Few things inflames peoples passion more than a discussion of abortion. However, laying aside the subject matter for a moment, if an argument begins by claiming there is "nothing scientific" about the opposing view, one would expect the argument to itself lean heavily into the scientific realm.

However, this article is riddled with far too many logical fallicies to be very effective. It is a classic appeal to emotions, and judging by prior comments a very effect appeal, there is little here that is even remotely scientific in nature.

"There is nothing scientific about saying 'life begins at conception.'"

Fine. A claim is made. Now, of course, there must follow some argument to support the claim.

"By saying that, you're saying the life begins before implantation."

This is certainly counter-intuitive, to say the least. Let's break down the logic:

Premis: X begins at time t.

Conclusion: X begins prior to time t.

This, as is so often stated in scientific circles, does not follow. Interchanging the words "conception" and "implantation" doesn't help.

To sum up the rest of the article, "life cannot begin at conception because not all conceptions lead to viable human infants."

The when does life begin? It cannot begin at birth because the same logic would necessarily apply: life cannot begin at birth because not all births lead to viable human infants."

"You can have the product of conception in the uterus and still have no baby, because the conception isn't viable. In other words, conception isn't enough to produce a human life. It's just one component.

And that's science."

That is a claim. Science may then be used to offer established facts in support of the claim.

Ultimately, all live births end in death. If we follow your argument to its natural conclusion, life never begins.

I don't think science leads us there.