We're clearly not opposed to killing our own species. We kill criminals. We kill people we perceive as enemies. We choke up a bit when confronted with the idea of killing innocents. And we have a natural predisposition for protecting children. But we have no leg to stand on if we claim we are unwilling to kill. The point is, we are happy to kill if we feel it is justified. So any so-called sacredness is out.

The question becomes "Is it justifiable?" Whether killing a microscopic blob of cells or killing a 250 lb. blob of cells, it's still killing. The bottom line is that 'deciding when to kill' is a decision adults have to make sometimes, no matter how uncomfortable it might make us. We murder the food we eat. We murder our own kind when we feel they are not fit to live among us. We murder those who are trying to murder us. And a growing contingent of us feel that murder of the unformed is justified in the preservation of the formed... that we should be willing to suffer that discomfort in the service of granting half our species the right to body sovereignty.

It is Nature's way that not all potential life is granted a full lifetime. As responsible adults we must stop passing the buck to gods or selective-sacredness, and shoulder our unpleasant duties. We should never approach them frivolously, but when two values we respect are mutually exclusive, we must try to make responsible choices, rather than pretend we can remain innocent bystanders.

Like there is no God, there is no objective right and wrong. There is only whatever you personally hold to be of value. I don't like killing innocent, potential humans. I like even less assuming that I have some God-given (if not God, then from whom?) right to force a woman to manage her body in some way that suits me. NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

None of us can authentically claim to be "right". We can only claim to have preferences that we are willing to stand by, and I stand by a woman's right to choose.

If the joining of a sperm and egg is somehow a sign of a spiritual reality or a sacrament of sorts (however he's defining that), I have to wonder whether he believes the same for chickens and pigs, whose embryonic development is so similar to that of humans, and if not why not. He seems to have no basis for his claim except that he believes in the supernatural. That seems to be justification enough for him, but I need reasons backed by science or strong logic (not theology or metaphysics). I've never heard a sufficient argument to support such spiritual-reality assertions.

It is very special. Especially when stir fried & served with a nice bordeaux.

I have many thoughts on this.

1. The fetus is a parasite until it can survive on its own outside the body.
2. Those that can't take care of themselves should be protected.
3. It's just a cluster of cells, no sense of being.
4. How do we know there's no sense of being?
5. When can the fetus feel pain?
6. Abortions should not be used as birth control.
7. Why can't abortions be used as birth control?
8. Woman's body, woman's choice.
9. The father should have a say too.

Ultimately, I am pro choice, but it's a conflicted stance. I base my decisions on science alone, but there's so much we don't know about the human body. To answer the question, no a fetus isn't special. It's biology.

Any Embryo is simply just that, it is collection of cells with an as yet indeterminate purpose awaiting the effect/s of hormones to " kick-start" the processes that will determine what it will, hopefully, eventually become.
To ask if something is " sacred, " in my opinion, implies that it should be considered as a " Loan" or " Gift" from some Supremely Higher Entity BUT it is not and never has been, there are only the Forces of the Natural Universe and the effects they can have or not have that determine what will be and what will NOT be, nothing more, nothing less.
A womans body is HER own property, what happens within that body as in pregnancy, etc, is HERS and HERS alone to determine and NO-ONE elses what-so-ever just as is the body of a man as well.
Unfortunately, the only thing we have NO control over body-wise are diseases, injury and death, BUT in the case of OUR own death WE should have the choice to chose how, when and why we die and it NOT be determined by some Arcane, Arcaic Superstitions and belief system imposed upon us.

If god treats zygotes with so little consideration, how can they be holy? We share 97% of our genetic information with every living creature on earth. Not just mammals, either. Birds fish bugs, all of it. The difference between a mouse embryo and a human enbryo is 3% give or take.

If it's immoral to remove an embryo, then all cancers are also sacred.

If new cells (cancer) are created because of a mutation (which is out of our control) then those are equally sacred, and cannot be touched. Add in anything else that surgeons can remove: bad valves, imperfect anatomy, failing organs, in-grown toenails, the list is endless.

In every hospital in the world, in any moment, people are having their "god-given" cells re-arranged and/or removed by modern medicine.

Why is it that when a man chooses to deposit HIS cells into a woman, they're suddenly "SACRED"????

If they're so bleating SACRED, then he should have kept them TO HIMSELF!!!!

Get your bible out of our vagina and shove it up your ass!

Thought experiment:

You are visiting a fertility clinic. A fire breaks out on one of the theatres, and is rushing towards the oxygen tanks. When it reaches them, the entire place goes.

You are in a corridor. On one side is a cooler containing 50 frozen embryos, immersed in liquid nitrogen and ready for transport. On the other is a baby, screaming in terror. You have only got time to rescue one, and if you hesitate, everyone dies.

Who do you choose?

I love to flip the tables on this topic. Is an embryo any more sacred than a woman's life? Because when abortion is illegal that is exactly what is being communicated.

