Fdesilva wrote:What is wrong is no human should have the right to take the life of another. Every humans life begins from the first moment of conception.
As I've said, the opinion that all humans have an equal right to have their continued existence protected by law and that a single celled embryo is a human in the same sense that a fully formed baby is a human, and that therefore single celled embryos have the same rights as fully formed humans, is one to which you are entitled. But it is not an objective fact. It is simply your personal taste to place the dividing line between "not human" and "human" at the point of conception. Others disagree with you.
Life in the womb is in no way inferior to life outside the womb.
The fact that you make no distinction between single celled embryos and fully formed babies is your personal choice. You are in a minority in that view.
Every stage of human life is unique and equally important.
Yes. Separate sperm and egg cells are one of those stages. Without them, new life could not exist. So they are equally important. Their being an important and indispensable stage in the development of new human life doesn't make contraception objectively immoral. It is immoral in the opinion of some people, just as their destruction just after they meet is immoral in your opinion.
Laws need to be logical. You cannot have laws that say it ok to kill a human at this stage but not at that stage.
If the term "human" has legal or moral implications, then people can and do disagree as to what constitutes a human.
Laws need to make binary distinctions. In order to enact laws we have to impose those binary distinctions on the continua of Nature. So, in the case of abortion laws, we have to place a dividing line on the development of new human life and say "before this point, stopping the development of new human life is permitted; after this point it is forbidden". Some people place that point before conception and hold that deliberate contraception - the deliberate thwarting of the natural process of sperm meeting egg - is immoral. Others place that point further on in the continuous process of the development of new human life.
You cannot have laws that protect the planet for future generations and also allow the killing of that generation before they are born. It not logical but rather insanity.
There are 7+ billion human beings on this planet and the number increases every day by more than the total number of living individuals in the populations of all the other Great Apes combined. In the foreseeable future there is no possibility whatever of the next generation of humans failing to materialise. Birth control and management of the global human population is the most important factor in lessening the devastating impact that the human race is having on global biodiversity. We are well on the way to destroying almost all species that we do not regard as being directly useful to us, simply as a result of our vast numbers demanding the land on which they live for our own use. In my view, of all the massive problems facing the human race, the destruction of non-sentient single celled embryos is absolutely not one of them. Clearly you disagree. That is your right. Fortunately for the other species of life on this planet, I think you're in a minority.
Based on your logic as life originated from none life it is perfectly fine to destroy any life as we are not destroying life as dead things and living thing cannot be distinguished based on their origin. Do you agree? if not how is it different to what you are saying?
No I don't agree. As I've said, my point is that the distinction between "life" and "non-life" and between "human" and "non-human" is a continuum, not a hard dividing line. It is a greyscale, not black and white. The demonstrable fact that this is true does not logically lead to the conclusion that every point on that continuum is equal.
Another illustration of this fact is provided by considering the diversity of life currently existing on Earth. The continuous increase in complexity from viroids to humans does not logically lead to the conclusion that viroids are humans.