I'd say 9 is more fun to pick apart. Looks like there's only two kinds of religions in the world, those that worship the Right Deity and those that worship Moloch.
needless to go on theology grounds to argue against unborn killing. you don't need to accept any particular theology to come to the conclusion.
btw it is sorted in a list not because of any argumentation structure.
i don't think (and don't see what indicated it to you) that there are only these 2 options in terms of worship targets. but phrasing the other option the "only" "right" one, paints me an intolerant blind-faithed, which i reject.
yea, i thought that referring to a supernatural being by a name which is also found in books associated with religion may indeed turn the reader dismissive. however i hoped a slight chance to draw maybe a few reader's attention to the point that fetus-killing arguments often are as religion-based as the oppotent is represented to be. the difference which hides this similarity is that religions which are not public, visible, inquireable, are not called "religion".
This angle works in the other direction as well: Is a newborn a human? If yes, is a baby in the process of being born a human? If yes, is a baby who will be born in a week a human?
My understanding is that opinion polls show most people have a moderate opinion on abortion, which seems pretty reasonable given that "becoming human" is something that happens in a continuous manner over a 9-month period.
most of the times they don't argue about killing single cells, but an undisputedly multicellular fetus with human DNA.
the conceived egg cell is already a new member of the given species. why? has it to be of a species? if yes, which one other than human? if no, when this "growing clump of cells" become an organization separate from its host? i don't know other event of a pregnancy which more clearly shows that here is something new which was not there before.
"Can a human be a single cell?" can it be 2? or 3? …
> the conceived egg cell is already a new member of the given species. why? has it to be of a species? if yes, which one other than human?
A cell being of a species does not make it an instance of that species, in the same way that a skin cell is a human cell but is not itself a human.
> "Can a human be a single cell?" can it be 2? or 3? …
If a single cell is not an instance of a human, it follows that there is some point during pregnancy where an instance of a human exists where one did not previously. Mostly the disagreement is about where this line is.
> in the same way that a skin cell is a human cell but is not itself a human.
IMO, there is a substantial difference between a conceived egg and any other cells: an egg turns into a human being over time (provided it's left doing its businnes normally), other kind of cells don't operate this way AFAIK.
> there is some point during pregnancy where an instance of a human exists where one did not previously
completely agree. IMO we can even extend it by omitting the "If a single cell is not an instance of a human" condition: even if we qualify a specific single cell to be a human, there must be a point when it became a human.
yes, miscarriage is a real death of a human. is it killing? yes, it can be a result of an intentional act. can it be caused by neglect? yes, then it's the unintentional taking of a human life.
why we usually threat neglecting the born and unborn differently? because they need different level and kind of care: eg. smoking hurts unborn differently than born. did the mother eat honey which happened to be infected and caused her embryo to die? it was not considered neglect until this honey-effect was discovered.
