/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3945025]

What is with this paradigm we have that there is somehow a debate on whether or not "life begins at conception"? It doesn't. But the people who say that it doesn't, because they are pro-choice, don't understand why either.

Life is a continuous process. The sperm and egg that made the zygote were alive as well. It's all continuous. Life only "began" 4 billion years ago, and even then, it's still very fuzzy on when you first start to classify increasingly complex, and self-replicating molecules as "life."

To say that "life begins at conception" is ignorant of the entire field of biology, and even those who say it don't because of their position on abortion have got it wrong too, because they don't even know why.

[Anonymous No.3945124]

OP is a fucking retard.

The debate is about protecting life--born and unborn.

Nobody in their right mind favors killing a born baby, and nobody favors killing a baby two minutes away from being birthed. So when does the zygote become a living creature? When it can feel pain? When it can perform a human action (sucking its finger)? When it has measurable neurological activity?

That's the actual debate. Everyone simply runs to the extremes of their positions because it's easier to distinguish the choice that way: are you in favor of saving unborn life or in favor of giving a woman a right to choose what to do with something inside her body.