Roderick Femm asserts that “that life begins at conception/fertilization derives from religious conviction.”
You reply that science can lead to a conclusion that life begins at conception (although consciousness and personhood wouldbe the important criteria for you in this debate)
You seem to indicate that “being alive” is just a turn of a phrase…that generally pro choice folks DO think that life begins at conception.
I point out that LOTS of pro choice folks do not think that “life begins at conception”
There may have been some confusion over “alive” vs “a life”…but I am I missing another point?
Your argument that pro-abortion rights people do not think that “life begins at conception” is that they think that said life is “no more ‘alive’ (or ‘a life’) than a sperm cell, skin cell or tumor.”
First, “alive” and “a life” are not equivalent.
Second, how is that them saying that it isn’t alive? They are saying that it’s alive, just not a particularly valuable life, unless your claim is that they are saying that sperm cell isn’t alive.
If you ask if an embryo is “alive,” the majority will say “Yes, but…” Because just “being alive” isn’t any indication that something has value. That’s why the tumor and cell examples come into play. Is a tumor “alive”? Yes. Is it “a life”? Denotatively, perhaps. Connotatively? No. That isn’t how most of us would use the term “a life.” Just as we would tend not to say that a bacterium is “a life.” That terminology has baggage.
But I have very very rarely, if at all, heard the argument that an embryo isn’t “alive” in a biological sense, independent of value. Some valueless things are “alive.” Some valuable things are “alive.”
Can you provide an example of someone for abortion rights who argues that a z/e/f is not biologically alive (not an argument that it is “no more alive than…” but an argument that it isn’t alive at all). I don’t claim they don’t exist. I just can’t remember ever encountering them.
While that may be true for some, it is certainly is not a valid assumption. Every single book I’ve read on pro-life apologetics cites scientific reasons for this position, rather than relying exclusively on religious conviction. In fact, beagledave, Stratocaster and I have consistently appealed to scientific reasons and expert medical testimony for affirming that life begins at conception. I know that I have never cited any religious reasons for this belief, and to the best of my recollection, neither have they.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL itself, likewise came to reject abortion, even while he was still firmly an atheist. (He did convert to Catholicism later on, but that was years after he changed his stance on abortion.)
Its sad that no common ground exists… and even if the example of these women is beautiful… what was gained through it in the end beyond their own personal enrichment ? What about the rest of society ?
