- I've flipped back a few pages in the forums, but I don't see any real concrete thread dealing with abortion. Who's up for a debate about it without getting overly emotional (from either side of the fence)?

- I realize that not all Christians fit the stereotypical anti-abortionst mold, and I also realize that there are many atheists out there who also disagree completely with any form of abortion. However, for the most part, the lines tend to be drawn along belief systems; the incredible majority of anti-abortionists are also Christian fundamentalists, and the vast majority of pro-choice folks are either Christian moderates or nonbelievers. (Don't take "moderate" as a bad word... I didn't mean it like that.)

- So. Let me give you what the usual (in my experience) argument via Christianity is against abortion. Feel free to correct me of course if your own argument differs in any way (and I am oversimplifying here on purpose):

1. Life begins at conception.
2. Thus, abortion kills a human life.
3. It is immoral (according to god, the bible, Jesus, etc) to kill an innocent little baby.

- In a nutshell. I realize it's more complex than this, so like I said, feel free to correct me or add things if you think they're important.

- I'll give you my own viewpoint. Let me begin by saying up front that I am not in favor of 'abortion on demand' at any point during a pregnancy. Far from it, in fact. However, I am also strongly against the following things, all of which the radical anti-abortion movement (in any of its forms) has been guilty of at one point or another:

1. The planned and systematic campaign to purposefully mislead women by advertising "abortion counseling" or free pregnancy tests at a "clinic" or similar secular medical services, but then subjecting them to religious anti-abortion propaganda instead in hopes of scaring them away from genuine clinics. Have you ever seen the billboards on along the highway that say "Pregnant? Scared? Call us." Try calling them, and see what kind of treatment you get. These "clinics" very often subject visitors to graphic videos, subject them to mental anguish by chanting such things as "babykiller, babykiller", and use other such Gestapo tactics... anything to scare them enough to avoid real medical advice.

2. Staging rallies at entrances to abortion clinics during which anti-abortion advocates will block access to the clinic, or yell and scream bible quotes or obscenities at anyone entering or leaving the clinic.

3. The killing of abortion doctors in the name of protecting human life.

4. The bombing or defacing of abortion clinics.

5. The (ongoing) campaign by Christian fundamentalist lawmakers to inject their religious beliefs into U.S. law, and to foist them upon the people in the form of the revocation of a woman's right to choose.

6. The (ongoing) campaign by anti-abortion activists to spread misinformation wherever they can about abortion procedures and fetal development.

- I also don't agree that abortions should be performed "out of convenience" (as fundamentalists put it)... but then again, I don't believe for one second that any abortion is convenient for a woman. I'm not just talking about the procedure itself, either. When fundamentalists tell people that women who get abortions are being selfish or acting in whatever manner is most convenient, those fundamentalists usually forget that it is not the civic duty of each and every woman to produce offspring. We have no evolutionary need for every female on the planet to bear children. In fact, I personally believe that the desire to have a child in this day and age is usually one born out of pure selfishness. Nobody needs to reproduce right now. In fact, much of the planet is currently fighting overpopulation (be fruitful and multiply!).

- I'm ready to admit here and now that the issue of abortion is an emotional issue for most people. However, if we really do want to arrive at the truth about abortion issues, arguments from emotion must be ignored in favor of real medical science, rationalism, and a concern for people, and not the abstract whims of an invisible deity according to one's local pastor or priest.

- I realize of course that the majority of the anti-abortion activists out there are not about to consider such a thing. For them, the issue is moot: God hates abortion (my bible / pastor / voice in my head says so). Abortion is the murder of a human life. It cannot be allowed.

- Unfortunately, it's a lot more complex than that.

- If we're going to get to the bottom of the abortion issue, then let's cut right to the heart of it. Since there are in reality three positions to take on the subject, let's start by dismissing the fundamentalist notion that all abortions should be illegal all the time, in any and every instance. Certainly there are those in the anti-abortionist camp who feel this way, but these people are truly the minority even within their own camp. For example, a fetus which has died in the womb during the fourth month needs to be aborted. Yes, it's still an abortion, even if the fetus is deceased... an "abortion" is the medical procedure, and it varies very little (if at all) from any other abortion at such a stage. In this case, there is no life there to destroy... except of course the life of the mother should the procedure be outlawed. There are people who hold this opinion about abortion. I've met them. They're the fringe of the fringe, however, totally oblivious to anything other than a genocidal and bloodthirsty desire to bring the kingdom of their God upon the Earth. Not too many anti-abortion activists fail to grasp the reasoning behind removing a potentially dangerous portion of already dead tissue from a woman's body. I will therefore dismiss as lunatics these outer-fringe kooks for now. They are however some of the most vocal opponents of abortion rights, and inspire (and sometimes commit themselves) the most terrible crimes against humanity in the name of God, so let us not forget them entirely. For now just acknowledge that no rational or intellectual argument will ever affect these people in the slightest. At least, not while they maintain their fundamentalism.

