My take on "when does life begin"

[Ludah]

Killing life isn't an issue. We kill life every single day with no moral qualms and no raised eyebrows. The chicken on your plate, the trees that went into your home, the horsey that went into your glue, et cetera.

The issue is wether such life has rights and, if so, to what extent.

 

[99.vikram]

Abortion should be allowed during the early stages of pregnancy. I consider something as living when it becomes self aware.

 

[ComradeBadger]

It all boils down to this issue:

Do you have the right to tell someone else what to do with their own body?
When the decision will not infringe your rights or the rights of others?

Abortion is the mother's choice alone - it is not the state's job.

 

[sinkoman]

It all boils down to this issue:

Do you have the right to tell someone else what to do with their own body?
When the decision will not infringe your rights or the rights of others?

Abortion is the mother's choice alone - it is not the state's job.

Well, once the child is considered "living", that mothers choice is pretty much dissolved, as nobody knows if it is what the child wishes.

Which is why WHEN it's considered alive seems to be such a big deal.

Personally, I think it's bullshit. Only reason there's a debate on this is because of the damnd church. Scientists and doctors know when the baby can survive outside of the womb. It's the church that thinks they know better.

 

[99.vikram]

Well, once the child is considered "living", that mothers choice is pretty much dissolved, as nobody knows if it is what the child wishes.

The foetus does not develop complex thoughts for a few months, so the morning after pill definitely isn't murder.

 

[Baserape>]

I'm pro abortion for many reasons one of them being pro choice. If we take away peoples choice we may aswell wave good bye to democracy and embrace the Nanny State as our new moral code.

 

[theotherguy]

well, if abortion were made illegal, then there must be a cheap, easy alternative in which the child will be adopted, fed, educated and cared for. But the truth of the matter is, an unwanted child is still an unwanted child, and it would likely go through far more pain living without parents who don't want it/living with adopted parents.

If the zygote doesn't, suffer, feel, think or remember, it makes no difference to kill it and have another child. But forcing the mother to have the baby would have serious repercussions for the lifetime of the child.

In an efficient society, we woudl take all of the eggs out of every woman, freeze them all, and only allow children through artificial ensemination. That way, people could have sex all they wanted and not have to worry about unwanted babies. However, this does seem a bit..orwellian.

The house analogy doesn't work because the house is an inanimate piece of property and will always be an inanimate piece of property. If a person wanted to destroy their own house they could, but they wouldn't be considered murderers.

 

[Gray Fox]

It all boils down to this issue:

Do you have the right to tell someone else what to do with their own body?
When the decision will not infringe your rights or the rights of others?

Abortion is the mother's choice alone - it is not the state's job.

But the point of pro-life advocates is that a fetus is not your own body, it is a separate person, just like your born child, and by getting an abortion you are infringing on it's right to live. Do note that I agree with Mech, so I am pro choice, but I do not agree with the point you made though, and I can certainly understand the other sides points.

 

[Stigmata]

But the point of pro-life advocates is that a fetus is not your own body, it is a separate person, just like your born child, and by getting an abortion you are infringing on it's right to live. Do note that I agree with Mech, so I am pro choice, but I do not agree with the point you made though, and I can certainly understand the other sides points.

However, that point becomes irrelevant once you consider that during the first trimester (when abortions are conducted), the fetus is not even a human, let alone an entity separate from the mother.

 

[Gray Fox]

However, that point becomes irrelevant once you consider that during the first trimester (when abortions are conducted), the fetus is not even a human, let alone an entity separate from the mother.

I agree with that completly, that why I believe we should counter them with that respons, the one that badger gave is not sufficient, you first have to explain why you believe the fetus is not a separate human that has rights equal to that of a baby.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I was attempting to sum up

But yes, when abortions are conducted the fetus isn't an entity separate from the mother.

 

[CptStern]

just for the record a baby of less than 24 weeks has less than a 12% chance of survival and with each day before that the percentage reaches 0 ..after 24 weeks it's jumps to about 70% survival rate (with medical intervention of course, meaning 24 hour/day monitoring/care) ...oh and abortions at 24 weeks are illegal unless the mother's health is at risk

 

[Ennui]

I am agaist abortion, i know many people are going to trash me for being on the other side of the line, and i know they have their reasons. however, here is my reason for being agaist it.

