Imagine you are a demolition man - you have the job of blowing up buildings. Prior to plunging the detonator you ask the owner of the building if there's anyone inside. The owner says, "I'm not sure, there's no consensus. Some people say there is, and others say there isn't." What do you do?
Do you just go ahead and blow it up? Of course not!!! If there's a doubt then don't do it!
Why is this relevant? Because those who are pro-choice (I always find it a bit disingenuous that they are referred to in that way - I'm pro choice in loads of ways, I just don't think people should have the choice to take innocent human life) will say in response to the claim that life begins at conception that it's debatable and there's no consensus on that point. It seems to me that the reason there's no consensus is because "pro-choice" people recognise that there is nowhere along the line at which anything happens to allow you to say "now it's human but before it wasn't", and they have to find such a point so "there's no consensus"! The reality is they don't want to accept the obvious - there is a genetically distinct and genetically complete human life from conception. But let me try to return to the point of this post, let's allow their objection - ok, we say, there's disagreement, that which is living inside the womb may or may not be a human, so what do we do? Remember the building? Don't demolish it!
Why are these people who are so adamant that we don't know when life begins so often so trigger happy?
