You know life comes from conception. Just as you plant a seed in the ground add little water add sun , so the shoot in the ground isn't whatever one planted. Soon as a root come out of the seed it is a plant. No longer a seed. As you plant your seed in a women and it starts to grow it is human life no longer a cell. Which takes on its own growth which you or anyone else shouldn't have any dominion over.
Actually, you can make the argument that life starts at preconception; you argue that a human life is constituted of a diploid pair of chromosomes joining their polypeptide amino acid strands together to form one complete set sequence of human dna. The gametes before joining are 'alive', and infact considered biological life. The seed is 'alive'. The single celled zygote will soon become many cells, but is truely just the same thing on every level. We're all essentially the same thing; molecules arranged in a complex series of sequences and patterns; theres relatively little that separates you and a monkey, for example. Heck, theres not too much that separates us from things like ecosystems such as mountains and lakes on a molecular level.
No one has ever made a rule, or universally scientific axiom saying "when two pairs of chromosomes combine, that is a human."
Life itself doesn't constitute a person; for cells, are alive, but you can't be held as immoral for killing cells, or other forms of life; isn't all life sacred? Do we get angry when we kill animals that are pests? I'm not comparing unborn babies to cocroaches or rats, but yet if you uphold this idea that "all life is sacred", it would be a very tedious to balance on this thin line between morality and depravity.
Personally, I don't think people become people until after twenty years of age, possibly more for many. hehe.
Upvote
0