It's not a single cell, it's always multiple cells when the abortion occurs; a single cell would not be detectable, and the woman would not even know she were pregnant, so it's not really applicable, but in any case, it's still human.
So the morning after pill is not abortion?
Also, two cells are just as incapable of sentience. Conscious thought requires a neural network. I can't even imagine all the complexities it would require but to start it would have to store information (perception/memory), organize information and put it in context with other information (conceptualize), and manipulate components of information to come up with new information (comprehension). That alone would take a whole lot of
brain cells.
I don't believe rights end at death at all.
Even the right to live? The right to have a will, or to not have your body acted upon without permission? Death makes a person relinquish control and thought and even cares about the world or themselves, and legal rights generally reflect that.
People do have the right to live. If someone kills that person, he violated that right. Now that the person is dead, sadly, that right can no longer be enforced, but that person still has the right to, like you pointed out, have his will followed and have done with his body what he wanted done with it.
My point is that he no longer has a will in the sense of will power. He no longer has the rights the come with the ability to change his mind or anything else that requires sentience.
A legal document of a will is prepared in advanced for when he loses his ability to dictate distribution of property. A king can set up conditions for his 'retirement' from power, but he no longer has the privileges he had when he retires. A dead man cannot vote, he cannot sue, he cannot do anything after death, because he lost his consciousness.
Genetics was one example of something that shows that a human is already fully alive after conception. A developing human is still a human, is it not?
If being alive is enough to grant rights to life, then you would either be a hypocrite or dead. Everything you eat was alive before it was deemed more important to keep you alive. Whether it be lettuce or cows, it was farmed and killed to feed you.
A developing human is just that, a human. Saying otherwise is just oversimplifying it into larger categories to grant it the same rights as things that are very dissimilar. An intelligent monkey is more similar to a human (than a developing human) in almost every way except genetics.
And if it is genetics, what would make the A's,T's,C's, and G's any in humans more deserving of rights?
Lettuce is not a human or animal. It does not possess and will never possess a central nervous system, consciousness. It will can never feel pain, it can never feel emotion.
Beautiful. You've begun respecting life for its capacity to perceive and feel.
I disagree that an intelligent monkey is more similar to a human than a human, whether developing or not. Humans are always developing and continue to develop until they die. It's not just genetics.
A full grown monkey can run, walk, reason, feel pain, feel happiness, prioritize, observe and comprehend it's surroundings, etc. An embryo cannot. A cluster of cells young enough to be incapable of thought, is nothing but genetically human, and technically alive. Lettuce or fungus is alive, but not respected. You already admitted genetics aren't a deciding factor.
How is another animal capable of perception and action
more dissimilar from a human than a cluster of cells incapable of both perception and action?