system
A chat on subreddit /r/PoliticalCompassMemes
human
That's actually a huge oversimplification that comes with huge ethical consequences that you might not have thought through.

Like does that mean that fertility treatments are now murder, since they need to make multiple embryos for each treatment, most of which end up not being used?
Also, 50-75% of pregnancies result in loss of the baby, with most of those losses occurring in the very first stages after conception. If you consider something as a human from the moment of conception, that would mean that for each baby born, 1-3 babies would die. At that point, it would be essentially unethical to have children at all, since you'd need to let children die in order to procreate.

I would argue that there is a more indeed a point during pregnancy where a fetus can be defined as a person, but to put that point at conception doesn't make sense to me.

Even scientifically, it doesn't make that much sense to). define a single-celled zygote as a person. At that point in the pregnancy, it doesn't have any differentiated tissues, let alone a functioning central nervous system. In terms of biological functionality, it's not that much different from a plant or microbe.
Now you could argue that it has the necessary components to develop into a full person, which would make it eligible for being classified as such. However, a zygote doesn't actually have all the necessary developmental factors to fully develop into a human. Many of those, it needs to get from the mother.
So to summarize, I'd say that while an embryo might be characterized as a new life after conception, I disagree that you can label it as a full person (with all the rights that come attached to that).
gpt
&gt;I would argue that there is a more indeed a point during pregnancy where a fetus can be defined as a **person**

That's great and all but it's a **human** since conception.