Matsu, a pro-choice blogger at mediagirl.com (remember the pro-choice blog where Serge and I were called among other things "fundie wackjobs" for providing quotes from embryology textbooks and arguing about when the life of an individual human being begins) attempts to prove that "life begins at conception" is a religious belief.
What's interesting is that Matsu asserts that "life begins at conception" is a religious view after explaining "the idea that "life begins at conception" cannot be found in the Bible." The ignorance of Christian beliefs would also be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Here's my favorite quote:
"The modern scientific understanding of impregnation came first, then a religious significance was attached to a scientific insight."
No. Modern scientific understanding about when life begins occurred and prolifers have accepted this modern scientific understanding. Many pro-choicers because of their advocacy for abortion have vainly attempted to deny scientific facts by claiming that accepting modern scientific understanding is somehow a religious belief.
UPDATE: It appears that I have been banned from Media Girl's web site. I posted a comment there yesterday and now it is gone. It's amazing how some of the supposedly open-minded pro-choicers who simply can't stand anyone imposing their view on anyone else are so willing to ban the speech of others.
Read the comments section for Matsu's post to see how Robert from The Argument Clinic points out a factual error that Media Girl made while commenting (she claimed South Dakota's abortion ban doesn't have an exception for the life of the mother - it does). The response from Media Girl and Bay Prairie is anything but civil and all Robert did was point out a factual error. It would have been so easy for Media Girl to say, "You're right. I blew it. I meant "health" of the mother" or something like that.