Human life starting at fertilization is a biological fact.
Biologists overwhelmingly agree that human life starts with fertilization (5337/5577 surveyed, or 96%).
Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human’s life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available.
I’m not a christian, I’m a satanist, so… maybe not the dunk you’re looking for lol.
Reminder that our argument is seemingly over tenet III:
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
Where I would argue there are two bodies involved, regardless the size, as you seem to be arguing.
But also, keep in mind tenet V:
Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.
I don’t care what your religion is. But a fertilized egg is not a human. Neither are the human cells that you poop out every three or four weeks. (Assuming you are as constipated as you sound)
If it’s a fact then why did 240 scientists disagree? What were their findings? Science doesn’t create facts, it supports or rejects hypothesizes based on the original question. Calling science fact was your first mistake. Missing the entire point of the argument by cherry-picking data sets that fulfill your narrative was the second.
Forrest Valkai, a biologist on YT, has a fantastic response to this. He can argue about when/how life starts, but the argument isn’t about this, this is about bodily autonomy instead.
So now you’re making your own arguments away from your original position? Got any scientists to back up your preconceived ideas? Find me some peer-reviewed articles that suggest (not prove cause that’s very rarely how science works) that the cells developed are not dolphin embryos first. Since we’re just jumping to whatever conclusion fits our narrative now…
I’m actually really interested in watching whatever video you are referencing, are you by chance able to provide a link? I’m not closed minded, but I do generally try to listen to what the majority of scientist [in whatever relevant area of the topic of discussion] are saying.
edit: I’m unsure why this comment is being down voted but I’m genuinely interested in watching whatever video you are referencing, as simply by looking at their channel I was unable to find a video that is seemingly relevant to the topic at hand
That assertion has nothing to do with the legal standing of a waiting period for abortion.
that article is not from a reliable source. “Issues in Law and Medicine” is a biased journal that does not represent scientific consensus. They have close connections with anti choice organizations and also publish antivax propaganda. I would be extremely skeptical of any information found in association with them.
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term="Issues Law Med"jo…
Note the articles about “abortion causing breast cancer” (it doesn’t), “how to run a pro choice private practice”, and why pharmacists should be able to refuse to dispense medication.
An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
Seems pretty clear to me that the waiting period and proscribed literature are a burden, and that any state interest they serve could be less restrictively fulfilled by normal informed consent rules we already have.
Add comment