The meeting of gametes and the creation of a zygote is the sine qua non of life. Life is impossible without it. It is the start point whose usual end point is the birth of a human baby. To try and pretend there is any other point at which life begins is just silly, I'm afraid.
A mass of cells that cannot breathe, think or exist in its own right is not human life. It may or may not one day become a human life.
And as I predicted, your response was nothing more than 'yes it does'. And mine was nothing more than 'no it doesn't'.
That's why it's pointless.
The valid point would be that there clearly is no consensus on access to abortion, there is no threat to our society or way of life from it and therefore it should be made legal and people can choose to do what is consistent with their personal values. Any one who thinks other than that is an appalling c*nt, I'm afraid.
That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.
No, I have produced a logical, scientific rationale for my conclusion that life begins at conception. You have produced none for your hypothesis whatsoever.
And then you have simply assumed moral superiority and reverted to calling anyone who disagrees with you a cûnt.
Pretty pïsspoor argument.
Well, this could make things a whole lot more complicated
https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/human...ecade-8156458/
The Metro, I know, but...
“Other clubs never came into my thoughts once I knew Arsenal wanted to sign me.”
Rubbish. We both came up with a position that it is entirely subjective, there is no clear and obvious definition of human life. Yours wasn't anymore scientific than mine.
And I haven't assumed moral superiority at all, I have pointed out that anyone that thinks that they have the right to impose their moral values on others is a c*nt. I stand by that statement. I have no issue with people objecting to abortion, I have a serious issue with people controlling what others are able to do because of their moral values.