I just want to be clear: A baby is already a life worth preserving.
To me a zygote, an embryo, and early development fetuses are not.
You are under the assumption that there is a specific point. But that point does not exist. That's why I err on the side of caution and am against late term abortions.
But there is a large difference between a 38 week fetus and a 7 week one. It is dishonest to equate the two.
That's just my point. There is no line. It's all just perception in the mind. People have a much easier time stealing from someone who is not physically present versus someone who is; this does not mean that it is a lesser crime than stealing from someone who is present! Same for someone they don't know vs. someone they do, etc.
Similarly, a developing zygote may not resemble a human as much as one that is about to be born, but that makes it no less a human life. If you can't delineate a point, then you agree that it is always the same - a human life with the same right to life as developed humans.
I disagree that just because you cannot state an exact point of change that the two extreme ends are equal.
I could point out a color spectrum to you, and even if you said "this purple pixel is red and this purple pixel is blue" I could test you on this claim and prove you wrong by misidentifying them in a blind test. But it would be insanity to claim the red at the end of the spectrum was blue, as nobody would ever confuse the two (unless they had a colorblindness disorder).
There are more examples I could list, but the point remains that small changes added together makes a real difference!
That's not an equal comparison -- color does change in its entirety solely by its wavelength. An experiment that requires 703 nm light would fail if you used 702 nm, despite both being "red" by humans. The limitation of human visual capacity doesn't change what it actually is.
With regards to what makes a human life valuable such that it is immoral to end its life, a newborn is very different in its development than an 18 year old but the same "right to exist" exists for both. A newborn and an 8 month old fetus share that same right. And so on going backwards. The "sliding spectrum" doesn't apply here because the right to exist isn't changing the way wavelength of light does.
It's precisely the same human limitation to visualization that makes it difficult for people to recognize that it's still a human life that's ending when a 3 month old fetus is ended.
That simply reinforces my point.
At what point does the baby go from "human life worth preserving because it has human experiences" to "just a clump of cells, no loss if it dies"?
I just want to be clear: A baby is already a life worth preserving.
To me a zygote, an embryo, and early development fetuses are not.
You are under the assumption that there is a specific point. But that point does not exist. That's why I err on the side of caution and am against late term abortions.
But there is a large difference between a 38 week fetus and a 7 week one. It is dishonest to equate the two.
That's just my point. There is no line. It's all just perception in the mind. People have a much easier time stealing from someone who is not physically present versus someone who is; this does not mean that it is a lesser crime than stealing from someone who is present! Same for someone they don't know vs. someone they do, etc.
Similarly, a developing zygote may not resemble a human as much as one that is about to be born, but that makes it no less a human life. If you can't delineate a point, then you agree that it is always the same - a human life with the same right to life as developed humans.
I disagree that just because you cannot state an exact point of change that the two extreme ends are equal.
I could point out a color spectrum to you, and even if you said "this purple pixel is red and this purple pixel is blue" I could test you on this claim and prove you wrong by misidentifying them in a blind test. But it would be insanity to claim the red at the end of the spectrum was blue, as nobody would ever confuse the two (unless they had a colorblindness disorder).
There are more examples I could list, but the point remains that small changes added together makes a real difference!
That's not an equal comparison -- color does change in its entirety solely by its wavelength. An experiment that requires 703 nm light would fail if you used 702 nm, despite both being "red" by humans. The limitation of human visual capacity doesn't change what it actually is.
With regards to what makes a human life valuable such that it is immoral to end its life, a newborn is very different in its development than an 18 year old but the same "right to exist" exists for both. A newborn and an 8 month old fetus share that same right. And so on going backwards. The "sliding spectrum" doesn't apply here because the right to exist isn't changing the way wavelength of light does.
It's precisely the same human limitation to visualization that makes it difficult for people to recognize that it's still a human life that's ending when a 3 month old fetus is ended.