at first there are to "life" cycles: sperm is created -- sperm evenually dies (hehe, choke, choke) egg is created -- egg destroyed both of these have a natural beginning and an end

however when two, mentioned above, meet a new cycle is created and i beleave this new cycles is a human being

that is why i think abortion is wrong because it's the "manual" ending of this "new cycles" which would naturally end with a person's death, there for abortion is murder ( i hate to use that word though)

anyway, feel free do trash my view:smoking:

I haven't read any of this thread, nor do I want to get overly involved, but I think the best response to this would be to link you to an article on Raeven0's blog.

http://www***sh-lag.net/despair/articles.php?post=3

 

[Gray Fox]

I haven't read any of this thread, nor do I want to get overly involved, but I think the best response to this would be to link you to an article on Raeven0's blog.

http://www***sh-lag.net/despair/articles.php?post=3

I may not agree with the pro-lifers, but I disagree even more with that site.

1. Humans are animals, we are not a separate life from from animals, we are a species, hence animals do have sentience. Consciousness. Intelligence, and sense anguish

2. even if are not analabout defenitions here, then still numerouse research has proven that animals with lower intelligence then us do have sentience. Consciousness. Intelligence. can definatly feel anguish, hold grudges, understand the consequences of their acts, think ahead.
3.

No other race on Earth has created a written language, philosophers, lawyers, nuclear weapons, or Spongebob Squarepants. Try to name one other animal that wonders whether there is a God or realises the potential gain in assassinating a world leader. No animal has ever heard of capitalism and socialism, let alone compared their advantages and disadvantages. (Obviously, as in the case of higher primates, there are some animals we believe to approach the level of human consciousness. Dr Paul Merenski has defined Abstract Human Consciousness as the type of advanced, abstract thought of which humans are capable, as opposed to an animal's restriction to Concrete Awareness--a much simpler thought process. [Source: a forum post, 25 Mar 06, originally here,

Babies do not understand politics, do not think ahead, can't make nukes, that they will in the future when they grow is unfair to say, because then Kaiser would be right in saying that embryo's should not be killed because they will develope in to humans. But this still does not mean a baby does not have a consiousness, albeit less then a human, dolphin, chimp.

 

[Ennui]

I may not agree with the pro-lifers, but I disagree even more with that site.

1. Humans are animals, we are not a separate life from from animals, we are a species, hence animals do have sentience. Consciousness. Intelligence, and sense anguish

It's not the same level.

2. even if are not analabout defenitions here, then still numerouse research has proven that animals with lower intelligence then us do have sentience. Consciousness. Intelligence. can definatly feel anguish, hold grudges, understand the consequences of their acts, think ahead.

Like above, you're speaking from a strict definition point of view. If not sentience, call it what you want, but an animal's existence and a human animal's existence are different. Not better or worse, but certainly not the same thing.

3.
Babies do not understand politics, do not think ahead, can't make nukes, that they will in the future when they grow is unfair to say, because then Kaiser would be right in saying that embryo's should not be killed because they will develope in to humans. But this still does not mean a baby does not have a consiousness, albeit less then a human, dolphin, chimp.

Babies have the potential to understand and do all of those in the future, whereas animals do not.

 

[Yuri]

just for the record a baby of less than 24 weeks has less than a 12% chance of survival and with each day before that the percentage reaches 0 ..after 24 weeks it's jumps to about 70% survival rate (with medical intervention of course, meaning 24 hour/day monitoring/care) ...oh and abortions at 24 weeks are illegal unless the mother's health is at risk

Wait, really? Where are they illegal, in Canada or the States?

I didn't know that, but its nice to know.



Are those percentages of survival real, too? Or are they percentages of survival outside of the mother or something? That's suprisingly low :O

 

[Gray Fox]

It's not the same level.

I know that

Like above, you're speaking from a strict definition point of view. If not sentience, call it what you want, but an animal's existence and a human animal's existence are different. Not better or worse, but certainly not the same thing.

You missed the point, I am not saying that human existence and the existence of the rest of the animals is the same, but his definition, and the abilities he only attributed to humans are wrong. His whole justification for treating humand differane from the rest of the animals is thus wrong.

Babies have the potential to understand and do all of those in the future, whereas animals do not.

Babies have less potential to understand then a lot of animals we eat. Dogs, cows, dolphins all can understand more then babies and have a higher conciousness. Plus again the fact that they will be able to do and understand all of those in future should have no bearing since that same can be said for an embryo's, just like a baby if has the potential to grow in to a adult humand beeing. Pretty much all of his points are thus wrong.

 

[CptStern]

Wait, really? Where are they illegal, in Canada or the States?

I didn't know that, but its nice to know.



