posted by BoatShoes
I suppose I could go on but hey - you deny climate change despite the consensus so I suppose I shouldn't waste too much more time here. I thought the evolution org put it well - it is a scientific fact that there's a new human being at conception. Continue to deny the fact to preserve your inconsistent beliefs if you want. The metaphysical consequences of that fact and the decision on whether to grant a newly conceived human being that is a zygote the same protection as the Mother is a matter of ethics.
I think you are confused. Let me clarify.
I do believe life starts at conception. I have never stated otherwise.
I stated science hasn't stated a consensus on when life begins.
You then list a bunch of pro-life leaning people's views on when life begins. Well of course the pro-lifers are going to lean that way. I mean grass is green as well if you were not aware.
I said that science hasn't reached a conclusion, which is true. Just because you listed a few on one side doesn't mean there aren't plenty on the other.
And as to your ad hominem (since I am so stupid to believe one thing I obviously can't understand the other...) about Climate Change. You, once again, are sadly mistaken. My stance, and is supported by observable evidence, that the Earth is warming, the GHGs are increasing, and humans maybe playing a role in the warming. However, the catastrophic doomsday apocalypse that most of the climate scientists predict are way off the wall.
I drive fuel efficient cars (35+ MPG) I set the thermostat low in the winter (make everyone wear hoodies in the house) and high in the summer. I am all about conservation of resources, I just don't buy into the "world is going to end in the next decade" alarmist propaganda as reality, so far, has backed up my beliefs and the alarmist have the proverbial "egg" in their faces each time their dire predictions don't happen.