Ever noticed how so many people will respond to:
-a little girl that has fallen down an abandoned well in Texas
-some men trapped underground in a coal mine in Wext Virginia
-people trapped under collapsed bridges after an earthquake in California
and they will root for the victims; and gather their resources
and go to extroidinary means; because there is just a chance
it is a slim chance, but still, yet there is a chance
they those people just might possibly be alive;
and if we try, we might possibly be able to save them...
But in the case of “when does life begin”, is this a life or not?
Many will say well maybe life begins here, and maybe there,
but we just don’t know for sure.
These two ways of thinking seem so at odds with one another to me.
If there is a chance, even a slim chance
that the fertilized egg is a new life, why not then
go to extroidinary means to save it?
Or you can consider the other part of the ‘argument’ for those who say it is a person but an “parasitic human” incapable of independence.
If those people are dependent on others, why should we disregard the unborn who are dependent on others? Their ‘argument’ will usually degenerate into differences in physical/mental qualities of the very young and adults. Since they are “different” from us, they are less worthy. This is the same mentality as racism, something that the left claims to despise.