Your thread title is disgusting. It implies Pro life advocates are taking some kind of overt action to impact infant mortality rates.
Contrast that with Pro choice advocates who are overtly taking a life by aborting a living human being.
2 Likes
Think about what you are saying.
A womanâs egg is made up of living cells. It isnât dead by any definition. It is fertile and it is alive. A male deposits living sperm. The sperm isnât dead by any definition. Live sperm fertilizes a live egg and a human being is conceived.
There can be no dispute that all of this takes place with living cells and tissue.
So your real question should be, when do those living cells become a human life?
And that is where faith comes into play. Science plays no role here.
1 Like
I was questioning the assertion that there is a scientific statement about when life begins and so I asked for someone to provide the testable scientific hypothesis for that Thatâs what I was saying. If you want to cite science, then you should accept the processs of science.
So far no one has responded to my question. I am curious if anyone will.
As I stated. With pro life advocates it is a matter of faith, not of science. You are barking up the wrong tree with your question.
I responded to a categorical statement that scientists have proven life begins at conception. That is all I am challenging.
I recognize that one can state life begins at conception as a matter of faith, but you can also express the Jewish belief that life begins when a person draws their first breath. No clear way to decide between them of course.
Not exclusively it isnât.
1 Like
There is also the point I made. At no time is the act of creating a human life being made with anything that could be referred to as dead. So within that context, life isnât really beginning at all. Both the egg and the sperm are very much alive.
So in reality, what we are talking about is human life. When do we believe the living cells in the wifeâs body actually become a living human being. That really is a matter of faith. Science canât answer that question.
My only disagreement has been with people who are claiming science can answer the question. I donât believe it can.
I would tend to agree with you from a purely scientific point of view. But being pro life, my faith tells me that human life begins at conception. I really donât care what science has to say.
And if someone doesnât subscribe to your faith?
Under the 1st Amendment, we are each free to subscribe to and follow our own faiths. Good system. Where it runs into trouble is when people of one faith decide all others must follow their beliefs.
Thereâs a lot of that going around these days, all over the planet, unfortunately.
Faith is personal.
Does a soldier murder people on the battlefield? Are the eggs tossed out at ivf clinics murder? Is capital punishment murder? Self defense? Your definition doesnât really work, does it?
So youâre pro-choice. Ok.
Yes, no, no, and no. Murder is the unwarranted killing of someone else. My definition really does work. You can drop the condescending tone any time.
Iâm pro life. I believe human life begins at conception. I really donât care what anyone else believes.
And thereâs nothing wrong with that. One can be pro life and pro.choice.
Not in my book.
In my book the whole notion of pro choice is simply a cop out. Taking a human life is murder. So what we are really talking about is whether or not one condones the killing of an unborn human being. Thatâs really what this is all about.
Someone who hides behind that pro choice façade is having us believe that this is about a womanâs right to chose what is done to her body. So that woman is choosing to have an abortion, in essence she is choosing to murder the unborn child in her womb.
1 Like
So just make up whatever definition you want and thats the way of it? Wow, thats an interesting philosophy.
So just assume something the other person didnât do or say? Wow, thatâs an interesting philosophy.
