It is murder, simple as that. The moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new unique genetic material is formed, which is damn near the closest thing we have to an

It is murder, simple as that. The moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new unique genetic material is formed, which is damn near the closest thing we have to an objective standard of when a new human life is started. Embryo is a stage of development in a human being (and many other life forms on this planet). Maybe it's not synonymous with baby, I could grant that, and allow for baby to represent a different and later stage of development (possibly after birth), but even if I grant this, I'll still say killing that embryo is akin to murder. (Calling it a baby or child regardless of being inside the womb is still fairly natural and common in everyday speech.) There's a grave fallacy in the article where it tries to compare an acorn to an oak tree. No, the acorn is not an oak tree. No more than a baby is an adult. But where the acorn is still oak, a baby is still human. Further fallacies are made as it tries to compare (and maybe equate?) human embryos with that of pigs and cows. Yeah... no. A woman is not going to give birth to a cow. That doesn't happen. The article doesn't really do anything to establish anything new. It's only trying to dehumanize human development before birth. Four ethical alternatives to abortion: * Abstinence * Contraception * Adoption * Motherhood The last of these is the most preferential, and none of them involve murdering other humans.