01-25-2017, 05:34 PM
(01-25-2017, 05:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.
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.
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:
To me it isn't a semantics argument, nor should it be.
Why do you think they are trying to get the bill passed?