- The other extreme is the person who believes that it should be legal to kill children up until several weeks or months after they are born. Yes, these folks exist as well. I haven't had much contact with them, but I think their argument is that a child who is wholly dependent upon his or her parents is essentially as unfit to survive "out of the womb" as a four month old fetus is. They cannot feed themselves, walk, or communicate (other than crying, of course). If we leave them alone in a field, they will certainly die. Therefore, the argument is that the child is still a part of the mother; they cannot be effectively separated without causing the death of the child.

- Now, my personal reaction to both of these two viewpoints is disgust. It's clear to me that there must be a middle ground here, a rational stance. Let me begin here by saying that I believe that some abortions are moral, and some are not. Here is how I justify this stance:

- The killing of an innocent human being is immoral. However, human life is not necessarily a human being.

- I will be returning to this many times, so it's worth putting some thought into if you're just skimming this. Basically, my argument is a variation of the old question "when does human life begin?". The answer to that question is undoubtedly "at conception", if not even before that. Why? Because clearly a healthy fertilized egg is life which is a direct product of human beings. For that matter, so is a lone egg and a lone sperm cell! All are human life. However, the question is a fixed one. Are we really interested in human life? Or are we interested in human beings?

- Here's the difference. My hair is human life. My skin cells are human life. My toenails are human life. Even a tumor on my lung would be human life. But clearly these things do not warrant constitutional protection. They aren't people, they're just the products of people. (All you people out there thinking "potential", hold your horses a moment. We'll get there! Stay with me a moment.) Skin cells and hair do not deserve human rights. People do; human beings do. Tumors and blood cells don't have brains, human beings do.

- So when exactly does a human being begin? That's a tricky question, and in all honesty, I doubt I can answer it very accurately. I can however say with absolute certainty that a human being does not begin at conception. How do I know? Simple. Human beings all share at least one thing, without exception. That thing is higher brain function. Let me explain what I mean by that. Higher brain function is the capability of the brain to employ the personality of a human being. For example, higher brain function is necessary to have a memory, to be able to speak and interact with people, and to be conscious and aware. Note here that this is different from simple brain function, which enables the heart to beat (we don't have to think about flexing our heart muscles, it just happens, regulated by the brain automatically), breathing, and so on. A person in a permanent coma would be an example of the cessation of higher brain function.

- On that note, I want to go into detail and give an elaborate example of the difference between a person and mere "human life". In order for a human being to be a human being (a person), it must, at very least, have higher brain function. This does not mean that it cannot have other missing body parts as well, or that it must also reproduce... obviously sterile people are still people. In order to test this, let's try an experiment.

- Here lies Bob on a medical table. Bob is 30 years old, and alive and healthy. If we ask Bob questions, he answers. He can walk around the room if we ask him to. If we give Bob a hamburger, he can eat it, and so on and so forth. We put Bob to sleep, and remove both his legs above the waist. Bob wakes up afterwards, and now he cannot walk... but he is still a human being.

- We put Bob to sleep again, and remove both arms before the shoulders. Once more, Bob is still a human being. We remove his kidneys and put him on dialysis. We remove his lungs and put him on artificial respiration. We remove his heart and put him on a circulator. Still, Bob is a human being, with rights.

- What is left? Eyes? Ears? It might someday be medically possible to keep a head alive without a body, but not at the moment. Supposing we could, and Bob could be awake and alert, would Bob then cease to be a person? I don't think so. Bob has higher brain function, and thus he is a person. He is a human being, regardless of what we've done with the rest of his body. As long as the brain is alive and healthy, the body means little if we're talking about personhood.