Are those percentages of survival real, too? Or are they percentages of survival outside of the mother or something? That's suprisingly low :O

those survival rates are outside of the mother, even with medical intervention

sorry need to clarify ..I mistakenly put 24 weeks as third trimester when it's 27 weeks ...in canada abortion in third trimester is a non issue because the government failed to produce regulatory legislation after the abortion laws were struck down in the 80's. However abortions in third trimester are extremely rare and are seldom performed ..in the US some states have banned third trimester abortions making it effectively illegal

 

[Ennui]

Babies have less potential to understand then a lot of animals we eat. Dogs, cows, dolphins all can understand more then babies and have a higher conciousness. Plus again the fact that they will be able to do and understand all of those in future should have no bearing since that same can be said for an embryo's, just like a baby if has the potential to grow in to a adult humand beeing. Pretty much all of his points are thus wrong.

I'm saying that babies have potential to understand things in the future. As in, they grow into humans. Babies are not fully formed humans, just as a baby animal is not a fully formed version of that animal. You can't form an argument from an undeveloped example of a species. Babies are still cognitive; embryos are not.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"It's not so much a case of if [toddlers] should be given the right [to drive] or not, so much if they can do it at any rate."

Physical limitations have essentially nothing to do with preventing a toddler from driving. Custom seating, raised pedals and such can all solve that problem.
It is entirely a question of mental capability.

"I [live] simply by existing, as does an unborn child. Therefore, since that right does not require much other than simply existing, it is something they should be allowed to have."

That would be correct, were it not for two problems:

Problem 1: The unborn child does not live simply by existing, as you do. As I said, a fetus lying on its own would surely die. If the fetus is separated from the woman for any reason up until some point in the third trimester, it's dead.
As tempting as it may be to negate the role of the mother and simplify the issue, the mother is always part of the process.

If I were to say that you were forced RIGHT NOW to care for some old dude in a nursing home.
Drop everything, because you'll be busy for the next twenty years.

I suspect you'd protest.

It's the same scenario though, with the woman.
If pregnancy becomes mandatory at the moment of conception, you are creating a "breeding class" who are forced to produce children for the state, in much the same way you would be forced to work a nurse.

Of course, an old man is far more human than a fetus.

Problem 2: The issue isn't life. It's humanity.
A first-trimester fetus is technically alive, but it is alive in the sense that my pinkie toe is alive:
It is a part of my body and it has no mind of its own. (see next point)

"And if the [comatose] man is predicted to never come out of a coma? What happens then? Is he still entitled to the right to continue to live, in hope that he will, or should he be killed off, since he will not possibly recover?"

It's a judgement call, usually a question of what the family wants/can afford. Usually though, they are taken off support after that point, because no possibility of recovery = braindead.
Braindeath is the death that matters.
If you are decapitated and head were somehow kept alive in a jar, you would be considered alive.
If, however, your head were long ago cremated and your heart were kept going, people would call that experimentation on a dead body.

So, if no mind is harmed, the removal of tissue is a surgery. Not a murder.

"However, isn't a zombie someone who did have a conscious, before becoming a zombie? Zombies cannot regain conscious, according to what kind you go by, but a fetus is able to do such."

Well, I was being jokey with the zombies (as much as one can be in this topic), but the point remains that a fetus cannot regain consciousness because it never was conscious in the first place. In that sense, the zombies in question will develop an all-new conciousness, but they invariably start off very dead, with substantially low chances of arrival.

The point is that you can't kill something that isn't alive (AKA braindead).

"Well, by "undisturbed" I mean not tampered with, like killing or destroying it. Not not taking care of it."

Whether it will be eventually isn't important because, theoretically, anything can gain a consciousness eventually. Maybe ghosts will prove themselves real and inhabit your television. Sure, that sounds absurd - but with the prospect of artificial intelligence or direct linkups to the brain, anything is now a candidate for potential life. Obviously that science-fictiony nonsense won't happen now, and there's a good chance it won't in the future.
But the same can be said of the consciousness in any first-trimester fetus, who is currently braindead and facing the one-in-four chance of miscarriage.
Also, it's what can be said of any sexual act that doesn't lead to fertilization.
If you use a condom, the pill or just have oral sex, you are preventing a possible child from living.

I hope you won't take that to it's 'logical' extreme like some folks do.

