What's frightening is back in the 80's when McNally wrote his "Innocent Bystander" column for the old Milwaukee Journal, I was a big lib and a big fan. Yes, I'm now a conservative but I find it hard to believe that even as a liberal I could have enjoyed writing this banal . Clear as my mind cleared McNally's became increasingly addled.
The notion that life begins at conception is a "religious belief?" So, it's impossible for atheists to believe life begins at conception? I see absolutely nothing theistic about this belief, at all. The following are scientific facts not in dispute:
1) A zygote(a fertilized egg) is alive. The argument is whether human life begins at conception. A zygote begins cell division shortly after fertilization. Cell division by definition means it's a living thing.
2) A zygote contains all the genetic information an adult will if it's allowed to be carried to term and mature outside the womb.
3) In the known history of the world, a woman has never carried a zygote to term and not given birth to a human. Yes, many times this is a human less than perfect in development, but a human. This is the ultimate in the repeatable scientific experiment. Mix a human sperm with a human egg and if you allow it to to carry to term it yields a human ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time.
4) The fatal flaw in the pro abortion belief system; if human life doesn't begin at conception, when does it? birth? Yes, some pro abortionists hold that extreme position, most don't. So it begins somewhere between conception and birth? That sounds more like a religious belief than believing life begins at conception.
Yes, some religions have made clear they believe human life begins at conception. But to suggest such a belief is uniquely religious is idiotic. I should check some of McNally's old column's and see if it's him or me. On the other hand, maybe I don't want to know.