Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Parallels of Veganism and Pro-lifeism

When talking about the comparisons of the issues of abortion and animal farming/exploitation, it seems that there are two similar sides that we can look at. The similarities between vegan ideas/arguments and pro-life ideas/arguments, and the similarities between animal consuming ideas/arguments and pro-choice ideas/arguments. Similarities between veganism and pro-lifeism: *Both are centered around the idea of respecting life, especially of that of the particularly innocent, vulnerable, voiceless, helpless, defenseless etc. *Right to life is present in both. With pro-lifeism, of course the unborn child is being killed so a focus is put on the fact that they have a right to not be killed and to continue their lives, and with veganism, animals get killed and thus a focus is put on them having a right to not be killed and to continue their lives. *Right to not be harmed and bodily autonomy, as well as the right to not be seen as property to be disposed of as one sees fit, is present in both. In an abortion, the child is dismembered with medical tools or sucked apart or poisoned etc. This harms them and takes away their bodily autonomy as their bodies are being harmed and destroyed. They are considered their parents property and they are at the will of their parents. With animal farming/consuming/exploiting etc., there are many different ways in which the bodies of animals are harmed and they are treated as objects and their bodily autonomy is taken away as well, whether that be abuse like being beaten over the head in some factory farms, or the stress of being artificially inseminated and having to give birth and being constantly milked, to going through training in circuses etc. etc. They are literally considered the property of farmers and are at the will of those who farm them, train them, or are otherwise considered their owners. *Both point out that if one can't stand to look at gruesome pictures that are the end result of what they are supporting (abortion pictures/slaugtherhouse pictures), then they don't want to be supporting it in the first place. The idea is that if one finds it offensive then you are saying that something you support is why are you supporting it? *Both see the genocide that is happening right before our eyes, and understand that it is prejudice and oppression. Both have trouble understanding why after learning our lesson with the past genocides, we still continue with this one. Some on each side make comparisons to the holocaust and slavery/racism. *Both mention that abortion or animal consuming/using aren't necessary, and talk about the other options that one has. For why should we go out of our way to cause all this death and destruction when we don't have to? For abortion, there is adoption (of which you can have open, closed, or semi-open, and you can find some that are free too), safe-haven/safe-surrender/baby-moses laws which let you leave the child at any police station, hospital, or fire department, no questions asked, kinshipcare or guardianshipcare, where you give the child to a family member or close friend to be raised, and this can be long-term or short-term, or a ton of options for help if the woman does think she can be a parent with the right help, that goes into various avenues such as financial, daycare, baby drives, housing, rights for pregnant women at school or in the workplace and things to make it easier like desks that fit the stomachs of pregnant women or set ups for her to work or learn from home etc. etc. etc. There's also talk of artificial wombs. With veganism, there's literally a vegan version of everything. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of edible plants that we have discovered so far and literally a vegan version of everything. If it's possible to make it non-vegan, it's possible to make it vegan. There are tons of vegan options at every store and you can veganize fast food meals as well. Those who are poor can be vegan, as many of us are. There are vegan leathers and soaps and this and that and the other. *Right to continue living so as to continue to use the other rights and choices they would have is present in both. Pro-lifers often talk about how the most important right is the right to life, as all other rights would be meaningless without it as you wouldn't be alive to get to use them. Vegans often point out that animals are here for their own reasons, just like us, to have their own lives and do their own things. They aren't here to be objects for the use of humans. That brings me to a related issue on the reverse... Similarities between non-veganism and pro-choiceism: *Both use a "choice" argument, and forget the victim at hand and their choices, and act like the perpetrator needs to have a choice to harm the victim. With animal using and consuming, they think it has to be the ones partaking in the using or consuming that need to have a choice to do so. Often you'll l hear something like, "It's my choice to eat meat. