I generally agree with this, but I would also like to draw your attention to an important word choice you used: You said "with proper care an nourishment can eventually grow into an adult of the species." This might be splitting hairs, but I think it's kind of at the crux as to where we differ on this issue. Just because something "can" eventually grow into an adult doesn't mean it legally must under penalty of the law.
A zygote can become a human life. It can also:
- Be used to regrow tissue including restoring brain function
- Not implant in the uterus and simply pass out of the reproductive system
- Result in a miscarriage
- Develop with life-incompatible medical conditions
- Develop in such a way that birth threatens the life of the mother
- Die during childbirth
because there is a high chance of it dying naturally. We don't make exceptions where it is okay for us to just 86 someone because they are highly likely to suffer a natural death.
And let me be totally clear: I do not think that if you believe a zygote is alive that you are absolutely wrong, immoral, or misguided. I simply believe that the government does not and should not have the power to implement a policy that requires everyone to abide by that same definition of life when others can just as easily provide alternate, equally valid definitions for what constitutes "life."
The government creates a policy that enforces a particular standard already. The lives that are lost as a result of abortion never agreed to the government-endorsed standard, and yet it was brutally forced upon them. The choice argument is peculiar to someone who already presupposes that the fetus does not merit protection under the law. Likewise I welcome you to hold that belief if it is what makes sense to you, but I think I should say that it's not going to be persuasive to the pro-life sort. At least you did not come out directly and chastise me for forcing my morality on others, like some people do.
If we give the government the power to declare that anything that any "genetically complete organism of the species H. sapiens," that "with proper care and nourishment can eventually grow into an adult of the species," is, in fact, a full living human being, we also give them the right to investigate the roughly half of all conceptions that do not result in a life birth as potential negligent manslaughter. We also open the door for the government requiring that all stem cells and in vitro zygotes are given the full care nourishment to become adult humans.
Does the government investigate centegenarians who die under unremarkable circumstances as potential negligent manslaughter? Some segments of the population are more prone than others to die of natural causes. This isn't something new or unprecedented, and there is little reason to believe that the government would actively pursue miscarrying mothers unless there was a very good reason to suspect foul play.
As for the in vitro zygotes and those conceived for stem cell harvesting, I am fine with saying that they should be protected.
We would also be giving the government the power to use any arbitrary definition of life that it chooses. Greeny leftist states could remove the "of the species H. sapiens" clause and declare that bacteria, mold, plants, and animals all have the same rights. Or, on the flipside, you could have states that remove "genetically complete" and declare masturbation to be murder.
They could also just scratch it out entirely and democide everyone. I don't see much value to entertaining bizarre pie in the sky hypotheticals.
Really, I think whether you identify as pro-life or pro-choice, we should all worry about giving the government the power that Roe v. Wade has ensured it does not wield. Consider what the other side will do with that power.
The power to protect unborn lives? The very low expected value of a downside carries little weight compared to the benefit of something being done about this.
