(09-21-2020, 12:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(09-21-2020, 11:27 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: That was beautifully explained.

So a 39 week pregnancy is, to you, not a human being? How about a pregnancy that goes long, say 42 weeks? Is that also not human to you?

Also Mike's take was a beautiful bunch of unscientific horse [BLEEP].

Both of y'all misunderstood me.
I was agreeing with O-line that we all get to make up our own minds about what science means, but I also pointed out the scientific facts that persuade me to my opinion that abortion should be restricted much more that it is today.
O-line's opinion that breathing is the beginning of existence has some merit, but I don't think medical science supports it much.  Here's a scientific fact you may not have considered: most premature babies have a neurological instinct to breathe once they are out of the womb - even if their lungs are not fully developed and even if they're going to need medical support to live.  So should abortion be banned for any fetus mature enough to have this instinct?  Do we have a duty to investigate which stage of fetal brain development produces that instinct, so we don't prevent a baby that can breathe from taking its first breath?  
And it's not as if breathing represents independence.  Here's another scientific fact: for at least the first six months of life, babies are wholly dependent on milk being brought up to their lips.  Should it be permissible to say, the baby that is so dependent on care lacks independent existence and may therefore be killed?

---