A couple of weeks ago on Huckabee was on Meet the Press. He was asked about abortion and when life begins and said "Well, scientifically I think that's almost...a point that you couldn't argue. How, how could you say that life doesn't begin at conception..." While I'm pro-choice that sounded reasonable at the time.
Daily Kos has more in Huckabee's Imaginary Conception. "In simplest terms, you generally start with two living things and end up with one, so clearly at least one was lost along the way even under the best circumstances, eh? The fact is what usually happens during fertilization is death and destruction on the scale of a micro-genocide, with an occasional lone pair of improbable survivors fusing in the midst of the chaos. But scientifically, if you want to be simple and accurate, there is not a single step in early human development that goes from non-life to life."
I never thought of it in those terms and found that concept interesting.
1 comment:
Strictly speaking ova/sperm are not alive since they cannot reproduce e.g. an egg cannot split into two separate eggs) - similar to the arguement that a virus is not alive. I'm not sure if ova/sperm can "eat" either, or if they rely on an intrinsic energy suppy. Thus you could argue that scientifically "life" is created with the zygote.
Post a Comment