So,
I try not to get involved in issues that I am not especially trained in, or that I have not vigorously researched, or that I am not incredibly passionate about. I do this not because of apathy, but because I am a very busy person, and under most circumstances, I will let more apt people get involved. One of these issues is abortion. It's a very complex issue, and I don't think I would ever be able to understand the battlefield of a mind of a person who is contemplating abortion.
That being said, I am pro-choice. I am VERY pro-choice. And I would absolutely support someone who decides to have an abortion. My opinion on the matter is more pragmatic, in that even when abortion is illegal, people still have abortions, they are just more dangerous. In addition to that, I would rather for every child born be loved, and not treated as just some mistake. But to discuss the philosophy of my stance is not the reason I am writing this post. I am writing this post to defend science. I am acting as a defender of science, because people are misquoting someone-else's-hell out of it.
Science does rule, but cannot defend itself
A common tactic of "pro-life" activists is to claim that science is on their side. They will often claim that life begins at conception.
Hey, apparently a life begins at conception....
Another one says that....
Well if it's scientific fact...
Now, if someone claims that their religion says life begins at conception, I'm probably going to stay quiet, lest I open a giant can of atheist-rage on some unsuspecting stranger. And when they claim their philosophy says that, I'm really not in a position to argue it. But when they claim that "it's scientific fact", they are essentially forcing me to correct them.
LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION!
But, you may ask, "if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin???" The answer to that question is complex and nuanced, as most scientific answers are. The correct answer to when did life begin (according to science) is about 3.8 billion years ago. And you may claim, "But the earth is only 6000 years old." If this is you, please pick up a text book and either educate yourself with it, or hit yourself in the head with it, HARD! Now, life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago, and we are an extension of that life.... Just as all living organisms on Earth share a common ancestor, we share that ancestor's life.
You really should thank your great, great, [∞], great-grand cell more often....
Now you may say, "Thats a crappy answer, that’s not what life is". And you will be right..... sort of. Life is a very complex and complicated idea, and as a result, we have lots of different definitions of life. And none of them are very clear cut.
From a metabolic perspective, life is present whenever we have cellular activity such as respiration. This is the simplest answer, and the most commonly used definition of life. It’s also really easy to define what is alive (a dog), and what isn't (a pencil). That being said, according to this definition of life, we are simply an extension of the original life on earth, (about 3.8 billion years ago) through a lineage of a variety of cells. Now, I like this definition, as it is the most clear cut, and I find the thought that we are simply an extension of life accurate, appropriate, and even comforting.
If this is not answering your questions, you may be looking for a definition of human life. I would like to make this very clear, a definition for human life is very different from a definition of life. But once again, depending on the flavor of biology you are looking at, we will have a different answer.