People who claim to be scientists are supposed to view things with a sense of reason. These religious scientists make a mockery of their own profession and they make me sick.
We live on a space ship with finite resources. We have stretched those resources to the point of endangering future generations of humans and killed off thousands of species of non-human species. That is immoral. Trying to moralize our extreme, exponential population growth is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance (and extreme fear).
No, nothing about any part of any human is special and tying mumbo jumbo words onto our existence changes nothing.

The human embryo is neither sacred nor something special. It is simply an early stage in the development of every human organism.

Matias, this is very similar to the (very interesting) question you put out the other day on the reconciliation of religion and science. As I said then, many scientists compartmentalize their faith and practical knowledge, as humans are incongruous in thought, deed and emotion on a daily basis. The professor in this case tries to merge the two and finds himself in a logical cul-de-sac. I get what he is saying as conception is an amazing thing. It’s an incredible mathematical chance that you are you, and one spermatozoa among millions penetrated one egg, when human ovulation is a tricky thing. On the other hand it’s such a common occurrence that there are seven billion of us! Human conception is at once as mundane as shitting and as incredible as the Big Bang. In the grander scheme of the world and in a biological sense, a human embryo is not a sacred thing - it is a product of reproduction and is no higher or lower in order in the natural world than a germinating acorn or a mouse embryo. However socially the family unit, fertility and conception have taken on a meaning beyond genetics. Anthropologically insemination and pregnancy can bond kinsmenship and identity of the clan, unite or divide clans, form the basis of social cohesion and peace, claims to territory or war. Pregnancy is imbued with ritual and birth is a right of passage. That is why women’s fertility is controlled by men to this day. That is why to some people believe it is sacred - thousands of years of programming. It’s the key to survival of your group and your genes. It is logical that most of society think an embryo is sacred, and that murder is evil. It’s all tied to primeval survival. Truth be told that both conception and murder are mundane daily occurrences.

No its not sacred!

It has no experiences, no memory, and can't feel pain until the 3rd trimester. Its potential parents will feel pain if there is a miscarriage. Sacred though? How can any atheist or agnostic say that it is? Any theist that says it's sacred is just guessing. If life is so sacred then why does nature shit on it so much?

It and I say it intentionally, is simply a function of biology. There is no magical properties and I apologize to those that can not conceive as it may feel differently to them.
It is no more a human that the seed that has yet to sprout and become a tree.

It is only as important as the 2 people that created it feel it is

The collision arises first with the assumption that a collection of cells is more than that. This would need to be demonstrated. Until that demonstration we should treat it as it is.
I think if you have to introduce a supernatural explanation to your argument you have already lost on a rational level. Is an collection of cells sacred? No. Or you would have to concede that a sperm cell can also be sacred and somehow nobody (that I'm aware of) seems to want to make this argument.
Is an embryo special? Yes, everything is special, so no, nothing is special. What does special even mean?
The moral status of an embryo depends on your morality. For me, moral consideration starts with consciousness. How you want to define that is another rabbit hole you might want to go down, but there is a point where an embryo is definitely not conscious and a point where it is definitely conscious. Somewhere in between is good enough for me, for now.

It is not sacred because we are not sacred.

I was thinking about sex today. "Love bugs" are being pests this time of year, male and female flys conjoined by their genitals and buzzing haphazardly together.

My point is, an embryo was the best evolution could come up with, and reproduction is slightly more fun for us than for love bugs. What's cool is most mammals look about the same before 8 weeks of gestation, even a human and a mouse. The real debate is what can be mundane and miraculous at the same time? Nature has mastered embryos from before humans walked upright. Sure it's complex, but if early man connected the dots that mating = offspring, it's not as big a deal as mr professor believes.

The religious right says that the minute a sperm and an egg shake hands it is a child. Once it is born they no longer give a shit.

The existence of the pope is a clear sign that abortion is necessary.

the justification is easy as silk. "God called them home". when your fantasy includes a being who can do no wrong, then even obvious wrongs become right when it does them.

genocide is wrong, but the flood was right. War is wrong, but the destruction of Jericho was right.

no problems.

not a believer, just saying, they can justify anything in that story, anything at all.

Once we get over the god thing, we'll look at procreation and evolution as we should. Life is to be respected. The embryo comes second to the woman bearing it. And if it's in a dish/tank it's just an experiment. Brains are just part of evolution, not some ethereal super-space.

It's a bundle of cells. Human infants are among the most helpless in the animal kingdom. I think if the fetus cannot reasonably survive outside the womb, it's not a person-should not be accorded human rights. When this is precisely, I am not educared ebough to say, but I can say without a doubt, an embryo is not "sacred" to me. Then again, I don't believe in inherently sacred things. To me this smacks of superstitious nonsense.

What about IVF or IVG? In the not-too-distant future, all human embryos may be conceived in a lab, and a sperm donor won't even be required, as stem cells can be used to manufacture sperm-like cells. A significant number of blastocysts may result from a single egg harvest, which may then be frozen indefinitely. These samples may be genetically screened for diseases and deficiencies, as well as analyzed for gender and other physical attributes, and perhaps even temperament or personality. The designer child is not that far away, and the unwanted blastocysts, sacred or not, will be discarded and destroyed by the millions.
[media.giphy.com]