It's why so many people are pro-abstinence, anti-masturbation, anti-gay and etc. It's not to protect kids or prevent pregancy or save souls from STDs.
Scientifically speaking, abstinence doesn't work (about 50% effectiveness) and actually makes kids less safe from STDs because they ones that do inevitably have sex either don't know how or are unprepared to use a condom.
Equally speaking, homosexuality and masturbation are harmless and even psychologically beneficial.

The opposition is because, from a logical standpoint, anti-abortion is only justified if all non-reproductive sex is inherently evil.
Of course it isn't, but they sure can pretend.
Like I said, it's sexual freedom versus theocracy.

"(1) But is a baby truly conscious until birth? (2) It has a functioning brain and beginnings of nerves yes, but by conscious, what exactly is the definition here? (3) The ability to feel pain? (4) The ability to think? Because truthfully, I'd be surprised if an unborn child could really think, at any rate."

Answers as follows:
1 - Starting around the halfway point, meaning 50% of the time.
2 - No-one knows, but it's safe to say that it starts when it is physically possible, and not a moment sooner.
3 & 4 - In the case of the the first trimester, it doesn't matter because neither apply. Without a functioning mind though, pain isn't a factor.

If that last point in the quote is true, it re-enforces my argument.
The first trimester is known for certain. After that, it's mainly conjecture.

"May I have the sources on the rate of abortion rates and such?"

According to the number of recorded pregnancies at http://www.americanpregnancy.org/ + wiki's estimates on unreported ones and my bad maths, I would estimate around 7 million pregnancies in the US per year.
Approximately 1.2 million out of that number abort and between 1.5 and 2 million miscarry.

Altogether, my original estimate of around 1% is actually more like 17%. I had expected way more births per annum.

"And as for "safe, clinical enviroment", what exactly are the dangers of a miscarriage. The unborn child is washed out through the body, and subsequently dies, but what risk does it bring to the mother in that manner?"

According to wiki, miscarriage can be accompanied by blood loss, fever and pain ranging up to "severe".
Each can get bad enough for emergency medical treatment.

"Well, truthfully, I'm quite sure to most it is much easier to stop abortion than it is to search for a stop to miscarriages, what with a lot of scientific research in saving lives going to things such as the various cancer strains and whatnot."

Easier from an technical standpoint, but not from a moral standpoint. It's way easy for george bush to declare your vagina government property, but it's difficult to actually solve an at least equal problem without curtailing half the population's constitutional rights.

"But that is because those perpetrators have commited a crime or worse. What has the unborn child done, exactly? What crimes has it committed?"

It can't commit crimes, obviously. But, by existing, harm is caused. (numbers are from wiki)
The first and most reported problem is that they're largely unintentional.
Of the 1.2 million, about 54% are cases where contraception was used, but it failed for whatever reason.
Subsequently, the majority of (US) abortions happen when the woman is simply unprepared for pregnancy so early.
Second, there are the cases where the cost is prohibitive. Raising a child takes a very big amount of cash, which can realistically put someone in the poorhouse. Not the best environment for a child, of course.
Third on the scale, the father is unwanted or objects to the pregancy. Basically, these are cases where there isn't a stable relationship to raise a child in.
Fourth, the woman (or girl) is too young to raise a child.
Obvious reasons there.
Fifth, a child would disrupt their career.
This one ties in to the financial problem one, except the pregnancy does the additional damage of hampering the source of the money.
Sixth, the woman does not want any children.
This is the emotional reason, really. Even if there is no logical reason not to have a child, it doesn't mean you can or should be forced to.
And last there are lowest percentages where the child would suffer birth defects, the woman's health is in danger and "other"

In every case though, the point is that the woman's freedoms are at risk or the baby is at risk. Anti-Abortion legislation means you are imposing one or more of those problems/risks onto every fertile woman in the US, without much good reason.

"In my opinion they (first stage fetus to use your terms) are, operating mind or not, due to the fact that they have started to grow, and only do not have a mind simply because their body has not had the chance to develop one yet."

The point is you have to draw a line somewhere as to what constitutes sentient life. "This could eventually be conscious" it's just too vague.
What-if propositions aren't really solid enough arguments in the face of the known harmful outcomes.

Part 2 in a second...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Actually I believe one of latest CNN polls about last year had women in favor/against as 60/40, or close to that. That's about a third of women against the act of abortion. Men were a good bit closer."

Wow, either things have degraded quite a bit or my memory is faulty. I had seen numbers more in the 80 male-20 female percentile range for anti-abortion voting, but that was year(s) ago.
Either way though, the point is still that popular support for a mistake is still a mistake.

