News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fact-checkers: Talking crap in Holland v America by Luc on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:49AM (#4758565)
> What is the scientifically untenable position about abortion?

The argument that can be summed up as 'life starts at conception'.

Re:Fact-checkers: Talking crap in Holland v America by takluyver on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:58AM (#4758616)
Speaking as a biologist, sperm and eggs are alive even before they fuse. There's no scientifically meaningful way to specify when 'life starts'. So the question of when a developing foetus should be given the rights of a person is primarily philosophical.
Re:Fact-checkers: Talking crap in Holland v America by Luc on Thursday November 08, 2012 @12:23PM (#4758751)
I tried to avoid nitpicking by specifying that it's just a summary of the argument, but I failed. I should have used the term 'personhood' instead.
Re:Fact-checkers: Talking crap in Holland v America by nsxwolf on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:57AM (#4758615)
Science agrees with that assertion. The argument is over the more vague concept of "personhood".