Science, Abortion, and a Pro-Life stance
Snagged from a social media site.
“Scientifically speaking, a distinct human life exists from conception onward. Life, because it meets the biological criteria for life; human, because it contains the human genome and is at the beginning of a human lifecycle; distinct, because its genome is different from the mother’s and (barring accidents, disease, or malice) it will continue to exist even after its mother’s death.
Suggesting that natural miscarriage is the same as abortion is like suggesting that no-fault accidental deaths are the same as murder.
Suggesting that contraception is the same as abortion is like suggesting that parts of something are equal to the whole of something: Give separate sperm and eggs as much time, shelter, and nutrients as you want, even inside a woman’s womb, and they will continue neither to be human (they don’t have the full human genome) nor fully developed into a human. Separate sperm and eggs are not at the beginning of a human lifecycle. The human lifecycle begins when sperm and egg come together and are fertilized.
Suggesting that pro-lifers are anti-life because they don’t agree with specific policy positions is serious doublethink. First, because it’s completely consistent for pro-lifers to be extremely generous to groups for unwed mothers and women with distressed pregnancies — and they are — as well as to believe that the government will waste their money if it’s taxed from them and put into welfare programs. Second, because they focus on what happens after people are born and thus discount the distinct human lives that are taken before they’re born. It’s like saying that slavery is okay, while also maintaining that one can’t be anti-slavery if one doesn’t support their specific chosen list of welfare programs for freed slaves.”