Anonymous wrote:Because an unfertilized egg can never be a human. Unless it's met up with a sperm and is therefore fertilized.

This makes no sense--a fertilized egg can never be human unless it begins cell division. And implants in the uterus. And a thousand other contingencies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because a fertilized egg has all the material that makes a unique human. An unfertilized egg does not.

You say that right after Christmas!?

Lmfao!!

Anonymous wrote:Because a fertilized egg has all the material that makes a unique human. An unfertilized egg does not.

You say that right after Christmas!?

So because in the future it might be unnecessary to have a uterus, that means that we have the right to conscript someone's uterus today?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because a fertilized egg has all the material that makes a unique human. An unfertilized egg does not.

No. It does not. It needs a uterus and an endocrine environment suitable for development. It's not in there developing on it's own. There's a complicated feedback process with the woman's body. The fertilized egg needs all that additional pushing (and taking) to develop. This is why we can't just grow human beings from fertilized eggs in test tubes. For a human being you need sperm, egg, and healthy uterus.

Yeah, that's what it needs right now. But I expected that in the not too distant future that won't be the case.

Babies born at 30 weeks gestation used to be hopeless...now they pretty much all live. 24 weeks used to be seen as the limit of viability, now more than half 23 weekers live. Many 22 weekers have lived. The line of viability keeps moving back in pregnancy. Science will overcome the need for a healthy uterus. But you will always need a full set of DNA. Even for a cloned child there will be a full set of DNA, not just an egg.

can your egg be birthed without sperm, you know, outside of having your period?
will you nurse and care for your egg?
send it daycare and school?
watch it walk across the graduation stage?

can your embryo be birthed without [a uterus]?
will you nurse and care for your embryo?
send it daycare and school?
watch it walk across the graduation stage?

It really is not so horrifically different except for the additional missing element of sperm. The embryo still isn't going to turn into anything without a "host". I think OP has a fair point. But then again, I find it nuts that we can't agree there's a difference between an embryo and a full term baby.

Anonymous wrote:Because a fertilized egg has all the material that makes a unique human. An unfertilized egg does not.

No. It does not. It needs a uterus and an endocrine environment suitable for development. It's not in there developing on it's own. There's a complicated feedback process with the woman's body. The fertilized egg needs all that additional pushing (and taking) to develop. This is why we can't just grow human beings from fertilized eggs in test tubes. For a human being you need sperm, egg, and healthy uterus.

Anonymous wrote:The difference is the all-important male contribution.
If we were governed by asexual reproduction, I doubt this would be an issue.

(tongue in cheek, in case it's not obvious)

Please, you KNOW libbers think men aren't necessary anyway

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because a woman's body trashes its own unfertilized egg every month.

It does that with fertilized eggs too.

Every month? Or only the ones that are not right? Biology. It's what's for dinner.

Anonymous wrote:Because an unfertilized egg can never be a human. Unless it's met up with a sperm and is therefore fertilized.

That you had to explain this....WOW!! Glad the publics offer all those health classes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice, but the argument is that an unfertilized egg is not a unique and complete genetic package. The difference between fertilized and unfertilized eggs is vast, if you consider their potential.

The only difference is fertilization.
Compare a full term baby to a fertilized egg, not much in common. Anything can happen between the trip from fertilized egg to full term baby.
So therefore difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg is not much

A fertilized egg outside of a womb has zero chance of becoming a baby. So, in that sense, it is no different from a unfertilized egg in terms of potential.

Because a fertilized egg has all the material that makes a unique human. An unfertilized egg does not.

There is, absolutely, no excuse for this discrimination between the fertilized and the unfertilized ovum. I ask you; who speaks for the unfertilized ovum? Every adult female, during the thirty years or so of her reproductive life, produces an ovum that has the potential of becoming a living, breathing human being. Yet, in the majority of cases, the female chooses to deny the sustenance (i.e., male spermatozoa), that would allow that ovum to continue its natural growth and development. That sustenance is absurdingly easy to provide. One could simply announce, via Craigslist, Facebook, or other social media, that one is fertile and ready to receive the male seed; and undoubtedly, there would be a ready supply of available male donors.

I announce that I, personally, am willing and ready, most of the time, to supply such sustenance, provided that I can supply it fresh and live, via the normal means. I prefer slim, young big-breasted redheads, or blondes, with upturned nipples; but I am open to other proposals. Please send a recent picture.

In the event that some females should find difficulty with obtaining male volunteer sperm donors for natural live transmissions; meeting their personal emotional needs; because of "hotness" issues; it is entirely possible that a volunteer bank of spermatozoa donations could be set up to accommodate such donations. In fact, it is inevitable.

Shouldn't an adult female be required, under penalty of law, to provide sustenance for each and every one of those potential human beings during her entire reproductive life?

Under this scenario, every adult female would probably produce 30 or more offspring during her reproductive life, and the population would increase exponentially, to the extent that the human race might cover every square foot of dry land within a few generations, and crowd each other off into the sea in the coastal areas.

Its trivially easy to find a willing sperm to fertilize an egg.

Not so easy to find a woman to put their life at risk to carry it for 9 months.

OP looks like Arizona agrees with you--

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-law-arizona-states-pregnancy-begins-two-weeks-before-conception