LOL. Talk about logical fallacies. Let's forget for a moment that you cited a publication authored by a scientist who, in exchange for money from the Saudis, agreed to shill for the patently absurd Quranic explanation of how human life originates. Or that you continued to cite it after I pointed this out to you, albeit after a day or so you spent recovering from your embarrassment.
The single biggest logical fallacy of your posts in this thread is that you continue trying to ascribe personhood to a fetus. Nay, to a zygote. Employing the patois of your intellectual and political peers, that dog won't hunt.
You clearly don’t understand what a logical fallacy actually is. Not only was my claim not a fallacy, but your own response committed at least four. You’d get laughed off a debate stage. What you posted wasn’t reason... it was pure rhetoric.
Let's forget for a moment that you cited a publication authored by a scientist who, in exchange for money from the Saudis, agreed to shill for the patently absurd Quranic explanation of how human life originates. Or that you continued to cite it after I pointed this out to you, albeit after a day or so you spent recovering from your embarrassment.
When you attack the person instead of the point, you’re telling us that you either can’t or won’t engage with the actual argument. That’s not critical thinking; it’s deflection disguised as debate.
Let me know when the U.S. Census starts counting fetuses. Let me know when the Social Security Administration starts issuing Social Security Numbers to fetuses. Let me know when they start routinely referring to the unplanned, premature termination of a pregnancy as a "death" rather than a "miscarriage." If a fetus is a human being, why do expectant parents routinely say "We have two children and one on the way?" Why isn't it "We have three children?"
None of what you just said refutes the scientific or moral reality that human life begins at conception. The Census and Social Security are legal constructs... not arbiters of biological truth. They don’t count unborn babies for the same reason they don’t count tourists or non-residents: policy, not personhood. And “miscarriage” literally refers to the
loss of a pregnancy... because something was
alive and is now gone. Even the term acknowledges that.
As for how people casually speak (“one on the way”), that’s called colloquial language, not scientific classification. The same parents crying in grief after a miscarriage don’t say, “Well, good thing it wasn’t a
real child yet.” They know what was lost... and so do you. Appealing to bureaucracy and semantics doesn’t erase the truth.
I won't contest the notion that (to quote you) "a unique human organism with its own DNA begins developing from the moment of conception." But that "unique human organism" is not a person. It has the potential to develop, over the ensuing nine (9) months, into a person, but that does not always happen. A whole lot of "unique human organisms" never make it that far, even without any human intervention. Most women who have had children (particularly those who have had multiple children) have suffered through the natural termination of a pregnancy (i.e., a miscarriage). This is frequently grief inducing, but in many cases it occurs so early in the process that the woman never even knows that it occurred. The process sometimes ends before the fertilized egg becomes a zygote. Or before the zygote becomes a blastocyst. Or, before the blastocyst becomes a fetus.
You’re making the mistake of confusing potential for value. That something might not survive doesn’t mean it isn’t alive or human in the first place. Yes, not every human life makes it to birth... but that’s a biological reality, not a moral justification. Death, even natural death, doesn’t erase the fact that life existed.
Miscarriages are tragic because a life was lost... not because it was just “potential.” The emotional and biological reality point to the same truth: from the moment of conception, you have a living human organism... unique, developing, and deserving of protection. Dismissing that based on survivability is not only unscientific, it’s morally incoherent.
Even the Bible affirms this. Psalm 139:13-16 makes it clear: “For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed body.” God doesn’t wait for a baby to be born before He sees it as a life with purpose. Life in the womb is known, formed, and valued by God... long before we ever assign legal definitions. A Jesus following Christian know this.
Feel free to refer to the termination of a pregnancy in these early stages as "murder." I will continue to call it something else, and to regard it as both legal and completely within the discretion of the woman carrying that fertilized egg/zygote/blastocyst/fetus. I will add, however, that a pregnant woman's discretion to terminate her pregnancy via abortion should cease at some point during her pregnancy, even though the fetus has not yet become a "person." (It takes being born alive to do that.) In my view, and the view of much of American society, that discretion ceases somewhere just after the end of the first trimester, roughly 15 weeks in. People vary widely on precisely where in the stage of development that line should be drawn. You obviously believe it should be drawn at the moment of conception. Others, as late as the end of the second trimester. Exceedingly few Americans believe that elective abortions (as opposed to abortions necessary to protect the life of the mother) should be allowed in the third trimester of pregnancy. Broad public support for "choice" (i.e., a woman's right to have an elective abortion) up to a certain point in her pregnancy clearly manifests a balancing of respect for the sanctity of a developing fetus with a woman's right to bodily autonomy. You sneer at the notion of bodily autonomy. Many men (particularly very conservative men) feel that way. Funny, but FAR fewer women (even conservative women) feel that way. I wonder why.
You can call it “something else,” but changing terminology doesn’t change biological reality. Science... not theology... confirms that a unique human organism with its own DNA begins developing at conception. That’s not a belief; it’s an empirical fact taught in standard embryology texts. The label “zygote” or “blastocyst” doesn’t make it less human—it simply describes a stage of development, just like “toddler” or “adolescent.”
Your argument hinges on personhood being assigned at birth, but that’s a philosophical opinion, not a scientific or moral truth. We don’t assign value to human life based on geography (inside vs. outside the womb), age, or dependency. A preemie born at 21 weeks is protected under the law... so why isn’t that same child valued one day earlier?
As for bodily autonomy, it ends when another body’s life is at stake. No one argues people have the right to end another’s life for convenience, even if that person is dependent on them. “Choice” ends where another life begins. And yes, abortion is legal in many places... but legality is not morality. Slavery was once legal, too.
And for those claiming Christian faith: a true follower of Jesus believes life begins at conception, because both Scripture and science point to that truth. Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, and countless other verses affirm God’s involvement in life from the womb. Picking and choosing which parts of Christian theology to follow doesn’t make someone a Christ follower—it makes them a follower of the world, rebranding faith to suit their politics. Jesus welcomed sinners, yes... but He never affirmed sin. He didn’t say “live your truth.” He said, “Go and sin no more.”
So let’s stop pretending this is about nuanced ethics or rights. It’s about whether we’re willing to defend the most defenseless among us... no matter how small, dependent, or unseen.
www.learning-mind.com
