Dozens are tried with the intent to have one that ends up a baby. The intent is what matters. It doesn't matter that most fail or are simply not viable. On the other hand we have a viable fetus who will end up a baby without negative stimuli. That fertilized egg in the petri dish will not survive on it's own like the fertilized egg in a mothers uterus.

You're comparison is garbage and ignores the crux of intent which is the most pressing detail.

Your argument only works if you believe "life begins when a reasonable person could think it would survive to birth", not "life begins at conception"

If you believe life begins at conception then whether the fertilized eggs are viable in their current conditions doesn't matter. They are people with full rights and moral weight, and they were created and discarded by the clinic with full knowledge that they would be killed as part of the process.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 29 2020 10:55am

"life begins at conception" is a phrase that presupposes natural conception. rules have exceptions, even if that exception is more common than ever.

its like someone saying "the sky is blue" and someone responding "what if its all white clouds or near sunset/sunrise heuheueheu"

many pro lifers also allow for rape or incest abortions, this is from compassion. the same compassion they extend to those who can't conceive naturally.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 29 2020 10:58am

What you've done is move the bar from "life begins at conception" to "life begins at implantation".

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 29 2020 11:03am

about this "conception"
Is this way the extreme relgious people are anti mastrubation? Self limiting abortions? Sexual thoughts and drive are the beginning of conception?
Anti birth control same thought here.
So if I am a sperm donor and about to jack off into a jar.. is this allowed or?
If your a woman are you allowed to self gratify only when you are not fertile, and is this up to you to decode?
or do you have to fuck at all times to make sure you populate in gods way?
AHAHAHA

Life starts at heartbeat i think

I've thought for a long time that the most consistent way to "begin" human life, from the perspective of when they deserve legal rights, is when brain activity is sufficient to establish pain and a minimal level of agency. Before that they are just matter with no consciousness, akin to a rock, and treated as property of the parents.

The current evidence says that's ~23 weeks, but if we want to be safe and catch cases of early development we can lower that to 18 weeks or the earliest point where no observed fetuses have that characteristic.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 29 2020 11:14am

what im saying is "conception" was never "the bar". that's "the bar" in the context of natural sexual reproduction, and changing circumstances changes "the bar".

again, rules have exceptions, and are still general rules.

We aren't talking about a general rule for society here. We're talking about where the pro-lifers have historically claimed the objective time where human life begins.

Even so, the logical conclusion of your "rule with exceptions" is that the actual fundamental thing that explains by rule and its exceptions is that the bar has moved to implantation instead of conception.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 29 2020 11:27am

I believe life begins at conception and I'm very much against in-vitro fertilization...especially since there are a lot of babies out there that need to be adopted. I'm not going to cry about it's legality but I do find it unethical.