Granted, I was talking about the time between conception and birth. No reasonable person would argue against the fact that by the time the child is born, life has happened, and that is when certificates are ordered (good point, there) and murder charges always stick.
I disagree, though, that science can prove "life," because the term is subjective. Science can show us when fertilization, implantation, brain activity, a heartbeat, viability, and breathing have all occurred, but the differentiation that still remains is which of these constitute "life."
Life happens at conception, however, that doesn't by default make that life a human being or person. A cell extracted from my finger is human and it's alive until it dies. In the case of a zygote or an embryo, it is likewise human and alive, and it's attached to a woman's uterus. Another way to put it is that the life that is conceived is a potential human being depending upon an actual human being to actualize itself into a human being. Is the woman (the human being) morally obligated to remain pregnant for that zygote, embryo, or fetus? Conservatives would say yes unless the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. I would respond, isn't losing your job when you're poor, not a life-threatening event? Have you ever experienced homelessness before? Moreover, pregnancy is dangerous, it comes with many hazards, and it completely disrupts a woman's life, for nine months. Then you have to recover after the pregnancy, that's at least another six months. Is a woman (an actual human being) obligated to actualize the potential of a zygote or embryo, that's attached to her uterus? I don't believe she is, especially when we are living in a capitalist society that is so indifferent to the plight of the working-class and poor.
A conservative might say:
Well I don't want to pay for her abortion.
If you force her to remain pregnant, you're going to end up paying much more. About 80% of our prison population is comprised of men that were raised in poverty, by single mothers, in crime and drug-infested communities. A considerable % of criminals and homeless people were raised in foster care. At the age of 18, they're "let loose", and they're on their own, often resulting in them becoming homeless.
In a capitalist system, such people are left out in the street. Forcing women to carry a zygote or embryo to term, in a heartless, capitalist society, results in more pain and suffering for everyone. In other words, it's more expensive than allowing a woman to decide for herself if she is ready or not to become a mother. Ending her pregnancy is much cheaper in a capitalist country where people are abandoned out in the street and can't find a job to support themselves. If you argue that the termination of the zygote or embryo will result in human beings not existing. You're right, those zygotes and embryos, those undeveloped fetuses, didn't develop into human beings or persons, hence no human beings were violated or murdered. More, if you believe that these zygotes and embryos, undeveloped fetuses have spirits attached to them. Then that's no problem, because those spirits will just return to heaven, where they came from. Correct? The ghost returns to heaven, to wait for another embryo or fetus to jump into.
The ghost will simply jump into another embryo, in a woman that actually wants to be a mom. Isn't that cool?
I'd also like to add, with respect to paying for abortions with our tax dollars. Such an objection assumes the federal government is funded by taxes, which is an erroneous assumption made by most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation:
State and local governments depend upon tax revenue and federal assistance. The federal government's budgetary constraints are defined by our GDP (Gross Domestic Product: Our nation's
production capacity/rate of employment), not taxes. Taxes at the federal level maintain the value of the dollar and takes money out of the economy, which is necessary to control inflation. The US federal government is the exclusive issuer of the USD, hence it can't run out of dollars, any more than a scorekeeper in a football game will run out of points to give. Yes the game has rules, hence the scorekeeper can't just arbitrarily start giving everyone a bunch of points, because that would destroy the game. But as far as the scorekeeper running out of points to give, that will never happen. The US federal government can't give everyone in America a billion dollars, because if everyone became a billionaire overnight, no one would go to work the next day. There wouldn't be enough products to meet consumers' needs, the shelves would be empty and production would come to a screeching halt. Our economy would collapse. So the US federal government budget has its constraints, however, our current budget is small compared to what we could spend.
The so-called national debt is nothing more than a ledger or record of how much money is being saved and invested in treasury bonds. When the government has this "debt" it means there's money in the economy. The US government's red ink is the people's black ink. That's good. Whenever our government has "balanced the books", and gotten rid of its debt, we've suffered a serious recession or all-out depression, within three years of balancing the budget. Don't drink the Kool-Aid about the scary national debt. Politicians and their capitalist handlers have been trying to scare us with this idea of government debt for 200+ years. We have more than enough dollars to fund all social programs. Some social programs are just poorly planned and should be discarded and replaced with something better. Nonetheless, no one in America should be impoverished, unemployed, much less homeless. We have plenty of resources.
