In difficult situations, some compromises may be necessary. You, of course, need a rationale for according "life" status to a fertilized ovum. It is indeed interesting how you spend the majority of your effort seeking to divide rather than finding common ground."
It's not vexing to me. Human life comes from God. I didn't create it, thus I can't destroy it. Nor can anyone else.
But you are actually conceding my broad point here. If we can't even agree as a society on what "life" means, which IMO is a pretty straightforward concept, how can we agree to build a society on some abstract concept of "liberty"?
I didn't say it was vexing to you. Nor is it vexing to NOW who take an opposite position to yours. It is, none-the-less vexing. God creates life, but what source do you cite for your statement that life begins at creation, as opposed to some other point?
But you are actually conceding my broad point here. If we can't even agree as a society on what "life" means, which IMO is a pretty straightforward concept, how can we agree to build a society on some abstract concept of "liberty"?
Because there are far more points of agreement between us than there are disagreements. If we focus on the periphery, rather than the vaster, common middle, we will indeed enjoy a difficult society.
It is no more vexing to libertarian ethics (with the obvious correction of "can't destroy it" to "may not destroy it") -- it's not mine; therefore I may not destroy it.
In fact, this is a more compelling answer, since it applies independently of the question of whether a human life is self-owned or divinely owned.