Can anyone give a secular ARGUMENT as to why a conceptus should be granted legal protection?

Question

Note that merely saying 'life begins at conception' is not an argument.

The question is in regards to a conceptus, not a 6 month old baby.

Answer 1

I am curious how any one with the ability to think logically can equate a cell to that of a human life.

For instance: http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/zygoye.jpg
"Fertilized human egg (also called oocyte)
This is what we see the morning after an IVF aspiration (retrieval) when we check the eggs
Male and female genetic material (DNA) is contained in the 2 pronuclei seen in the center of the photo"

Another example: http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/8%20cell.jpg
"A high quality day 3 human embryo at the 8-cell stage
6 cells are visible in this plane of focus"

It's like a spoon full of jelly, how can you say that it is actually alive?

Answer 2

Life begins at conception is a very good argument, but in a court case the unborn baby is always considered a person if both baby and mother are killed or baby is killed because of someone harming the mother.

See this baby is wanted. In the case of abortion which is entirely wrong, the baby is not wanted. That in itself is a horrible statement for any mother to make but when she aborts her baby she is saying that she doesn't want the baby.

Answer 3

Here is my logical argument. If the child was a part of the woman's body, then several things would have to be true...
1. She would have to be able to create the child by herself, with no input from a male
2. It would have her complete DNA
3. It would have her exact blood type
4. It would be the same gender as her

None of these things are true, so it is not a part of her body. If it is not a part of her body and someone else was required to participate for conception to occur, then doesn't the other party have just as much right to the child as she does? For that reason, the child should be granted legal protection so that the father has access to the child if he desires it to be so. A woman can choose to have the child and the father is forced to support it for the next 18 years. No one seems to have a problem with that. But, the woman can choose not to have the child and the father has absolutely no recourse to save the life of a child he desires to have. People are aghast at the thought of a woman having to carry a child for nine months in order for the father to be able to keep the child. Seems extremely one sided and unfair to me. Give the child legal protection and BOTH parents will have equal rights.

Answer 4

I give you a star and bet that half of the answers you will receive will be 'life begins at conception' or something to do with God and life.

Sophia- If someone else were to cause a miscarriage, it's a crime because it is assumed the mother was going to keep it. Stuff like that can be super traumitizing, especially if it's your first or if you worked really hard to get pregnant. But I'm sure it probably has something to do with property as well. :P

Answer 5

Not sure if I get what you're asking for---according to our legal system, the mother has the choice to keep or get rid of it at almost any point.

However, if someone else caused her to lose it against her will, I guess that would be akin to destruction of property, in some twisted fashion?

Answer 6

Hmm, well, personally, i believe life begins at birth, and by birth i mean not conception, 9 months after, so im one of the people hate for saying i support stem cell research.

Answer 7

www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

www.l4l.org/

www.godandscience.org/abortion/sld002.html

objectivewriting.blogspot.com/2007/09/atheist-stand-against-abortion.html

www.infidetls.org/library/modrn/debates/secularist/abortion/roth5.html

and there's a lot more circulating around the internet. Mostly Libertarian or Liberally-inclined Atheists/Agnostics.

Answer 8

Nope.

Because they shouldn't.