- Let's leave Bob now and see Jim. Jim is whole and healthy like Bob used to be before we began experimenting on him. Jim lies down on the table, and this time, we stop blood flow to his brain for a period of twenty minutes. When we release the flow, Jim is brain dead, even though "lower" functions are still active (his heart is beating). Jim still has arms, legs, and even a brain. Part of it still works, too. But Jim's personality is gone... dead along with the higher brain function that maintained it. Jim will never think again; there is only the body of Jim left on the table. Bob is much better off.

- The body of Jim is not a human being, just like the body of Bob made no difference at all in his personhood, except for his brain. We can remove all sorts of body parts and bodily functionality, and still have a human being. It is only when we begin meddling with the survival of higher brain functions that we begin threatening the life of a human being. Granted of course that physical wounds and such in other parts of the body can lead to brain death, but in our example here we're supposing that the doctors are competent enough not to let Bob bleed to death from surgical procedures and such.

- So, coming back to my point, it stands to reason that in order to be a human being, you at very least need to have higher brain function, and in order to have that, one needs a functional brain. A two-day old embryo does not have a brain, and therefore cannot be a human being. It is human life, but it is not a human being, and therefore does not deserve constitutional rights any more than skin cells do.

- Now! Here is where it gets foggy for me, and like I said earlier, I do not pretend to be able to tell you exactly when a human being begins; exactly when higher brain function begins within the womb. I am however very certain that a nine-month old fetus has higher brain function. The personality is not developed yet, and of course we have a long way to go until adulthood, but the brain is formed and functional. I cannot tell you when human life begins, but I can narrow it down with certainty to between the end of the second month and the end of the ninth. If pressed, I would even take cash bets on between the end of the third month and the end of the eighth, but I am not comfortable getting any narrower than that. It is enough for my argument that I can show that human beings do not begin at conception, nor do they begin within the first month of development. The embryo is inadequate at these points because it does not possess a functional brain, which is the minimal requirement for higher brain function. It cannot be a human being. It cannot be a person.

- My conclusion then is that the abortion of a one-month old embryo is not immoral since it is not a human being. The abortion of an eight-month old fetus, however, runs the severe risk of killing a fully functional brain, and is therefore immoral on most grounds. I say "on most grounds" because there is still the matter of the life of the mother to consider in some cases. If the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother (whom nobody doubts is a conscious, functional human being), then I don't feel that the abortion of a fetus is immoral at any stage in development, if the mother freely chooses to abort it. It may be that the mother goes ahead with the birth and voluntarily puts herself in mortal danger, and in such a case I don't feel it's immoral not to abort the fetus either. It is the mother's choice to risk her life if she desires.

- To recap:

1. Human life is not the same thing as a human being. Human life is not protected constitutionally; we do not protect skin cells and tumors. Human beings are protected by the constitution.

2. In order to be a human being, in order to be a person, you need to be capable of higher brain function (you need to be able to think). Without a functional brain, this is impossible. It matters not a bit what other body parts are present.

3. Newly-fertilized embryos do not have brains. They therefore are not constitutionally protected. It is no less moral to abort such an embryo than it is to pluck a hair from one's head. Neither is going to feel any pain, neither is conscious, and neither possesses the ability to think. Human life starts at conception or even earlier, but personhood requires much more than a group of cells undergoing mitosis.

4. Late-term fetuses at the end of the eighth month do have brains, and they are functional. It is my opinion that by the time a baby is born, babies can think, and that they are sentient. I also believe that as children grow, their cognitive abilities improve, but even at birth they should be considered people.

- All right, now to engage some of the counter arguments. When I first debated this, I expected a great many more than I actually encountered. In actuality, I got several "repeat" counter arguments. That is to say, the same person used the same counter argument many times and in many forms without realizing that it was fundamentally flawed. I'll represent the ones I saw, however, and rebut them.

1. "But human life begins at conception. You even agree that this is the case. How can you kill a human life, you murderer?'

- It's true that I agree that human life begins at conception or earlier. I just disagree that human life in and of itself is of much value. I don't see you campaigning to protect innocent skin cells from being washed away every time someone washes their hands, yet that is also "human life". If you've ever plucked a gray hair, then you're as guilty of killing human life as any abortion doctor.

- There's a difference between human life and a human being. Human beings have rights, human life does not.

2. "Your argument is worthless, because you cannot give me an exact time when human beings begin in the womb."

- I don't think that's the case. I never said I knew exactly when this happened, I only argue that there are clear outer limits on both ends. Exactly where these two ends meet is something I'm not prepared to speculate on. I wouldn't be surprised however if it varied from child to child, depending upon a great many biological factors.

