, now few would support that view. Now we have people arguing the fetus is sub-human. Is this argument any more valid?

Many people have very strong emotional reasons why they wish to believe that a fetus is inhuman. Maybe they had a miscarriage and didn’t feel the need to grieve, or an abortion and do not wish to believe they killed a human. Maybe they just believe this and cannot think of any reason why. But this is purely arguing from emotion, and emotion is unreliable.

The science is clear. A fetus is a human. There is no other way of defining humanity, which is why Shea and others find it so difficult to draw a line. There is no other line.