If killing a person is murder, then there is no legal justification in carrying it out because one is a victim of a crime. Yet, in capital punishment cases, we go ahead and do so anyways.
There is also the religious assertion that in its present state, a zygote is a human being, yet, say, the biological matter that is removed from the body in a woman's period is not. I am not aware of an argument that does not hinge on the zygote being empowered by a magical soul.
Well, a zygote is a developing human being while a placenta is clearly not. You don't have to believe in a soul to think that all human beings -- regardless of their stage of development -- merit legal protection.
A pre-menopausal woman carries thousands of eggs. Are they all also not human beings? Does the average woman commit at least one murder a month? What about the nutrients that might be assembled into a human being?
Giving the 'undifferentiated mass of cells is clearly a human being' argument even a slight push very quickly devolves into absurdity.
They are not humans because they are not fertilized eggs. Unfertilized eggs are haploid, not diploid, meaning they are unpaired chromosomes (am ignoring X and Y). It also means they could not produce a living human... too many problems owing to the missing second chromosome in each pair. Is like having 25,000 gene deletions!
Some animals have a phenomenon called parthenogenesis which allows an unfertilized egg to develop into a living organism. This does not naturally happen in humans. (And I doubt it happens unnaturally.)
The biggest "murderer", using the definition of the religious people, is the "god" himself, as it is known that, biologically, many of the inseminated egg cells don't end up ever becoming babies, failing to attach to the uterus and getting ejected. Even many that attach don't survive long enough to develop, resulting in a natural "miscarriage" later. That's simply how the reproduction mechanisms work.
So why again should humans be punished when it happens all the time anyway "by design"?
> Well, a zygote is a developing human being while a placenta is clearly not.
In that case, pro-lifers should have no issues with a pregnant woman asking her doctor to remove her placenta - as long as they don't touch the zygote.
Or the equivalent of removing life support and having them die slowly and painfully, rather than simply administering an overdose of morphine. I do like that the issues blend at this point, though - removing the placenta is something I haven't considered. It would be legal because you can legally take someone off life support.
It seems to equate to imprisoning someone in the house of a very poor person who can only afford to feed themselves, and requiring that poor person to provide the prisoner with food, and then punishing the poor person when they refuse.
There is also the religious assertion that in its present state, a zygote is a human being, yet, say, the biological matter that is removed from the body in a woman's period is not. I am not aware of an argument that does not hinge on the zygote being empowered by a magical soul.