[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And yet you are using the same exact argument (extinguishing potential sentience/life) they use to attack contraception...

Umm...no. Did you completely miss my point? Or are you using a straw man argument? Maybe I just wasnt clear enough for you. You brought potential into this..I have not used that as a defense. We actually agree there, I think? I did clarify why I used opportunity here...
"Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby..."
I am saying that life begins at conception since you didnt get it the first time. I say this because the minute that fertilized egg grows, develops, metabolizes, (ie. life) inside a female human it produces a life that is human and can only be human. Again, I am not saying sperm or eggs or anything prior to a fertilized egg is human life just so that we are clear...again.

If you use contraception you are using an artificial barrier to intercede in the life cycle, and gametogeniesis and eventually fertilization is part of that life cycle.

Hmmm....I find it interesting that you would introduce LIFE cycle but yet you argue below you are not concerned with life because it means something different to different people.

you can't murder a 4 week old embryo either. You are not making sense.

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

Exactly! You get it! That is why the "potential sentience" argument is so idiotic. People who say, "well that clump of cells will possibly be sentient one day, so aborting it is equivalent to murder" are being ridiculous. Ever heard of the phrase, "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas"? That clump of cells may be sentient one day, but not now

Glad we can agree on something. Again, potential sentience is not the question, defining human life and when it begins is the question.

An innocent sperm and an innocent egg had to grow and develop. If the mere act of "developing" determines whether something should get the same rights as me, then your argument has a lot of issues beyond the embryo. I'm drawing the line at thinking and feeling and near absence of consciousness.

Again, straw man maybe? I am not trying to make the distinction that just developing is the sign of human life. Please see any of my above responses.

The word life means a lot of things to a lot of different people. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with thinking and feeling. That is what makes us uniquely human, so yes someone who is brain dead shouldn't get the same rights as me. That is why it was perfectly appropriate to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo.

This is your problem...you claim you are not concerned what life means, yet you still define human life as boiling down to just thinking and feeling under the guise of sentient. Your whole argument hangs on this definition yet you completely dismiss it as a concern? Im guessing that you didnt want to answer whether a human vegetable is alive because it corners your central thinking/feeling argument into a place you probably dont want to go. And yes, life does mean different things to different people which is why we are debating in the first place. It appears by your comments so far that your inability to understand the position of others is impeding in your ability to have a lively debate while still using intellectual honesty. I would like to continue this lively debate but this probably isn't going any further until your honest about the importance of defining human life.