Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[Esquilax]

A life form with 46 Chromosomes is called a human being. The only difference between a newly conceived human being and anyone reading this thread is simply time.

No. I mean, not in this case: what you have is a cellular collection of 46 chromosomes. That's not a person. Under your definition, the Sable Antelope is also a human being, and I'm sure you're not implying that. You need to be more precise.

Yet - many people deny the humanity of the unborn child, purely because it doesnt immediately look like a child (an analysis worthy of some inbred hick).

What a lovely misrepresentation of the pro-choice position. I'll be charitable and assume you just haven't read the previous pages of the thread: we deny the humanity of the fetus because it's not human. There's no brain, or organs, or memories, or anything else that would remotely be human. There's no possibility of life outside of the womb. This is our basis. Keep it in mind, and know that I'm sure there are others here capable of explaining it better than I.

This is a great example of how humanity is not inherently moral - even when having the advantage of scientific knowledge to refer to. If there is a tough decision to be made, some (maybe even most) people will always just do what suits them personally - not do the moral thing.

Dishonest moralizing tactic to automatically gear potential readers against the position Gabriel disagrees with... check. At least you're being consistent.

It is a great example of the moral cowardice of humanity, where people will overlook inconvenient facts and instead make up drivel to justify their opinions or behaviour.

...

Oh god, I think the irony here is literally killing me.

Its a good example of how - even though humanity can technically be "good without God", they are not "good without God", because humans can always be relied upon to do the selfish thing, no matter the cost.

Selfish like demanding that women they've never met carry children they don't want that could potentially kill them to term because of your potentially flawed interpretation of a book that those women might not necessarily believe in?

Selfish like using that book as justification for demanding that those children be brought into families that possibly can't support them, relegating them to poverty or an already overburdened foster care system?

Selfish like doing all this from an ivory tower of ignorance and moral superiority, safe in the knowledge that none of this will ever effect you personally and therefore you are justified in deploying strict, flawed interpretations of a patently false teaching?

Selfish like all that? Or some other, new definition of selfish which just means, "disagrees with Gabriel Syme?"