I am a scientist. I certainly can and do discuss human life without a soul. I cannot view a soul under a microscope, nor is there any biochemical test which will reveal it. But there are objective measures which I can apply to determine if something is alive or not, and so I choose life as a major determinant in the discussion of whether it is acceptable to have abortions or not.
The reason I brought up those particular pro-abortion arguments is that their proponents choose an arbitrary measure as their determinant of whether it is acceptable to kill a particular human being or not. Trying to use the presence of a soul as an argument is just as arbitrary. It is also easily countered by those who dismiss opposition to abortion as a religious belief. I try to stay away from arguments that depend on arbitrary measures. Abortion is wrong because it kills a human being. It is wrong because when it is just a few weeks old, that human feels the pain of the violence inflicted on it.
The sperm isn’t a human being, nor is the egg. There is something more and the debate continues. Everyone has to choose. I think mine is fairly objective. If the fertilized egg is attached to the uterine wall it is capable of sustaining life, though it can still die. Before that it is not. This occurs at about the first weeks of pregnancy. That’s objective.
The sperm is haploid human life, as is the ovum. Haploid humans have a very short life span, and have no chance of developing further. There is no particular reason to protect haploid human life. Once they join together and become a diploid zygote, there is a small chance of developing further. I actually do not see much reason to try to protect human life at that stage, either. The zygote may or may not begin to undergo cell division and become a blastocyst. The blastocyst may or may not implant into the uterus. The blastocyst may or may not produce an embryo capable of growth. To me, viable embryo formation marks the point at which we should protect life, because that is the first stage at which we know the human can develop further. My entire determination is made on the basis of objective scientific evidence.
If you don’t want to conceive it allows for great flexibility and maturity. If you want to have an abortion you have a tough decision to make. You will be killing a human life, that is a person with a soul.
I will not disagree. Women have a right and a responsibility to avoid pregnancy when they do not intend to have a child.
Your very definition of life is arbitrary. You call sperm and ovum "haploid human life". Consider six million sperm and ovus burnt in an oven. Would you condemn the oven tender with murder? Of course not, so we need a clear definition of a human life and when it begins. Working backwards we can argue that a baby minutes from birth is alive. How about three months from birth? Alive again. How about six months and so on and so forth? At some point we must pick when a baby is alive. This has scientific and legal and also religious ramifications.
What does the science say? Your definition of life is too broad and amounts to the absurd as I've demonstrated above. In the previous discussion with another poster who stated that "life begins at conception" I demonstrated that this is too strict. Yet, it is just as objective as your definition and just as scientific. You just don't agree with it. What then is a reasonable point to believe human life begins? When the blastocyst is implanted in the uterine wall. The blastocyst is an embryo and part of it forms the placenta. At the point of implantation the embryo can now receive oxygen and nutrients and continue to grow into a baby.
Let's continue with science. At about 22 weeks current medical technology can preserve that human life outside the womb. There is some debate on this and what viability is, but science is arbitrary, too. Scientists are constantly picking and choosing hypotheses and then quibbling over the evidences. We can simply pick this time as the very latest date life begins.
Politically, 5 months or so is plenty of time to put your affairs in order and decide to let the baby live or abort it. A law like this would be supported by 70-80% of voters. At the least a woman will have 4 months or so to make this decision. Politically we should debate whether the father has any say. If we permit fathers to have a say that may encourage less promiscuity, more careful consideration of the ramifications of uncommitted sexual relations, etc. That abortion is allowed is a political question and one that society must answer and answer for.
The question of belief must also be addressed. I don't support abortion for both religious and scientific reasons. Although, I wouldn't force my religious beliefs on you or anyone else it's obvious that life must begin at some point. Conception is too early and as time proceeds toward the normal 40 week birth it is more and more obvious that the baby is alive and deserves life. Where do I draw the line?
First, I believe in a loving God. I also believe in the enemy of all life, the Devil. I don't believe that a loving God would give evil absolute control over a soul and allow it to be condemned for eternity. I believe in an "age of accountability" around age 8. This makes sense to me based on personal experience and the science of brain maturation. It is a general rule. So from what point is a soul innocent? The endpoint as I've stated is 8 and the beginning point is at or about implantation 6-12 days from conception. For his own purposes and unbeknowst to me God deems that not all babies need be born or need grow to adulthood. Those souls do make it to heaven. That's my belief, but the starting point of when life begins is no more arbitrary than yours. I have arrived there based on a series of observable and reasonable interpretations of the data available.
Science isn't a religion, though it often is treated as such by its adherents. Science isn't a shield, nor is logic. At some point we must decide for ourselves. Our souls are measured in those decisions.