Abortion is morally wrong

[Heywood]

Stem cells are constituent cells and have no potential by themselves to ever become a human being. To become a human being a stem cell needs to be fused with an unfertilized egg(which has had it nucleolus removed). A stem cell requires the intervention of an intellect and the addition of outside parts. It isn't any more of a human being than a sperm.

Now if this intervention and addition of new parts occurred, you would have a human being. You would have something that can grow in the proper environment, reproduce, metabolize, maintain homeostasis, etc.

Please explain why the additional care and materials are required for the stem cell to gain protected status and not for the fertilized egg? Are you saying that at some, unexplained and seemingly arbitrary, point, the assemblage of chemicals which is the stem cell and additional materials added gains 'human being' status equivalent to the, again, justification unexplained, status of the fertilized egg? Can you explain, with precision, exactly where that point is and why?

Is the stem cell now a human being because it was fused with an unfertilized egg? Is the unfertilized egg now a human being because it was fused with a stem cell? These are misleading questions. The unfertilized egg and the stem cell are constituent parts.....that's it. Put those constituent parts together and now you have a human being. The stem cell doesn't gain protected status. The stem cell ceases to exist. A human being begins its existence. The product of this process gains "human being status" because the product of this process is a human being.

---

Arthurs stance is that all human killing is immoral.

My position is that killing human beings for convenience is immoral. I am pro-life, anti-capital punishment for this reason.