I recommend reading the first page of the linked thread if you haven't, with Quip's and Town's back-and-forth.Nothing in that connects to a refutation of my argument. Those are the dots and that's the nature of my answer. Quite to the contrary: On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life". By...theologyonline.com
@Town Heretic argues against abortion rights based there being a preponderance of evidence that we cannot objectively know when on the timeline, between conception on one side and birth on the other, that the baby's right to life comes into being. Since we objectively cannot be sure, combined with it being such a grave evil if we are wrong about it, we are therefore only morally permitted to forbid and outlaw unjustified abortion.
That is completely and utterly wrong. We know, for a fact, that life begins at conception. That is irrefutable Biblical and scientific knowledge.I recommend reading the first page of the linked thread if you haven't, with Quip's and Town's back-and-forth.
Town's reasoning is simply solid. He doesn't even argue from the position that life begins at conception, he merely ties together the fact that our constitution is based upon human rights and that rights attach at some point between conception and birth inclusive, and that since it's currently unknowable when that point is, that it's simply responsible to forbid elective abortion.