I'm not an embryologist, but I have a feeling I've had more education on the subject than you. Yes there are differences, but for the most part, the early stages of development are identical in almost every single mammalian species.

Scientists cannot even define what makes up a persona, much less what causes it and when it develops.

Many, many people disagree entirely with your opinion that someone is a "person" at conception. There is no definitive proof for either side.

But going with the assumption that one is a person with full rights upon conception, we then have doctors and families in a very difficult position. Potentially lose yourself/wife/signficiant-other? Lose a child you do not know and have no attachment to (beyond hormonal drive)? Both are horrible outomes and it is an incredibly difficult decision to make. One that requires a great deal of opinion to come to. In the case of a mother's safety, how can you force someone to make that call in either direction?

Isn't that what freedom of choice is about?

Of course, then you have all the legal ramifications of defining a zygote as a human being. If a woman drinks while she is 2 weeks pregnant, is she guilty of child abuse? If she miscarries during a car accident, is the guilty party tried for manslaughter? If a husband hits his pregnant wife, should he be tried twice for domestic abuse? If someone accidently aborts their child through ignorance (ex. certain herbs or medications), should they be tried in court? Could the father sue?


It is simply my opinion that it is unethical to make abortions illegal since the definition of when a zygote becomes a human being is nonexistent and to outlaw it would put a definitively human woman in a position for risk.