That's not quite what happened, and you can look at the thread. You pulled meiosis out of you fourth point of contact, then dismissed the entire anti-abortion stance based on this extreme argument. Like a reverse Motte and Bailey.
Facts? What facts? You do know what a fact is, right? Nevermind, I don't want to make your brain work too hard.
I feel sorry for you. So pumped with ideological nonsense that you don't understand how to reason through an argument.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that it's somehow easier to rebut meiosis as the start of life than the other cutoffs used here. It is not. Life doesn't start till the fetus is developed enough to survive on its own.
Actually it's quite easy to rebut meiosis as the beginning point of life. Meiotic cells do not grow into anything once made. They do not consume outside nutrients, divide further, or progress in any way. An egg will only remain an egg. A sperm is nothing but a sperm. Show me a human that has come to being from only one of these, and you might have the beginnings of an argument.
And science is pretty clear on the fact that it is the zygote that is the beginning of life. Let me be clear, I would not necessarily use this line to determine any laws regarding abortion. But the line is not arbitrary. There are unique cells with a unique genetic signature growing, and they do not belong to the mother.
This is even demonstrated in cases where Rh negative mothers have an Rh-positive baby, then develop antibodies to the Rh protein, complicating downstream pregnancies. This is not an autoimmune disorder. It is a complication that arises from the interaction with two bodies that have unique genetic signatures and epigenetic expressions.
If you want to look at arbitrary lines, then look no further than your definition that life begins when the "fetus is developed enough to survive on its own." No child, pre or post natal, is developed enough to survive on it's own. Tell a newborn to go get it's own dinner, and see how long it survives.
But perhaps you are referencing the ability to remove the fetus from the mother and still ensure its survival. This is also arbitrary, as scientific breakthroughs have moved this line several times, and likely will continue to move this line if progress continues.
Why is this hypothetical woman giving up her life? Are you referencing situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy? Or do you simply mean that her quality of life will suffer because she now has a child depending on her?
Proud and Open Rolan Sympathiser
Fan of Everything Tool
Eternal Shiva Enthusiast
*NM*