Pro-Life Atheists

[Angrboda]

The major problem with that is that it's a political statement, rather than a scientific one.

No scientifically there is actually life at conception. (Heck, there is even life before conception as sperm is living). The tough part is whether the under-developed life in the womb is considered human or less than human. And at what time period do we decide it is fully human.

---

And certainly not a medical one

How far into pregnancy is it considered human? (I don't have a side with the abortion debate btw)

The question isn't whether or not it's human or not, it definitely is. But people want to smuggle in the auxiliary premise, "therefore it has a right to life." I can accept that it's human without accepting that latter premise. Indeed, particularly where competing interests are involved, we regularly put limits on otherwise unobjectionable rights. You can say anything you want, but you can't cry, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In abortion we can't grant everyone everything, so limits have to be placed, and where fundamental rights exist, that conflict must be resolved. Now, in the case of human life, a right to life for the unborn necessarily requires a sacrifice of certain rights of the woman. So, is it practical, or even realistic, to give the right to life to a fetus that isn't even viable outside the womb? For pro-life advocates of a certain persuasion, the mere fact of it being human endows it with a right to life that trumps all other interests. And that is a political/moral statement, not a scientific one, and so it cannot be resolved by simply appealing to the fact that a fetus is, "human."