Egnor commented on Myers' statements. Myers responded and essentially argued that treating the unborn like human beings devalues other human beings. Interestingly, although he's a biology professor, Myers didn't provide a single scientific argument for why the unborn aren't human beings. He provided a photo of an egg being fertilized and what I believe is a human embryo alongside a photo of a group of young women. He concluded,
Maybe when Egnor graduates to something beyond the 101 level, he'll learn that human cells are not equivalent to a full human life. An "unborn child" (what a silly euphemism!) is not suddenly a person at conception: development is a gradual process of epigenesis, in which information and complexity expand over time, and the person does not form in an instant. There is no black-and-white boundary between non-personhood and personhood — it's an arbitrary line drawn in a continuum.Note how Myers can't seem to separate the biological question (is the unborn a human being?) from the philosophical question (is the unborn a person?).
Egnor posted a response in which he attempts to separate the above questions and see what criteria Myers believe instills human beings with the right to life.
Myers asserts that personhood is a continuum, and that some human beings on that continuum are not persons with the right to life, and some are. What is the inflection point? What minimal characteristic(s) of a human being entitle that human being to a right to life? Please note that I am not asking about age (28 weeks of gestation, full term infant, etc), but rather about the characteristics of a human being at a particular age that represent the threshold for the right to life.
To reiterate, here's my view:
The right to life depends only on being human.
So here's my question for Myers:
What characteristic(s) must a human being have (awareness, rationality, independent existence, etc) for that human being to have a right to life?