(Original post by yawn)
The fact remains that it is accepted in science that human life begins at the moment of conception. No one can deny that...what they can deny is that they do not think that human 'personhood' begins at the same time. This is the debate that proceeded the Act and the victors were those who won the 'war of semantics' in much the same way an extremely gifted barrister would in a court. The question of 'personhood' then is one that is dependent on one's view whether killing of human life can be justified or not.
I'm very happy you said that yawn, I'll give rep for that, because it was almost exactly what I was going to say to the pro-choicers in this thread who are arguing for the right cause (IMHO) but in the wrong way. It is stupid to deny an embryo, or cluster of cells that will become a fetus, is a 'human life' - it is human and alive.
The better way to argue is to examine more carefully the pro-life (talk about semantics, eh yawn - 'pro-life' is rather propaganist don't you think?) argument and think more carefully what exactly you disagree with. AS far as I can tell, it runs like this:
1) It is always wrong to kill a human which is alive without its consent
(NB I know some pro-lifers would not need the 'without its consent' part, but that would make the claim stronger, not weaker and is not really relevant to the argument)
2) After fertilisation, the resulting cells - and all its future manisfestations after divisions - is a human life.
3) A fetus, nor any stage of development prior to being a fetus, cannot give consent to be killed.
4) It is wrong to kill a fetus or any of its manifestations prior to being a fetus.
Spotted the weak point? It isn't 2), which as yawn correctly points out is obvious to anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse. It's 1).
Now, the problem is that attacking 1) leave you very vulnerable to damaging soundbytes. "OMG, kizer advocates MURDER!" But this is neither true nor particularly interesting.
The reason I was so impressed by yawn's post was it actually correctly identified the word I wanted to bring in - PERSON. What matters is that we do not kill PEOPLE without their consent. However I've got to run now so others can argue what a person is, I'll be back tomorrow