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you don't eat meat, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." With abortion it's the same thing, with the mother getting to choose to take her unborn child to a facility to be dismembered and killed. "It's my choice to get an abortion. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you wouldn't get an abortion, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." *Similarly, both use the bodies of those committing the act instead of the bodies of the victims to act like somehow disregarding one's bodily autonomy is the bodily right of another. For abortion, "It's my body, my choice." and sometimes "If it's in my body I can kill it." For animal consuming/wearing, "It's my body, my choice. I get to choose what goes in/on my body." Both actions require harming and killing someone else's body, but only the bodies of the ones doing said harming will ever be paid attention to for these sides. Forgetting the victim and acting like it's the other party that is in the wrong because they are infringing on the rights of those taking away the rights of others is an old way to pass off discrimination. *Both use overpopulation as an excuse to kill the victims. With abortion, they say that humans are overpopulated and thus we shouldn't have anymore, as well as that since it's overpopulated, they'll have a horrible life so we might as well not allow them to exist so as to spare them a life in the overpopulated world. With animal consuming/using, they say that animals are overpopulated so we need to kill them so that their overpopulation doesn't get in the way. *Both use things such as pain and sentience and intelligence and size as a way to belittle the victims and excuse killing and harming. They say that those who have yet to be born can't feel pain, aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. They say that those of other species can't feel pain (the classic "fish don't feel pain" myth for example), aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, animals like insects are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. Both of these not only are incorrect *at the very least* for some of those who have yet to be born and some animals, but also forget that there are many born humans, such as infants and other children and those along the wide spectrum of disabilities and diseases who also fall in those categories, yet they understand then that those things don't matter at all. How can you argue that if one isn't intelligent, they can be killed, if you understand that a born human who is mentally challenged needs even more protection than the average person? It's a might makes right attitude as well. "I'm bigger than you/smarter than you etc., so since I can kill you because you have less abilities than me, I should be allowed to have that choice." Discriminating against a group based off of their abilities, or Ableism, is another classic way to pass off discrimination, and is closely tied to eugenics. It's been said that you have to look at someone's differences and act like that makes you better in order to get people to successfully oppress a group. For the unborn it's dehumanizing, for other animals it's speciesism. *Both use the arguments that these things have been happening for so long/are natural, and that people will still do them even if it's outlawed. Abortion is ancient so women will still find a way to do it they say. Animal eating is ancient and what we need to be doing they say. God put animals on earth for us to use they say. God aborts babies all the time they say.
*Both try to brush off the act by talking about the fact that it is legal, as if somehow something being legal therefore makes it ok, or that somehow you shouldn’t advocate for the other side as if things can’t change from legal to illegal. *Both try to find ways to defend at least some abortion or animal killing/harming. With abortion they say "well it's ok if it's below a certain amount of weeks/well it's ok if she was raped/well it's ok if the child has a disability etc." With animal killing they usually go for the ones labelled "humane" "organic" "grass fed" cage free" free rage" without realizing the problems with these either, or specify specific animals. Or they'll just say "I wouldn't eat a dog but a pig is different." *Ultimately, both look at the differences we have from these groups rather than our similarities and use that as a way to exert power and control over them and "other" them to the point of death, dismemberment, and exploitation.

