Why doesn't a chicken have a right to life?

Read what I wrote instead of what you want to see - if it is a person then it must abide by the restrictions that all other persons have to abide by including gaining consent to use her body.

Welfare recipients do not USE the body of taxpayers.

 

They do indirectly, since the person has to use their own body to perform the work with which they collect welfare benefits from

 

Nope they do not use a taxpayers body directly or indirectly.

Tell me what part of a taxpayers body integrity is compromised by paying taxes?
What injuries do taxpayers incur by paying taxes and by injuries I mean actual injuries to their bodies, not some concocted finical injury.
Tell me do taxpayers suffer from a 400% increase in hormone levels, a 15% increase in blood pressure, a re-routing of their circulatory system, suppression of local immune system and the growing of a new organ inside of them by paying taxes?

 

What if the taxpayer works in an industry like mining or fishing where mortality rate is high?

 

What about it, still does not imply or equate to the welfare recipient infringing the taxpayers body integrity in order to sustain their life. The welfare recipient is not causing bodily injury to the taxpayers in anyway, shape or form.

 

No, no person has even be "conceived" into existence. The "scientific fact" is a male sperm cell "fertilizes" a female egg cell.

People being created by "conception" is singularly a religious doctrine dating back nearly 2000 years in the evolved doctrine of the Catholic church. A person (ie their SOUL) is "conceived" by the thought of God. A person's body is only their package or temple, the person is immortal. Thus, immaculate "conception" of Mary becoming pregnant with God as the father is entirely plausible. Or, as you say, "scientific fact."

As for the secondary act of human sex, this does not create a person and that sex occurred on the will of God, known in advance to God, as nothing happens that God already doesn't know about. This also is why contraceptives are sinful. They are an attempt to defy God conceiving more souls =- humans - having homo sapien animal bodies to put the true person into.

Of course, "Life begins at fertilization resulting from sex" is intolerable heresy against the Catholic faith and isn't a good sounding slogan, so prolifers have declared 100 billion times that the Catholic Church is right, life begins by being "conceived" by God into exist.

No one has ever been "conceived" into existence nor does anyone ever talk about "artificial conception" for livestock or so forth. "Life begins at conception" is the antithesis of science and biology. You should add that Mary is the most blessed of all women and the sexless origins of the birth of Jesus to your list of scientific facts.

 

When was your unique genetic code created?

 

It wasn't "created." No two automobiles are exactly the same down to the exact atoms. At what instant is an automobile "created?" When the iron ore was dug out? The oil pumped out of the ground to make the plastic? When sand for the glass first came into existence? When earth came into existence? The first direct stage is the male and female. The first step is two fold, the sperm and the egg. Then next stage is their merging. The next step is...

The bottomline total dna code difference between you and I isn't 0.00000001%.

However, if you believe in "creation" that is a belief, not science. Even if I agree in a created universe in some fashion that does not conclude abortion is immoral. My message is specific. A human being is not "conceived" into existence. Prolife uses the religious slogan of the Catholic Church claiming a human life begins metaphysically, rather than biological and scientific terminology. Yet then it can not be claimed "scientific fact."

Why don't prolifers say "a human life begins at the moment of fertilization?" to at least have a slogan that is other than a spiritual/religious belief? In general, prolifers despise and refuse to use scientific and biological terminology of "fetus," "zygote," "fertilization," "homo sapien," etc. Rather they use "conception," "human being," and "baby."

My point? When I read a prolifer arguing "science" and "biology," they are always using religious, ideological and subjective terminology instead. Prolife slogans are not new, they are hundreds of years old religious dogma.

Arguments I believe have merit, though are not on the decisive side, are such a claiming abortion is degrading of humanity, that it is aesthetically unsettling, that it usually represents reckless lack of self control since the invention of contraceptives and understanding the fertility cycles of females, represents dangerous and disease spreading lack of sexual health hygene etc - not has universal merit upon religious sloganism.

What is more curious, is if a religious prochoicer claims a person is really their soul, and that enters a person on birth citing the Bible, then prochoice will declare beliefs are irrelevant declaring there is some science that declares abortions are immoral. Yet science inherently never declares a morality. Scientific facts merely are, they are not judgmental.