I am not looking for the agreement of my "cohorts" whoever those may be. I haven't moved from saying I am right to maybe you are wrong. My position is that maybe you are wrong, and maybe I am wrong--we are in an area where nobody can "prove" on a scientific basis when human life begins because there is no objective way to determine this. In this type of quandary, we risk snuffing out a human life unless we adopt a definition of life that begins at least at conception--i.e., when the process of the development of a distinct human being has been set inexorably in motion, and will continue in motion unless disturbed.
This is why I have trouble with the notion that a fetus is just a part of a woman's body. It is not. It can if left to nature independently grow, play, run, jump, marry, and sail around the world. Let's see other parts of a woman's body do that; livers, kidneys, etc. are indisputably part of a woman's body. A fetus with an independent future if left undisturbed is unique.
If you cannot be sure, and I cannot be sure, the question defaults in favor preserving life from the moment it is set in motion. I don't view this as a political issue. |