Friday, May 1, 2015

The science of the unborn

"We talk of human development not because a jumble of cells, which is perhaps initially atypical, gradually turns more and more into a human, but rather because the human being develops from a uniquely human cell. There is no state in human development prior to which one could claim that a being exists with not-yet-human individuality. On the basis of anatomical studies, we know today that no developmental phase exists that constitutes a transition from the not-yet-human to the human."
"In short, a fertilized egg (conceptus) is already a human being." -Erich Blechschmidt, Brian Freeman, The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: The Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Adulthood, North Atlantic Books, June 2004. pp 7,8

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
-Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”
-Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144 (6): 649 (Oct. 1, 2012)

"Fertilization is the epic story of a single sperm facing incredible odds to unite with an egg, and form a new human life. It is the story of all of us." "The two sets of chromosomes join together, completing the process of fertilization. At this moment, a unique genetic code arises, instantly determining gender, hair color, eye color, and hundreds of other characteristics. This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being." (Fertilization (Conception) by Nucleus Medical Media)

"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated." (In the Womb by National Geographic)

"Biologically speaking, fertilization (or conception) is the beginning of human development...Fertilization begins with the spermatozoon contacting the cells surrounding the oocyte and ends with the mixing of the 23 male and 23 female chromosomes. The result is a single-cell embryo called a zygote, meaning "yoked or joined together," and it is the first cell of the human body. The zygote, like the oocyte, is encased by its protective covering, the zona pellucida, and contains 46 unique chromosomes with the entire genetic blueprint of a new individual." (Prenatal Form and Function – The Making of an Earth Suit by the Endowment of Human Development)

*"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization...The result is a single-cell embryo called a zygote, meaning "yoked or joined together""The zygote's 46 chromosomes represent the unique first edition of a new individual's complete genetic blueprint. This master plan resides in tightly coiled molecules called DNA. They contain the instructions for the development of the entire body. DNA molecules resemble a twisted ladder known as a double helix."
"From the completion of 8 weeks until the end of pregnancy, the developing human is called a fetus, which means "unborn offspring." (The Biology of Human Development by National Geographic and The Endowment of Human Development)

"Fertilization occurs when the nuclei of a sperm and an egg fuse to form a diploid cell, known as zygote. The successful fusion of gametes forms a new organism." (even wikipedia acknowledges a zygote is a new organism)

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
-"Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd Edition, New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8." by Ronan R. O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller

“Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. … The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
-[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"Although human development is usually divided into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, development is a continuum that begins at fertilization (conception). Birth is a dramatic event during development, resulting in change in environment.
Development does not stop at birth; important developmental changes occur after birth-- development of teeth and female breasts, for example."
-"Before We Are Born : Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects,(5th Edition) (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998) 36." by  Keith L. Moore and  T. V. N. Persaud

"Human Development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell – a zygote – into a multicellular human being. Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) andpostnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (p. 2)
The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents.” (p. 33)
-"The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003, pp. 16, 2." by Keith L. Moore and  T. V. N. Persaud

"[The zygote], fomed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
-Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

"Fertilization is the process whereby the sperm and egg--collectively called gametes--fuse together to begin the creation of a new individual whose genome is derived from both parents... Thus, the first function of fertilization is to transmit genes from parent to offspring" -Developmental Biology 10th edition by Scott F. Gilbert.

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." -Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." -Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." -Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human begins begin at conception."- Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D.

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
-T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
-William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

"A Zygote (Created fertilization) is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization."
-Developing Human Clinical 6th edition

"Development begins with fertilization: The process by which the male gamete (the sperm) and the female gamete (the oocyte) unite to give rise to a zygote."
-Langman's medical Embryology

"An Embryo is an organism in the earliest stages of development."
-Harper Collins Illustrated medical dictionary

"It is an established fact that life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception…"- r. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
-Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops."
"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
-J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
-E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris, France was a medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for over twenty years. Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery and, in addition, received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics. He is often called the "Father of Modern Genetics". The following are some notable statements by him:
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
- 1989 court testimony in Tennessee, cf. also Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990

1981 Us Senate sub committee
Dr. Michelin mathews roth
"It is incorrect to say that biological data can not be decisive. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
*reached a conclusion after all their testimony that physicians and biologists agree that human life begins at conception.

"The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."
- The Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Report to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th
Congress, First Session, 1981

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
- The official Senate report from Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981
Background on the Committee testifiers:
A group of internationally-known biologists and geneticists appeared to speak on behalf of the scientific community on the subject of when a human being begins. They all presented the same view and there was no opposing testimony. Among those testifying:
Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School
Dr. Jerome Lejeune (“Father of Modern Genetics”)
Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes
Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization"
Professor Eugene Diamond
Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester
C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine

“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.” -Scott Gilbert, Developmental Biology, 6th Edition

“The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.” Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
(Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. (New York: Harper Perennial, 1993) p. 146.

