[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
BTirish,

I didn't actually mean to contradict your post directly, I was referring to general opinion on the start of life as creation of a unique pattern (you have to reply to someone). I think that definition is weak and being concerned because we as a whole potentially missed out on one random set of chemicals being created is no loss (I meant that concern is anal, like being concerned a small part of large and meaningless trivia collection is missing, I fully support defining terms [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess you aren't in fact calling me anal, because I recognize it as obvious that a human zygote is anything but a "random set of chemicals." A human organism (or any organism) is anything but a merely random arrangement of chemicals--there is nothing (significantly) more finely materially ordered in the entire universe.

I note that you're essentially begging the question of the significance of a human zygote or embryo by referring to it as "just a set of random chemicals." If it's just a "set of random chemicals," then so are you. And if any "set of random chemicals" is insignificant and expendable, then so are you. Fortunately, neither it nor you are a set of random chemicals; unfortunately, you can't get away with simply dismissing the possibility that an entity that is smaller than the size of a grain of salt might be of infinite moral worth, simply because it is so small.