[Dimensio]

Why are scientists so sure of the origins of life when they cannot even "determine" when life begins after a child is conceived?

Because the issue of when a child exists following the union of sperm and egg is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. There's no mystery of what happens after the union of sperm and egg cells, either immedately after or in the months following, the issue is when the resulting product should be termed a "child".

[wideawake]

Because the issue of when a child exists following the union of sperm and egg is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

That's not the issue - the issue is when does human life begin.

The scientific answer is the moment of conception.

The political answer is "much later, in my opinion."

[weegee]

If abortion (murder) was not considered a "privacy" issue, there would be no "gray" philosophical question over whether it was life or not.

It is ALWAYS a child. Cell division is life. A beating heart is life. But not to the courts.

[weegee]

If it is not a child, because it is forming in a woman's innards, and therefore a "part" of her, what is it when it forms in a test tube?

Is it any less human for not sharing the same "experience" as the majority of mankind?

Since the mother's life is not in danger when a fetus is conceived in a test tube or a petri dish, who should decide if it is allowed to live or die? Does the "father" get equal say with the "mother"?