“…Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. It is not belief. It is scientific fact.”
Ward Kischer, human embryologist, University of Arizona
“You Can Stop Injustice” Human Life Alliance Supplement, 2010

“The fusion of sperm and egg membranes initiates the life of a sexually reproducing organism.”
-Marsden et al., Model systems for membrane fusion, CHEM. SOC. REV. 40(3):1572 (Mar. 2011)

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs [at conception], the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
-Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.”
-F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual” (p. 1)
-Human Embryology, William J Larsen, 3rd Edition, 2001

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”
-Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”
-National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), (emphasis added).

“Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”
-Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

"Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”
-Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980)  P 136

"[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
-Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
-James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

"In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”
-Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144

“… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”
-Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983

"Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide."
-From Newsweek November 12, 1973:Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
-Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

“The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”
-DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584

“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
-Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

“The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”
-Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86

“Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex …structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.”
-Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99

“A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”
-Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53

“…but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
-Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

"Embryo: 1. An organism developing inside a womb, egg, or seed. 2. A human baby in the first two months of growth in the womb.
Zygote: First cell of new living thing."
-The Usborne Internet-Linked Science Encyclopedia

Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.
Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”
Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.
Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”
In his film, “The Silent Scream,” Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader. At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.
Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,
I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.
The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:
The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.
The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

The most authoritative scientific conclusion on when human life begins that has been made in recent years, was the conclusion from The First International Conference on Abortion, held in Washington DC, October 1967. Approximately 60 major scientific authorities from the field of medicine, ethics, law and social sciences participated as consultants in this symposium. Carefully chosen for their scientific knowledge and integrity, they presented a cross-section of race, religion, culture, and geographic backgrounds. After several days of “think tank” discussions, the medical group, made up of geneticists, biochemists, physicians, professors, research scientists, etc., came to a near unanimous conclusion (one dissension):
“The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life [blastocyst stage occurs approximately one week after fertilization, and would account for twinning]”.… The changes occurring between implantation, the 6 week embryo, six-month fetus, a one week-old child, or mature adult are really stages of development and maturation.”

Here's more:

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Pro-Life: A Youth Movement

Well I've been hearing for a while now that the teens and twentysomethings of today are very pro-life. Secular Pro-Life states that this generation is the most pro-life and least religious since Roe V. Wade. We have groups like Students for Life, and Pro-Life groups, marches, and rallies are having increasing amounts of youth. We really are the pro-life generation.

It makes sense that the youth would be the most pro-life for a number of reasons. For one thing, abortion is the most ageist/childist act, so of course the youth, given that they were not as far away from being in utero as their elders, as well as the fact that they still have to constantly go through lots of ageism as you aren't treated as a real human being until you are a legal adult (or then some), would be pro-life and fight for their fellow youth just like they would with any injustice put on one of them. This is a big reason why I always hated it. Being very liberal, I always had a sense of realizing the youthism there is, wanting a teenage revolution, and being anti-establishment, so I definitely saw abortion as the worst human rights violation against kids.

Also, the kids of today have had abortion legalized for their whole lives and then some. It's a bit different for someone in their 40s who is pro-life, becuase they never had to think about how they could have been a casualty to this, and it would be perfectly legal. Abortion was only legalized in the 70s, so for those who are in their 30s or below, there is a much greater sense of being a survivor. Those who are just like us have fallen victim to abortion. Some of our classmates and potential friends are gone because of this. A third of our generation is gone because of abortion. I definitely have had that creepy feeling while thinking of how it feels to be this lucky to have been given life when my mother could have aborted me. I often wonder how many abortions were performed the year I was born. Abortion has always been around, but not to this extent and not legalized like this. So really it would be like any group fighting for others in said group. Really it just makes sense to fight for our younger brethren. We may not be embryos, but we are still youth. Think of gay people who don't plan on getting married fighting for marriage equality so that their kind who do wish to can have that opportunity. It hits so much more close to home for the younger generations. It's personal.