Even if one group enjoys giving up their freedoms, that just can't be applied to everyone else.

"And I never said I supported miscarriage, only that it's a natural function that we don't have control over. You can't just stop a miscarriage."

Well likewise, you can't stop abortion. If illegal, then there'll just be a dangerous black market, as there was before it became legal.
The solution, as with most things, is regulation and not prohibition.

"In my mind, and in the minds of many other people, they are an unborn child. We don't do this to spite people or "cloud" the issue; just because that is how we see it. In our opinions usually, calling them things like "parasite" or "zygote" is the exact opposite, an attempt seen by Pro-Life people to belittle the unborn child, and make it less than human so it does not seem as bad as in our opinions it really isn't."

Well that is your opinion and there's not much I can do about that, but intentionally or not it does cloud the issue.
An embryo or fetus just doesn't fit the criteria that describe a child. Hopefully no-one is calling zygotes children, because that's inaccurate too. "Parasite" isn't much more accurate than "child", as there is no individual entity in either case.

Overall, you can believe it's a child, but there's not much supporting the belief except the "eventually it will be true" thing, which isn;t really solid ground to base things on.
In a discussion like this, all the "child killing" talk just appeals to other's emotions. "Fetus" and "Embryo" might sound uncharitable, but accurate terminology isn't a matter of charity.
Especially when so many arguments are along the lines of "abortion is murder" or "abortion is killing".
Abortion is abortion and so much redefinition helps no-one.
The gist is people are saying "I will call sandwiches murder. Everyone agrees murder is bad, so therefore sandwiches are proven bad."

"Even if they champion anti-abortion legislature that only bans abortion for no real reason, and allow excuses for rape, incest, or maternal health? This isn't a "For all or for none" issue; other countries such as Poland or Spain actually have it so that there are some exceptions."

It may as well be for all or for none, since cases of rape, incest, and maternal health combined consitute well under 3% of all abortions.
Those aren't the only "real" reasons though.
I think you are dismissing all the other reasons frivolously.
Even the least strong reason ("I just don't want a child") is rather strong. Can the state force you to stop using contraception?

Think of pre-emptive strikes. Not the George W. Iraq kind, but the kind where the threat is actually real. Everyone agrees it's immoral to murder a child, but contraception is generally approved of.
Abortion is logically no different from the morning-after pill or even a condom except it's not the morning after.

"A ban on abortion will not "enslave woman". If anything, considering that men are still draftable (Also known as the govt. confiscating their body to put them into a warzone) it'd make things a bit more equal in a certain way of looking at things. Women would still be able to vote, still be able to hold jobs, still be able to have all the liberties that a man has. The only thing it would stop is the killing of an unborn child."

There currently isn't any draft in the US, last I checked. It's been considered lately, but also strongly opposed for that exact problem of the government suddenly gaining control of your body. I would argue that it is a form as slavery as well, even if it did exist.

Women certainly do not retain all the same liberties as a man in an anti-abortion world. Voting and having a career are not the only liberties, after all.
I already listed the reasons why some women consider childbirth to be a personal burden, but regardless of opinion these things are fundamentally true:

You lose the right to non-reproductive sex.
You lose control of your body for at least 9 months.
You lose your right to have money and, by extension, property.
You lose free time and, by extension, liberty.

The alternative, if you refuse to pay the government with the above services, is the child being given away - which is arguably worse because it completely nullifies the woman's role. What you have then is the government commandeering your body as a breeding facility for a third party.
I'd consider that legalized child abduction on top of the inherent rape issues.

"And truthfully, I am still of the opinion the least harmful policy would be one of say Spain's, that makes exceptions to those who "need" the abortion, or were forced to have the child. If the child is perfectly alright, and you both choose to have sex, you have to deal with the consequences. Right now, I am of the opinion that legalized abortion allows irresponsible citizens a "get-out-of-jail" free card of sorts, and that is wrong."

Well the facts don't back up that statement, since 54% of abortions happen as a result of contraceptive failure.
Clearly responsibility isn't the issue, because contraception is the most responsible way to have sex.

Now, you could apply the blame to sex itself ("you both choose to have sex, you have to deal with the consequences") but then you're just enforcing mandatory abstinence.

Folks like to paint the picture of the happy person tossing a baby away like it's meaningless, but that just isn't why abortion happens. All the reasons are valid and when abortion is honestly just contraception, there isn't any reason not to uphold them.

"Truthfully, other than politicians, I do believe most of the protestors (Both male and female) and several of the Church organizations and whatnot do care about the fetuses, otherwise they wouldn't complain. What do they have to gain other than knowing in their opinion they are saving lives?"

