On 8/27/2015 1:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:20:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I am not questioning the right of a woman to abort an unwanted
pregnancy. I *am* questioning the conventional wisdom as to when "life"
begins.

===

It's very easy to dance around that issue. It is your choice. The
generally accepted view of "life" however includes the ability to
survive on your own among other things. The notion that "life" is
present among a clump of multiplying cells is mostly a religious
thing. I have nothing against religion and people should be free to
believe what they want. The law however should be based on science
and generally accepted principles. The law has spoken with regard to
women's right to an abortion.

Letting religion take precedence over facts and science has led to all
sorts of mischief in the past including the notion that the sun and
planets revolved around the earth. People of science were persecuted
and sometimes executed if they disagreed with the church's position no
matter how demonstrably erroneous it was. We see the same thing today
with Darwin, evolution, brain death, the beginning of life, etc.



My feelings about abortions and when life starts has absolutely no basis
in any religious views I may have. I believe that the
medical/scientific community defined when a fetus becomes viable and a
"life" begins that fit social pressures of the time. It's interesting
to me that it's based, in part, on being "viable" as you state. In this
context viable means an ability to live outside the womb. What about
the time spent in the womb? Was it not alive? Was it's heart not
beating? Hell, they have determined that the unique human fingerprints
develop very early in the pregnancy.

Man makes laws, just like man wrote the Bible. Man is fallible as is
science at any particular point in time.