You are missing the point. Let’s say some other guy, let’s call him Mohn Jace, joins the conversation and says his definition of human starts with: must have a brain. And a “brain” can be anything with two neurons that interact with each other. Mohn’s definition is just as easily definable as yours is, but gets us well past yours. So yours cannot be the one correct, objectively definable definition. And don’t let’s start with how we define when two neurons interact, because that is just as easy/difficult to define was when a fertilized egg is “implanted”.
But… I don’t accept that the definition needs to result in something that is easy measurable. So, my definition of brain activity, while difficult to pin down exactly, is easily definable. It may have difficulties in degree, but not in kind vis a vis your “implantation” process, which is neither objectively definable as being different from “fertilization” and has the same problem of being a process rather than an event as all the other definitions.
BTW, you have not addressed why implantation is objectively different from fertilization, per your own definition. Are you going to change it again?
Of course not. Never claimed it to be (see above post about “moment of birth”). But it is a logical, consistent and objective definition. As opposed to the others given in this thread.
Yes. You convinced me. Fertilized egg is “human life”.
I am pretty sure that you will not accept any logic but your own. But hey - maybe you surprise me. I’ll give it a shot.
logically consistent:
To call something a “human being” I require it to show traits that set humans apart from other species. The one trait that reliably does that is the human mind. The human mind cannot exist without a brain so it is safe to assume that a creature without a brain does not possess a human mind. My assertion thus is that if I abort an embryo that has not yet developed a brain, it is - by my definition - not human. I emphasize that this is **a **definition, just like yours is.
objectively determinable:
We cannot exactly determine the moment when the brain starts functioning. But we can scientifically determine a period when it - objectively and provably - does not yet have that capacity. So in order to safely avoid killing a human being through abortion we should not perform abortion outside that period.
The one difference between my definition and yours (as I am sure you noticed) is that I do not claim the beginning of life can be pinpointed to an exact hour. Not because the hour does not exist, but because science has no way of determining it. But the fact that we do not know the moment does not mean it is not there.
Is that your definition - “doesn’t have a brain, it’s ok to kill” - that is, is this what you’re changing it to now? Because if you do, you’re changing the abortion cutoff to around 10 weeks.
Ok - so - since it can objectively be determined that the brain develops around 10 weeks, and that’s really the only objective thing (“human mind” isn’t) - are you ok with abortions being limited only to the first 10 weeks?
My stance is “limited to the first trimester”. If I can be shown that the human mind might develop as early as the 10th week, then yes. Then I would be ok with that.
OK, why not “egg that has been penetrated by a sperm”, but is not yet fertilized? What is the objective difference based on “if we do nothing to prevent it, it will develop into a full human being, baring natures own ability to stop the process”.
I know. I am prepared to err on the side of caution. For what little I know of neuroschience the brain should not have created the parts that we call a “mind” this early, only a basic nervous system. But as I said, in that department I am fully willing to let myself be corrected by anyone who knows better.
“Fertilization” is a shorthand for the fairly complex process. You’re nipicking. Yes, if you want to be precise, once the sperm penetrates the Zona Pellucida.
Since I do not know any better (and do not want to delve into the field of neural development right now) let’s say I agree to that. Would you then say that my stance passes your criteria of being logically consistent and objectively determinable?
I have to admit, I don’t get the arguments that involve the concept of “if you leave it alone, it will become…” A fetus doesn’t have some blithely independent existence - if anything, it won’t leave the mother alone. Her participation is mandatory for the fetus’s continued existence - she never has the option to “leave it alone” as long as it is inside her body.
Frankly, the complete indifference to the existence of the pregnant woman that is present in most pro-life arguments is somewhat baffling to me. Forget all this nonsense of pro-choicers being unable or unwilling to label a fetus as “human” or “a human being” or whatever arbitrary label is in play - try to get a pro-lifer to acknowledge the mother’s existence, and she’s not arbitrary in the least.
As I already said, once you accept that the fetus is a human, to save the mother’s life, abortion should be allowed. Otherwise - no, since inconvenience, however horrid, does not trump death.
And don’t even start with the “tramp taking residence of in your house” nonsense. The tramp has a choice, and a long history of choices. The child doesn’t.