Comment by throw0101b

> [1] I reject the premise that life begins at conception, as the arguments in favor seem to invariably rest on either an unmeasurable claim based on the "soul," or some religious authority. Government is in the reality business, and separation of church and state is an important principle. Therefore the premise is invalid for creating policy.

Can you define "life" please? Because by some definitions bacteria and fungi are alive:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

If single-celled organisms are (allegedly) alive, why not a multi-cellular organism like a zygote/fetus?

Further, just because it is alive, does not necessarily mean it is a person (according to some). Further-further, just because it is a person does not necessarily mean we have any moral obligation towards it (according to some):

> Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. If the fetus becomes a person long before birth — as even Thomson concedes — and if we can owe things to people simply because they are people, then we can owe things to the fetus as well, long before birth.

* https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/phi...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Jarvis_Thomson

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

So according to some folks (I am not making the argument, just describing it) : it can still be life/alive (which started at conception), and also be considered a human person, and abortion would still be okay.