Another thing is that, well really a big reason why most Americans are pro-life now, we have better technology and access to the internet, and you know how the stereotype goes... The kids are the ones addicted to the internet and their smart phones and tablets and texting, and the older folks are the ones who can't figure it out. Sure, some older people are very technology wise, but the youth really are the ones who use this stuff more. We are the generation who grew up around it. It comes as second nature to us. And of course, you can find out the humanity of the unborn on the internet. You can go and look up different stages of fetal development and what happens at conception, find out the heart starts beating at 3 weeks after conception and the brain is the first organ to show up, at 2 weeks, and science says all over the place that it is indeed another unique and individual living human being that just happens to be growing inside of the woman but is not part of her, and so on and so forth.

There are better ultrasound/sonogram pictures than ever before, progressing past the very hard to see black and white original ones and moving to 3D and 4D. You can find pictures or video of what the embryos and fetuses look like inside the womb on the internet. You can even take home 3D statues of what your little one looks like in utero. The Endowment of Human Development has a lot of good videos of the unborn. You can literally see the heart beating, the blood pumping, as the skin is a bit translucent, at only a handful of weeks after conception. The truth is, most pro-choicers are pro-choice because they either don't know or don't understand the humanity of the unborn. Science and technology help them realize it little by little, and the kids are at the forefront of the technological age. If they are pro-choice, they can be smug and say "It's not a human, here, I'll prove it to you" and actually bother to look it up with the intentions of schooling those pro-lifers, but in reality realize how very wrong they were. I've heard it time and time again: Knowledge turns people pro-life, and the pro-choice side has a great fear of knowledge. If the kids are lucky enough to realize this, and the internet and better technology makes it easier, they become more and more pro-life. It is definitely not "just a clump of cells", sadly most pro-choicers still believe this, but it's easier than ever to find out how wrong that is.

The dualities of pro-choicers talking when it isn't about abortion vs. when it is

So I came across this standard medical video on fertilization, and first of all, in the beginning it says, "Fertilization is the epic story of a single sperm facing incredible odds to unite with an egg, and form a new human life. It is the story of all of us." and at the end, "The two sets of chromosomes join together, completing the process of fertilization. At this moment, a unique genetic code arises, instantly determining gender, hair color, eye color, and hundreds of other characteristics. This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being." and I notices that one of the comments was about how this was the video that person was shown in school. We learn this stuff by the time we are in highschool. Yet I noticed there were no debates about when life begins in the comments section. Not a single comment about abortion at all. Not a comment even from the pro-life side saying "See we told you" and not a comment from the pro-choice side trying to say they must be wrong and it must be propaganda. I always thought it was weird how we are all taught this same stuff, yet when debating abortion, pro-choicers seem to forget it. I realize now that they totally accept it when being taught it or when it is in the context of learning about fertilization, but suddenly when it comes to abortion, they forget it all, and they say science says the opposite of what it says. They could be talking about conception or the unborn in general and know what it is and be correct with it, but then when it comes to abortion or "choice" suddenly they turn their backs on everything they just said, and say the opposite. It's like the issue of abortion has been so politicized that everyone forgets their common sense and everything they ever learned about the unborn just to take a jab at the other side. Once again, I blame the abortion industry/higher ups in the pro-choice movement, using all those slogans and dehumanizing and really trying to sell abortion, and making people think they have to be pro-choice if they are this or that. It's times like these I wish somehow, something like this could be an apolitical thing.

Also, when talking about babies and pregnant women, everyone everywhere will say that what is in the woman right now is a baby, is a child, is a being, is alive, is growing etc., but suddenly when talking about abortion, it isn't a baby, child, or being. You can watch any commercial with a pregnant woman in it and they will make it clear that what she has inside of her right now is a baby, yet if it's an abortion, it's a "clump of cells" or "product of conception" or "contents of the uterus." A wanted baby is a baby, yet an unwanted baby is a parasite. The most pro-choice people will recognize it is a life or baby or what have you when not talking about abortion, yet suddenly when that's the nature of discussion, it becomes something totally different.

