1: This gets to the problem of parts versus wholes.
2: This is not an argument at all. People die at all stages of life, and it would be unreasonable to expect the unborn to be an exception to this.
3: Braindead people are still people, and killing is not letting die.
4: This is where our disagreement lies.
5: I look forward to that day strongly.
Section-by-section (how many more terms for parts can we come up with? :) )
1. I see it more as a concern of consciousness versus non-consciousness. Possession of a consciousness, even a rudimentary one, I would argue is necessary (if not sufficient) to be a sentient life form.
2. Yes, people do die at all stages of life. And when someone takes actions (even unknowing ones) that directly result in someone's death, we arrest them for it. So if the unborn are to be considered persons, with the same rules applied to them as are applied to the born, it would seem to follow that you are proposing that people should be arrested for taking actions (even unknowing ones) that directly result in the death of a zygote.
3. If my body ends up without a resident (braindeath) I'd far rather my body be quickly killed than left to slowly die of starvation and thirst over several days.
4. Yes, it is. To use a computer analogy, I see people as a combination of hardware (the physical body) and software (the neurological activity in the brain that comprises the consciousness, memory, etc) When the hardware is damaged beyond repair, the software has nowhere to run, and is lost as well. Maybe someday we'll be able to upload our software onto different hardware (computer networks, etc), but right now, we cannot. Without the software, the hardware is just....there. The brain is kind of like the hard drive. Even if wiped, it'll retain some of the original software that might be retrieved. (coming out of a coma, for example. The software was in sleep mode.) Before that software is installed, or even the hard drive added to the system, there's nothing there.
5. Hmm. Now I'm wondering how much progress is being made towards this, or even towards the possibility of transplanting a zygote/blastocyte/embryo/fetus from one womb to another, kind of like a post-fertilization surrogate. I'd think that this would be an area of research that would get support from multiple sides.
1: That is another argument entirely. I was replying to your equating an embryo with a blood cell.
2: I fail to see your point. If a pregnant woman behaves recklessly and her child dies as a result, she is guilty of negligent manslaughter. Not all miscarriages are caused this way.
3: And that is your decision to make regarding your own body, and your own body only.
4: A computer with no software is still a computer.
5: If I had more training I'd go into this field. Of course, there is the dilemma of testing it without killing some embryos.
1, 3, & 4: These seem to have combined, focusing on the definition of a 'person'. Your definition seems to be (and please correct me if I am wrong in my perception) that the definition of a person is based solely on the biological (the computer, if you will), while mine is more weighted towards the neurological (the software).
2: Let's say we have a hypothetical person, Susan. Susan and her boyfriend have sex, resulting in a fertilized egg, a single-celled zygote. After sex, she and her boyfriend go downstairs and have a couple of beers while watching TV. Because of the alcohol, Susan's chemical balance shifts slightly and the zygote fails to implant successfully and dies. Should Susan be arrested for negligent homicide?
5: Extensive testing before it ever gets close to human testing would of course be required. And even human testing would probably begin with test cases where the zygote/blastocyte/embryo/fetus was going to die anyway if nothing was done. A fatally ill/wounded mother, cases where the embryo/fetus has become dislodged and kill both the mother and itself if left alone, etc.
1, 3, & 4: That is correct. Answer me this: if I were to develop a self-aware computer program, would it be immoral for me to delete it?
2: Not in this particular case, because she was unaware that she was pregnant. Though I'm not sure how anyone would find out.
3: I would have no problem with this.
1, 3, &4: Yes. Causing the unwilling death of a self-aware, sentient being is wrong, whether that sentient being is human, alien, or artificial.
2: But negligent homicide covers causing a person's death through ignorance (as I recall, any legal experts feel free to correct me), so being unaware that her actions would kill the zygote would not absolve her of the crime. If a zygote, at the moment of fertilization, is to be considered a person, with all the rights thereof, then actions taken that terminate the zygote would have to be considered homicide, even if taken in ignorance. I think, and again please correct me if I am wrong, that your position depends strongly upon intent. Intending to terminate the zygote/blastocyte/embryo/fetus would be murder, while accidentally doing so (via drinking, unexpected side effects of other medication, stress, falling, etc) would not be.
5: The thought of developing an artificial womb naturally leads me to thoughts of cloning. There is talk of being able to grow someone a new heart or other organ from a cell sample, I wonder if the same techniques could be used to grow an artificial womb for the embryo to be transferred to. I love science. :)
The most common (or at least most advertised) opposition to abortion is rooted in the personification of the cell mass that results from a biological process, or perhaps the perceived humanity of said cell mass. Many anti-abortion supporters feel that it's wrong to "end a life/potential for life".
Once all the personal feelings are taken out of the issue, there is no longer any reason to object to (first trimester) abortions any more than there is reason to object to corrective eye surgery or mole removal.
These two ways of thinking are very similar to the differences between how theists and atheists see the world.
1: Prenatal personhood is entirely logical even when emotion is removed.
2: With no religion to bias them either pro or anti, atheists would likely be 50-5 on abortion. However, with many religions being anti-abortion, many atheist reject prenatal personhood along with everything else linked to religion. This contributes to the pro-abortion atheist crowd, putting more pressure on anti-abortion atheists to change.