Like I said, what they gain is christian law enforcing the bible onto all people in the US/world.

I'm not saying that there aren't people who believe they are saving lives. But the simple fact is that all they are acheiving is the abolishment of sexual freedom.
Mostly taking sex rights away from women but, to a lesser extent, they are taking the rights away from everyone.

In all the effort, no human lives are saved.

"Well, the Catholic Church actually has had this stance for a good few hundred years, after they had to debate on how Mary was free of sin and whatnot with birth, so it's not for them their "weekly" interpretation, it's a stance they have had for a quite a while."

Timeframe isn't exactly relevant and what the catholic church believes is even less so. The point is that all this fervor is based on biblical scriptures which have only relatively recently been interpreted that way.
It's the exact opposite of a justifiable basis for law.

"However, science has really not offered much to say if there isn't a soul or whatnot, all they have given is when an unborn child develops this and that. To me, that's not very convincing that's when something "becomes" a life."

The scientific definition of life and the spiritual definition of life are mutually exclusive.
So what we're stuck with is the same creationist debate where one group is claiming the world is 6000 years old and another is claiming that lord Xenu was friends with a dinosaur 600 trillion years ago.
Simply put though, the spiritual definition is entirely a matter of belief. You might believe it starts at fertilization. Another might believe it starts six years before then, when fate kicks in. Another might say that the life was always there to begin with. Another might say it begins at birth. Or when the kid first eats solid food.

There's no way to verify any of these claims, because they all rely on some variation of the soul. It's not a proper basis for a universal law.
The existence of a consciousness is the only known standard for individual humanity.

"Why can't the stem cells from umbilical cords be used? Last time I checked, those were thrown into dumpsters, unlesss of course the father wanted to eat them. Those things I believe are quite full of stem cells, yet unused, whereas aborted fetuses are."

I think there are some misconceptions here (that's not a pun :/).
Stem cells from the blood in umbilical cords (called Cord Blood Stem Cells) are already used, and have been since 1988. They have been used to cure quite a good number of diseases, mostly in children.

Embryonic stem cells (the controversial ones) do not come from aborted fetuses. That just isn't true.

They're called "embryonic" because they are derived from the inner mass of an embryo in blastocyst stage (less than a week old). This cluster of 100 cells is smaller than a period in a sentence and shaped as a ball.

Embryonic stem cells were only isolated in 1998 and are currently being researched to a limited degree.
Cord Blood cells are Multipotent, which means they can be used to create more of the same family of cells. In this case, cord blood can be used to make other types of blood cell for transfusions and such.
Embryonic cells are Totipotent, which means that they can become any type of cell in the body.
Heart cells, brain cells, etc.

Since Cord Blood cells were eventually used to treat about 100 blood-based diseases, you can see why embryonic cells are seen as so important. They are potential treatments for diseases across the entire body.

 

[theotherguy]

mechagodzilla for the supreme court!

 

[Apos]

I'm against late term abortions except for medical reasons... but then contrary to the lies of most pro-lie people, that's pretty much where the law stands anyway, so what's all the fuss.

Additionally, anyone that thinks that zygotes deserve rights and cows don't has like, missed the game of understanding what the heck morality is all about. If you care more about the feelings and rights of something that doesn't have feelings or even a brain than something that does GAME OVER something went wrong in your logic: time to start over.

I don't get any of this life cycle nonsense. That's turning our expectations of what might happen into actual reality and pretending its already happened. that's nonsense. If I don't impregnate a woman, a child will ultimately be JUST AS UNBORN as if I step on a zygote and squish it to death. In neither case am I doing anything more than killing some cells (heck, sex kills millions of them). The idea of a zygote having some bizarre mystical quality called "independent existence" is ridiculous. Culture some skin cells and they too can have "independent existence." Heck, you can even use their DNA to grow a whole new human if you know how. The point is that a zygote is a little blob of protoplasm that contains DNA, which is a set of instructions for processes that must be carried out in order to build something that functions like a human being. But at the stem cell stage, construction hasn't even begun. Heck, the "plans" haven't even been delivered to the construction site, much less been executed to the degree that there is some functional being that is ANYTHING like the fellow human beings we have come over our history to acknowledge we should all treat with rights and protection.

Saying that even the most brain damaged fetus is morally equivalent to a zygote is morally insane, no less so than wanting to give rocks the right to vote. It makes no sense whatsoever.