In addition to that, when it isn't about abortion, they would never, ever advocate for killing or there not being people because of things like poverty and death and people having not-so-good lives. They know that the people that are here, even though they may have hardships, are worth being here, and they will probably get through it and be stronger for it. They actually advocate for helping these people, and looking at them not as burdens or not as people who are doomed, but rather people who should be loved and are worthy as we all are to be here, and take even more care of them and loving them all the more than people in general. Sure you still have the population controllers/eugenicists who do advocate for killing off people left and right and controlling the population because life isn't perfect, but even a lot of pro-choicers don't like those ideas. But when talking about abortion, suddenly all of that changes and it becomes "But what about poor women, single women, babies who have disabilities, people who grow up being abused, how evil can you be to think that they should have to go through lives like that?" First of all, these are people born who are having lives like this, and second of all, tons of them are wanted and planned. If you want to advocate for killing people in the womb because they may possibly have horrible lives, you'd have to advocate killing all the people that are born who have horrible lives.

Nothing ever GUARANTEES that someone will have to suffer or be in that situation anyway. You DON'T know how their lives will turn out. You can't tell the future. If someone is born disabled in some way, that DOES NOT mean they will grow up hating life, being bullied, or having parents who hate them or treat them poorly (and saying that a woman who has unwanted children will abuse them is VERY anti-woman. Lots of born people weren't wanted but their parents never hurt them and they grew up just fine), and for those that do, that does NOT mean they would be better off dead or would want to die. Even if they were bullied, it would be by people like you who point out how they are different and say they should have been aborted because of it. If someone is born to a poor mother, that DOES NOT mean they will have an awful, terrible life, or even that it will always be poor and that there will never be a way out. To say so is total discrimination against those people. Pro-choicers coming across someone who was making fun of a poor person and saying their life sucks or they shouldn't be alive or anything of the sort TOTALLY would call that person out on being prejudiced against poor people. To those that may have abusive parents, that DOES NOT mean they absolutely, positively, will have horrible lives and no good can come out of their lives or that they will want to die or wish they would have never been born. For those whose parents did not want them., or were conceived in rape and the mother is remembered by the rape, that DOES NOT mean their parents will be horrible to them or they are destined to live horrible lives. Plus, there are still people choosing to keep their babies on purpose, even if they weren't planned, aren't necessarily wanted, are poor, are single parents etc. so really, you wouldn't get your world of all these people being aborted anyway, and you would have to force people to abort and take away their choice in order to do so. To those that think we should kill off babies in the womb because they *may* have not so perfect lives, well first of all, life sucks in general, no one has that great of a life, but it is still worth living for a lot of people, and second of all I would counter "Then why don't you go and kill the ones who are going through lives like that right now if you think it's so evil for people to not be doing that?"

Pro-choicers value their "beliefs" over science

Ironically, while pro-choicers tend to assume that any pro-lifer is religious or tell them to "keep their religion out of it" even if they didn't even mention religion, their main arguments are much more religious and faith-based.

"Well I just don't believe it's a baby/child/human/human being/alive/life/person", "Life begins when the mother feels like it." "We don't know when life begins/there's no consensus/there's a debate going on/we all have our beliefs on this" More often than not, you will have pro-choicers arguing this. This is often coming from my fellow people who claim to love science and say that beliefs should be left out of things and we should look at facts. The great thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it, and it most definitely does say that the unborn are individual living human beings. You can't have your "beliefs" in this area. Science will tell you what is alive and a being and all that. I could just as easily say "Well I don't "believe" YOU are alive" but that wouldn't make sense as that's not how it works. Even pro-choice leaders have said things like this, like the president of NARAL, Ilyse Hogue, and the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, and others who work for them straight up belittling and telling people to ignore science, and MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry (though luckily there are some pro-choice advocates and abortion doctors alike that admit it's another living human being that is different from the woman and abortion is killing it.) If you're going to advocate for science, you can't be cherry-picking like the people you criticize for doing the same with the bible. I also have an earlier post going into more detail of how the pro-choice side hides and denies facts here

Why "Men can't have an opinion" and "Keep the government out of it!" are hypocritical arguments.

