What is this “life” you are talking about? You’re a high priestess of Science. You’ve created a psychologically convenient, but wholly irrelevant definition of “life”. If a squirrel dies in the forest, a monkey in the jungle, or a “life” in your Petri dish what difference is that to me?
When does human life begin? At what point in your “life” continuum” can I know I’m dealing with a human being?
If “life” is a continuum at what point would you be arrested for murder for killing off a human life?
Don’t you see how unscientific your answer is? If it is just a “life” continuum until death what difference does it make when you end “life”? By your definition all “life” is equivalent. That’s not very thoughtful or scientific is it?
Imagine a situation where there is only enough of a life saving solution - Solution X - to save either the “life” growing within your body or the “life” growing within my Belgian mare. How do we choose who gets Solution X?
When you have to try to discredit science by comparing it to religion, that tells me very clearly that you have a low opinion of religion.
When does human life begin? At what point in your “life” continuum” can I know I’m dealing with a human being?
If “life” is a continuum at what point would you be arrested for murder for killing off a human life?
I have already explained over and over in several posts the objective, scientific definition of life, and why it is impossible to choose a distinct start point. Life does not arise from non-life, period. Either you are purposely refusing to understand, or you are genuinely unable to. Either way, it's a waste of time to explain it to you again. It's like trying to explain color to a blind person.
You sound a lot like someone who wants to reject any biological definition of life because you want to be able to excuse abortions at any point. And I will not give you a scientific justification to do so. Abortion at any time is the killing of a human being. Period.
Oh, I'm not going to explain the abortion laws to you, either, because I'm sure you already know them. I'm a scientist, not a lawyer.
Don’t you see how unscientific your answer is? If it is just a “life” continuum until death what difference does it make when you end “life”? By your definition all “life” is equivalent. That’s not very thoughtful or scientific is it?
I doubt I could say something unscientific if I wanted to. There are many things that exist in nature as a continuum on one side, and a distinct end on the other side. There is, for example, a bottom limit to temperature, but no top limit. I'll bet you see examples of the continuum of human life all the time. At what distinct point does a baby become a small child? At what distinct point does an adolescent become an adult? At what distinct point does a young adult become a middle age adult? And so on. Only when a person dies is there a distinct demarkation between them being alive and being dead.
And you're reading things I didn't say. Again. If you can quote exactly where I said that human and animal life are equivalent, feel free to do so. Otherwise, don't put words in my mouth.