The road to full humanity is a long one, with no discreet boundaries. Common boundaries, such as conception, heartbeat, viability, and birth are not meaningful in defining what it is to be human. For example, "the moment of conception" takes hours. Insect embryos have heartbeats in a matter of days. Viability is dependent on technology. Even birth is arbitrary, as a fetus, minutes before birth is virtually identical to a newborn baby. One could even argue that full humanity requires brain functions such as language. We believe that there is no possibility of ever defining a discreet definition of when an embryo becomes a human. This fact does not lead one to inevitably support or oppose abortion. One side could say that since there is no real and meaningful boundary, a single-cell fertilized egg is a potential human, and potential humans have rights. The other side could say that since there is no meaningful boundary, we leave that choice to the woman. The fact that the boundary to humanity is arbitrary does not mean that the state cannot impose arbitrary limits. Arbitrary is not necessarily wrong. If "humanity" depends on drawing a distinct line across a continuous progression (which is impossible) the whole debate is contingent upon opinions that cannot be verified. Subcamps on this issue then depend on where to draw the line.