In her post Media Girl asks,
Here they go with the "science is what I say it is" approach. Does life really begin at conception? Where is this scientific evidence? Does implantation have nothing to do with it? What about gestation?
In the comments section, I left a few quotes from my side panel regarding what science has to say about what happens at conception.
Media Girl also stated, "Unborn children -- a nice, nonsensical phrase, because of course children are not children until they are born. But hey, potential children are almost children, right?"
In response, I asked her how a nine inch journey down the birth canal changes a non-child into a child.
Media Girl's response to my embryology textbook quotes and questions?
1. Spill seed into a woman of chilbearing years
2. Optional: Repeat step 1
And you're done! You have a baby. Oh, never mind the nine months' gestation needed to actually make the baby. That's just irrelevant!
Never mind the nutrition from the woman. Never mind the billions upon billions of processes that must happen for an actual baby to result.
New math: potential baby = baby.
Babies are more than a jumble of genetics, Jivin.
She has no evidence from science to dispute what embryology has to say or any reasoning to back up her assertions so she creates a strawman and goes after it. I never said that a woman's body plays no role in nurturing the growing child. I pointed to the science she asked for. She just doesn't like the answer science has provided. I was also accused by other commenters of being "really into my faith" because I provided quotes from embryology textbooks.