A friend forwarded me the following website address:
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

Here was his message (excerpt):

Hey LJ, I have a nice article that outlines when new human life begins from a biological perspective. I think it is scientifically sound. It is a good starting point b/c if this article is sound (which you will judge for yourself) then our difference of opinion would come down to a purely philosophical one being: what makes human life valuable? No more scientific or fact arguing,
which may be an impass or may be more interesting. In any case, misinformation held to by either of us is what i'd primarily like to get out of this exchange. Interested in your comments.

======

This is my reply:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing."

I think the article is a snow job. It reminds me of the wandering, unsound, formless propaganda I read from Lyndon H. Larouche. What I mean is, it sounds very official with it's "textbook" definitions of spermatozoa, oocyte and gametogenesis, but these thorough definitions cloud the author's point and really need not be defined or said at all. I think the crux of the author's point lies in this paragraph:

"To begin with, scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced."

In sum, the author's argument is that human life begins when a sperm and an egg combine. All vocabulary can be left to the wayside. It's meaningless and does nothing to further her argument. After lengthy diatribe, she lays out a number of "Myth v. Fact" scenarios. I summarily dismiss all of these scenarios as nothing more than semantic arguments.

Prior to her conclusion, the author asks the following:

"Is there really such a "split" between a human being and a human person?"

Unfortunately, she provides no answer. If she wants to lend scientific credence to her opinion, a sound answer to this question would be very convincing. Unfortunately, the highly respected human embryology textbooks that she 'quotes' provide no answer to this question.

I'd be interested in your feedback.

======

My friend is very pro-life. It can be said I am pro-choice. I am not staunchly committed to a pro-choice stance, but if my hand were forced I would be pro-choice. Why? As of right now, it's a two prong answer involving the beginning of human life and the right of the mother.

Though skeptical, admittedly very skeptical, I can be convinced by either superior reasoning or irrefutable fact. I don't have my heels dug in on the subject.