People who believe that "life" begins at conception have a real problem with definitions.
"Life" exists in sperm. It exists, as well, in an unfertilized egg. It exists, in fact, in every cell of our bodies.
So "life" begins well before conception, but I'm sure that even the "pro-life" crowd isn't stupid enough to want to legislate protections for every single sperm and egg harbored in a human body.
The appropriate question is not "when does 'life' begin?"
Neither is the appropriate question "when does human 'life' begin?" Every sperm and every unfertilized egg contains human life.
The appropriate question is "at what point does a fertilized egg become a person?"
Now, if you wish to simply define a "person" as "any fertilized egg and its subsequent stages of development," I can offer up some real problems posed by that definition. Does a fertilized egg have citizenship? Do we count every fertilized egg in our census? Should we count it as a dependent for tax purposes? And there are many others, which, if you have the capability of rational thought, shouldn't be too difficult to discover.
How, then, should we define a "person?"
Webster's, inconveniently, defines it as a "human being," and it defines a "human being" as something having "human traits." It doesn't specify which human traits are either necessary or sufficient to include as definitive of either a "human being" or a "person."
The New World Encyclopedia isn't very helpful, either. It outlines the characteristics of a "human being," first, as any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens, a group of ground-dwelling, tailless primates that are distributed worldwide and are characterized by bipedalism and the capacity for speech and language, with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects. Humans share with other primates the characteristics of opposing thumbs, omnivorous diet, five fingers (pentadactyl) with fingernails, and binocular, color vision. Humans are placed in the family Hominidae, which includes such apes as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, as well as including such close, extinct relatives as Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus.
It then goes on to include in its definition what it terms psychological, social, and spiritual characteristics, such as the capability of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. It discusses the inherent characteristic of being social, of seeking to communicate with others, of curiosity, and so on, including a spiritual propensity and tendency to form religions.
I can find nothing in these definitions to describe a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg is not "bipedal," as it has no legs. It hasn't the capcity for "speech and language," as it has no brain. It hasn't an "erect body carriage," nor "hands," nor "opposing thumbs. It hasn't an "omnivorous diet," "five fingers," "fingernails," nor "binocular, color vision." It hasn't the capacity for abstract reasoning (or, in fact, reasoning of any kind, language or introspection. It isn't particularly social, nor does it "communicate with others." It isn't in the least curious. Nor does it tend towards religion.
It isn't, by any reasonable definition, a "person." It has no individuality other than a unique DNA structure, no wants, desires, hopes, dreams, beliefs. It has no central nervous system, so no sensory data. It knows nothing, feels nothing, and has no investment in even its own existence. It is a microscopic bit of human DNA which, under the right circumstances, may one day turn into a person.
And it is imbued with all the "rights" the woman who carries it in her womb concedes it. And no more.
SLL
| 
