And they try again...

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "Pro Life."  Life is in the term. So a stand against abortion or a Pro Life stand does stem from the definition of human life.  The bill proposes a definition of when human life begins. My question pertains to what constitutes human life and what doesn't.  I don't understand how my question doesn't matter.

Listen, I said that the law should not be based on a definition, so the point is kind of lost on me. If the law is based on the definition that life starts with conception and hence abortion is murder, I'd stand up against it (in my country at least, in yours no one would care what I do). So there's that.
I have seen no one in here yet that stated abortions need to be outlawed because of this definition. So I think you're kind of fighting with shadows.

(01-25-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The technical difference is this: if we assign individual rights to a living, single celled, genetically unique, human zygote we must also assign individual rights to a living, single celled, genetically unique, human gamete.  Which means any form of birth control is murder the same as a Pro Lifer believes abortion is murder.  Male masturbation=murder.  Gonna have to outlaw that, too.  Which means sex is for procreation only.  Sex for pleasure will need to be outlawed as well.

That's a line of thinking that would be relevant if anyone had said "we have to outlaw abortion because the zygode is the starting point of life".
It might be someone's personal belief, but again, no one fell into that line of argueing in the first place.

(01-25-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, that is not what most scientist agree on.  It is what most people without a biology background believe scientists believe when they read a biology textbook or the textbooks are poorly worded for a middle or high school classroom when they try to apply the science to an abortion argument because the textbooks aren't written for an abortion argument.

Does the development of a new human begin with fertilization?  Yes.  Is that the start of new human life?  No.

Well, I looked around a bit, trying to find a scientific consensus that life starts at some later stage of embryonal development. Couldn't find that consensus. I found some that claimed it's an ethical question and can't be truely answered scientifically. I found more evidence that said fertilization is the starting point for human life. Without any political implication.
You can take a look at this or you can claim that's nonsense and the answer has to be a different one, whatever. I found these and similar descriptions as being quite unbiased. But I'm not a biologist, sure.

This I found on rationalwiki and it sums up what I have to say to all this:

Quote:The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.

(01-25-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The whole sanctity of human life or Pro Life or human life begins at fertilization argument is a semantics argument.  The definitions matter in any sematics argument or any legal argument.

To me it isn't a semantics argument, nor should it be.