3. "A newly conceived embryo has the potential to become a human being, though. Jim the brain-dead man did not. That is the difference! You are denying that embryo the potential to develop into a human being."

- See, I told you we'd get to potential. Sure, I'll agree that a healthy embryo has the potential to eventually become a human being. However, acorns are not oak trees. Because it has the potential to someday become a human being does not mean that it is one right now. And if it isn't a human being right now, then it isn't immoral to dispose of it right now. At least, no more immoral than taking a shower.

4. "God puts a soul into a person at conception, therefore newly conceived embryos are people."

- If anyone could show any evidence of such a claim, I'd be interested in hearing it. As it stands, this is just a faith based belief. It's not even in the bible. "I knew you in the womb" does not tell us when a soul enters a body, does it?

5. "But the bible says..."

- The bible says lots of things. Most of them are physically impossible. Many are sickeningly evil. Some are too silly even to begin to take seriously.

6. "But you're killing BABIES! Look at these pictures. You can see little eyes and legs almost right away!"

- Eyes and legs do not make a human being. (Hearts and kidneys are TINKERTOYS! Heh. Young Frankenstein.) While these pictures so often published by anti-abortion activists may indeed invoke a strong emotional reaction, they do little else. Needless to say however, they're tremendously successful anyhow at swaying people.

7. "But each newly conceived embryo has a full set of DNA..."

- Every cell in our bodies has our DNA in it.

- I realize that this is a pretty hot topic, and I may have missed some of the counter arguments out there. It's been several months since I had this discussion, and since that time my account at that particular forum was deleted along with all of my posts (you can imagine how hard it was to comb through and piece together what I'd been saying the whole time). So, if you have some other objection to my argument that I've not represented here, feel free to let me know.

Politics forum (two threads on abortion there).

But I think this forum is appropriate for such discussions as well. Carry on.

Dear Bryan:

This is a worthy subject for sure, but I have to let you know that your posts just covered WAY too many pionts, and because so much was covered it would take an enormous amount of time and space to respond to. That is one reason it is one of the forum rules to limit posts to a couple of major points.. so possibly, could you pick out two major points from your post and ask for responses there? That would be much appreciated.

Seems like good grounds for a discussion. I used to know of some anti-abortion advocates, but none come to mind just as of yet

- Hmmm. Okay.

- Focus point: Do you think there is a legitimate difference between "human life" and a "human being", and if not, why not?

Not to be picky, but what is a "human being"? When does human life become a 'human being'?

If we don't know the answer, isn't it a little unwise to destroy a possible human being without a very good reason?

An analogy I've heard before is this:

You're out hunting and something is shaking in the bushes nearby. It is either:

1. A deer - which is okay to shoot (PETA fans take this one for granted for the moment )

2. Your son, who came along on the trip with you

Which is a more reasonable answer?

A. "Well, it could be my son. I'd better not fire until I know for sure. There is a possibility that I am destroying an innocent human being without a good reason (preserving my life)"

B. "I'm not prepared to speculate on. wether or not this is my son or a deer. Since I can't know either way, I'm justified in killing whatever it is that's making that sound."

Of course, that might be a false dilemma. Feel free to add a "C" option if possible

Not to be picky, but what is a "human being"? When does human life become a 'human being'? If we don't know the answer, isn't it a little unwise to destroy a possible human being without a very good reason?

- To err on the side of caution, yes? I would tend to agree. However, it's also clear that a 1 week old embryo is not a human being. It may be that a 6 month old one is... but I don't know enough about human development to comment. I need to study it more.

it's also clear that a 1 week old embryo is not a human being. It may be that a 6 month old one is... but I don't know enough about human development to comment. I need to study it more.

Hey, that's cool, I'm no biologist either. I'm uber-lay

Today @ 09:36 PM post located here
AtheistArchon:

- Focus point: Do you think there is a legitimate difference between "human life" and a "human being", and if not, why not?

That depends. If I had a loved one who was brain-dead, they would still be a human being to me. My deceased child (miscarriage, no less), father and grandparents are still human beings to me. I don't miss and grieve over non-persons.

