I have never suggested equivalency or non-equivalency between one type of life or another. I also love a good medium rare steak, so no on both counts.
My original point was strictly about the dubious science behind a common theocratic definition of life's beginning. People who want to claim "life begins at conception" need to reconcile how the majority of living things were never conceived, including certain fish or insects which are plainly observable by the common person as living. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but are grossly mistaken to think your view is scientific.
Well if you can’t figure out that people obviously are referring to human life when they say “life begins at conception” then Idk what to tell you. It’s always used in the context of abortion and therefore is always meant in the context of human life.
You are obviously right that a lot of things produce asexually, but it is obvious that pro-lifers are not talking about those things. It shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand that.
The very topic of this thread calls "life beginning at conception" a scientific concept. It is not. That's my point and you don't seem to comprehend it. A definition of life which applies to humans and nothing else is not scientific.
If pro-lifers want to hold any set of beliefs, they are within their rights. But, let me bold this for emphasis: Life beginning at conception is not a scientific belief but a theological one.
Philosophical. There are theological arguments as well but the philosophical ones are stronger. And it can be demonstrated via scientific means. By observing that the DNA of the zygote is different from the DNA of the mothers cells. That makes it an individual being.
It looks like we agree that "life begins as conception" is not a scientific opinion, but a philosophical and/or religious one.
The fact that someone can cherry-pick scientific facts to buttress the belief that "life begins at conception" does not make this belief a scientific one. Again, a scientific classification of living and non-living would need to be inclusive of all living things and not just humans. People are still welcome to hold this belief despite it being unscientific and logically inconsistent, but that doesn't elevate it to a scientific belief.
I have never suggested equivalency or non-equivalency between one type of life or another. I also love a good medium rare steak, so no on both counts.
My original point was strictly about the dubious science behind a common theocratic definition of life's beginning. People who want to claim "life begins at conception" need to reconcile how the majority of living things were never conceived, including certain fish or insects which are plainly observable by the common person as living. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but are grossly mistaken to think your view is scientific.
Well if you can’t figure out that people obviously are referring to human life when they say “life begins at conception” then Idk what to tell you. It’s always used in the context of abortion and therefore is always meant in the context of human life.
You are obviously right that a lot of things produce asexually, but it is obvious that pro-lifers are not talking about those things. It shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand that.
The very topic of this thread calls "life beginning at conception" a scientific concept. It is not. That's my point and you don't seem to comprehend it. A definition of life which applies to humans and nothing else is not scientific.
If pro-lifers want to hold any set of beliefs, they are within their rights. But, let me bold this for emphasis: Life beginning at conception is not a scientific belief but a theological one.
Philosophical. There are theological arguments as well but the philosophical ones are stronger. And it can be demonstrated via scientific means. By observing that the DNA of the zygote is different from the DNA of the mothers cells. That makes it an individual being.
It looks like we agree that "life begins as conception" is not a scientific opinion, but a philosophical and/or religious one.
The fact that someone can cherry-pick scientific facts to buttress the belief that "life begins at conception" does not make this belief a scientific one. Again, a scientific classification of living and non-living would need to be inclusive of all living things and not just humans. People are still welcome to hold this belief despite it being unscientific and logically inconsistent, but that doesn't elevate it to a scientific belief.