Fertilized egg is a human being

Michael G. Albrow’s Jan. 22 letter, headlined, “Fertilized egg being called a child?” stated, “How can a fertilized human egg be called a child? The actual difference between a fertilized human egg and a fertilized chimpanzee egg is biologically minuscule.”

The writer calls the difference, “minuscule,” to imply the difference between the two is nonexistent or at least, insignificant. If the difference between the two types of fertilized eggs were truly insignificant, a fertilized human egg would produce a chimpanzee and vice versa, at least on some occasions. The fact is that a fertilized human egg never, ever leads to a chimpanzee being born and vice versa.

To say that the difference between the two types of fertilized eggs is “biologically minuscule,” is to intentionally overlook the critical differences, that define the essential characteristics of each which distinguishes the two so plainly.

The writer also wrote, “A mother is not a mother until her fist child is born, and an embryo is not a child until born.” In saying this, the writer concedes that once a child is born it is human. By saying that once a child is born it is human, we acknowledge the overarching principle that conception leads to a new human and arguing at what stage this occurs is just a matter of degree, indeed, is purely arbitrary. Such arbitrary determinations are just contrivances of convenience that are not based on any tenable principles.

Once conception has occurred, barring no abortive interference, a fertilized egg inexorably results in a human being. We perhaps can argue that a fertilized egg is a potential child-human being in the same way that a baby is a potential adult-human being, but we cannot argue whether it is a human being — that is predetermined.

Brian Van Dine

Carol Stream