On the other hand, your earlier portrayl of skin cells as "human life," I find that to be very disingenuous and stretching logic and reason to the breaking point - maybe even past it. There is a huge, HUGE difference between skin cells (or hair cells or sperm cells or egg cells) and a conceived child. While the former maybe be alive they are not in and of themselves "completely" (for lack of a better word) human. They are parts of a human. A zygote is in an of itself completely human. Yes, it's at an early stage of life, but then so is a fetus, a newborn, a toddler, a young child, an adolscent, etc.

That depends. If I had a loved one who was brain-dead, they would still be a human being to me. My deceased child (miscarriage, no less), father and grandparents are still human beings to me. I don't miss and grieve over non-persons.

- The fact that you have emotional connections to them doesn't mean they are human beings, with rights. I have an emotional connection to my car, for example.

On the other hand, your earlier portrayl of skin cells as "human life," I find that to be very disingenuous and stretching logic and reason to the breaking point - maybe even past it. There is a huge, HUGE difference between skin cells (or hair cells or sperm cells or egg cells) and a conceived child.

- Wait wait... let's not use vague terms here. How exactly is a skin cell different from a fertilized egg cell?

- Both are the product of human beings, and both are human life. What else?

While the former maybe be alive they are not in and of themselves "completely" (for lack of a better word) human. They are parts of a human. A zygote is in an of itself completely human.

- Again, what's the difference? A skin cell is not 50% human and 50% reptillian... it's 100% human. So is a newly fertilized embryo. Yet neither are human beings.

Yes, it's at an early stage of life, but then so is a fetus, a newborn, a toddler, a young child, an adolscent, etc.

- But a teenager has higher brain function (and a brain). So does a newborn.

However, it's also clear that a 1 week old embryo is not a human being.

Why not?

It may be that a 6 month old one is...

Why? What's the difference? At what point do you draw the line? And how do we determine where that line is? And how accurately do we make that determination?

but I don't know enough about human development to comment. I need to study it more.

Please do. I find that many people who actually study the unborn come to the conclusion that abortion is immoral and should be reserved for only the most greivous situations such as a mortal threat to the mother (which, incidentally, former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and hundreds of other doctors - including former abortionists - across the country have affirmed has been meaningless for years thanks to medical advances).

- The fact that you have emotional connections to them doesn't mean they are human beings, with rights. I have an emotional connection to my car, for example.

Then define what a human being is. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary and Dictionary.com websites each define "human being" simply as "[a] human." (The latter website also provides the following definition: "any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae.") So what is a human? Again, checking the online dictionaries, we find the [noun] definitions "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)" (which is somewhat inaccurate because not all humans have both legs) and "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens." So how do we know what an unborn child is? Look at its genes and DNA. They tell you that this is a human [being].

- Wait wait... let's not use vague terms here.

Practice what you preach. (See above.)

How exactly is a skin cell different from a fertilized egg cell?

As I stated, a skin cell in and of itself is only part of a human. A fertilized egg cell in and of itself is a human.

- Both are the product of human beings, and both are human life. What else?

The process of conception is very different from any other process in the human body. It seems to me that you are using your descriptions (e.g. "product") very loosely and inaccurately.

- Again, what's the difference? A skin cell is not 50% human and 50% reptillian... it's 100% human. So is a newly fertilized embryo. Yet neither are human beings.

A fertilized embryo is genetically very different from a human skin cell.

- But a teenager has higher brain function (and a brain). So does a newborn.

But neither would have higher brain functions had they never been embryos. Also, newborns are still developing many brain functions. Should they be considered of less value than older children or adults? Why or why not?

Mr. Archon, I think you have underestimated the force of the "potential" objection to your scenario. Allow me to create a scenario with our friend Jim in order to demonstrate.

Let's say that Jim gets hit in the head (really hard). Consequently, Jim is a complete vegetable. He has no "higher brain function". His family is in despair. They decide to pull the plug of Jim's life-support. But wait, the doctor has good news.

It turns out that there is a high probality that Jim will regain conciousness in the future. In fact, due to advanced medical techniques, the doctor has determined with 100% certainty that Jim will be fully functioning in a few weeks. The family is overjoyed. They decide, of course, to keep Jim on life-support until he regains his ability for "higher brain function".

Unfortunately, a man named Jack doesn't like Jiim. Jack comes into the medical room and severs Jim's head. Too bad. Jim has no chance of higher brain function now.

Jim's family presses charges against Jack. However, Jack's attorney argues that (your quote, modified):

"Jim, a brain-dead individual, did not have higher brain function. Jim therefore is not constitutionally protected. It is no less moral for my client to kill Jim than it is to pluck a hair from one's head."

Would you agree, Archon, that Jack should get off scot-clean for killing brain-dead Jiim?

This story closely parallels the case with abortion. True, the fetus does not yet have "higher brain function", but nonetheless, barring violent intervention, the fetus WILL develop a brain and WILL become a person. Just like our good friend Jim. It therefore seems that you are going to face a moral dillemma if you wish to uphold your defense of abortion.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

This story closely parallels the case with abortion. True, the fetus does not yet have "higher brain function", but nonetheless, barring violent intervention, the fetus WILL develop a brain and WILL become a person. Just like our good friend Jim. It therefore seems that you are going to face a moral dillemma if you wish to uphold your defense of abortion.

- It's possible that any embryo can develop into a fully functional human being, yes. However, I don't think the question is whether we give rights to "potential" humans or not, because if we did, every sperm and egg would be considered sacred! They are, after all, potentially human beings. All they need is to be combined and kept under the proper conditions. Where should we draw the line?

- I don't think the fact that something (x) has the potential to become something else later (y) mandates that x=y right now.

It seems to me, Archon, that you slightly dodged the issue. You did not really answer my question as to whether or not Jack should get off scot-free for severing the head of our hapless friend Jim.

You ask where we should draw the line. In my opinion, the line should be drawn at conception. At this point, the embryo has all of the instructions in order to develop into a fully-functioning individual. It is already in the process of developing into a human being. This is exactly the same as with our friend Jim. Jim is in the process of becoming fully-functional. So I don't really think a distinction can be made.

Of course, we needn't treat seperate sperm and eggs as sacred. The seperated sperm and egg do not have the informational capacity to develop into a human with higher brain function. The seperated sperm and egg are not in the process of developing into a human with higher brain function. Therefore, they are not protected under the constitution.

Once again, it is important that you answer my question about Jim. If you are going to argue that human life without higher brain function is not protected by the constitution, than neither is our good pal Jim.

Why not?

- Because it does not have a brain, much less higher brain function. These things are necessary in order to be a human being. Do you disagree?

Why? What's the difference? At what point do you draw the line? And how do we determine where that line is? And how accurately do we make that determination?

- Why? Higher brain function. As for the specifics, I don't know.

Please do. I find that many people who actually study the unborn come to the conclusion that abortion is immoral and should be reserved for only the most greivous situations such as a mortal threat to the mother (which, incidentally, former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and hundreds of other doctors - including former abortionists - across the country have affirmed has been meaningless for years thanks to medical advances).

- I will, but I seriously doubt that anything I find will show that newly fertilized eggs possess brains.

Then define what a human being is. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary and Dictionary.com websites each define "human being" simply as "[a] human." (The latter website also provides the following definition: "any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae.") So what is a human? Again, checking the online dictionaries, we find the [noun] definitions "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)" (which is somewhat inaccurate because not all humans have both legs) and "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens."

- All of the above, including a functional brain.

- An embryo does not possess this. Ergo, it cannot be a human being. I did explain this in my first post.

So how do we know what an unborn child is? Look at its genes and DNA. They tell you that this is a human [being].

- It WILL be one, if allowed to mature. But at the moment, it is only an embryo. Simply possessing genes and DNA does not make something a human being.

As I stated, a skin cell in and of itself is only part of a human. A fertilized egg cell in and of itself is a human.

- No, a skin cell is a part of a human being, and also is completely human (and not, say, avian). A fertilized egg cell is yet another cell, a product of humans, also not yet a human being. It may grow to be one eventually.

- As I demonstrated in my first post, you cannot be a human being without a brain and higher brain function. You are not a person without these things. Human "life" is not constitutionally protected, while human beings (people) are.

The process of conception is very different from any other process in the human body.

- So?

It seems to me that you are using your descriptions (e.g. "product") very loosely and inaccurately.

- How so?

A fertilized embryo is genetically very different from a human skin cell.

- As is a red blood cell, yet that's not a human being either.

But neither would have higher brain functions had they never been embryos.

- Granted. Yet embryos are not human beings... they MIGHT be one day.

Also, newborns are still developing many brain functions. Should they be considered of less value than older children or adults? Why or why not?

- Some people do indeed hold this opinion. I do not. Why not? Because I believe newborns have higher brain function.