I'm sure we've all heard these arguments before. The, "Well you're a man, so you can't (have an opinion/speak about it/vote on it/even think about it) because you have no uterus and don't know what it's like to be a woman!" type of arguments are flawed when it comes to people whoa re pro-choice, because, guess what, NARAL was founded by 2 men originally, and only 1 of the 5 founders was a woman, and MEN passed Roe V. Wade, and MEN are abortion doctors, and yes MEN are pro-choice and vote as such. You (I'm talking about the pro-choicers that are like this of course) only seem to care about this if it is pro-life men. Where are all the people screaming at pro-choice men, "No uterus, no opinion!"? Same goes for the "government should stay out of it" argument. It was the GOVERNMENT that wrote in laws saying you could get an abortion in the first place. If you don't want the government in it, reject Roe V. Wade, and all other laws saying women have the right to choose abortion, and government officials who are pro-choice or vote that way.

The whole "No uterus, no opinion" thing is stupid and obviously sexist, and this is coming from a woman who does have a uterus. It's taking something about that person and saying that because of it, they don't get to have a voice. It's not like anyone would say a woman can't have an opinion on or talk about circumcision just because we don't have penises, and if anyone ever did, everyone would be crying "Sexist!" Same goes for a number of things. No one would say that white people can't talk about how bad owning slaves is just because they aren't black, and can't properly "understand". Perhaps they did say that in the day though, but now everyone would think that is stupid. People aren't defined by their race or gender or whatever else. To say they can't understand it because they don't belong to that group is even furthering the separation of groups.

The funny thing is that while it apparently only applies to pro-life men, much in the same way they are "pro-choice" yet don't let anyone choose to be pro-life, the statement itself is only based off of gender and not content of their views. Everyone has to be like them. Frankly, if they think a man is saying something stupid about abortion, the fact that they are saying something stupid should be enough. They could just say, "Well that's ridiculous and makes no sense", but instead they opt for the ad hominems, which always is a cue to other people that they honestly have no idea how to argue that so they look for something else to argue. Do they say "You're not a woman, so quit talking!" to men saying they think a woman has the right to choose or people should stay out of it? No they do not. I wonder what they would say if they saw someone yelling at a pro-choice man who is talking about how he thinks women should get to choose what they want, "You don't have a uterus, so you don't get an opinion! So shut up!" One would wonder why these men would want to be part of a group that doesn't allow their gender to speak, have an opinion, or make laws depending on their viewpoint anyway. Also, some women don't have uteruses. Don't pro-choice men hate the whole, "Only women are allowed to talk about this" aspect of it? Not to mention it actually is sexist against women as well because you are making it out to be a "woman's thing."

Taking Back Bodily Autonomy

I have always been SUPER pro-bodily-autonomy/integrity and freedom of choice. My main philosophy in life has always been that you should be able to do whatever you want, whatsoever, as long as it doesn't hurt another body besides your own. This is exactly why I am against abortion. Bodily autonomy/integrity is why most pro-lifers are against abortion. If there wasn't another body that was being threatened or we didn't care about the body being threatened, we wouldn't be pro-life and there wouldn't be a problem. We'd say "Yeah sure violate and kill the unborn's body, it's not like I care what others do to bodies that aren't their own!" Get a hysterectomy, sure, but there is no greater threat to bodily autonomy than abortion. The right to bodily autonomy fits so much better with the pro-life side.

The thing about pro-choicers is that they don't really understand bodily autonomy. They think it's absolute (they seem to forget the "as long as you don't hurt another body" part of it, and there are many situations in which it is not absolute, such as helmet or other safety laws, drugs being illegal, or illegal in certain circumstances such as for those under a certain age, being taken away on a 5150 and forced in a mental hospital and watched to make sure you don't kill yourself, someone can't neglect their child and refuse to feed it because they don't want to use their arms to give it food (Refusing your child nutrients and survival because you don't want your uterus to go to this is basically the same. Children also have the right to not be neglected, and depriving the child of resources it needs to live, even if it wasn't wanted or planned or is an "inconvenience", is still neglect and still wrong) or kill or hurt their child if they wrapped themselves around your leg for instance and you can't get them off without doing so, and various other circumstances (regardless of whether or not you agree with them, they exist legally)), they think right to life can never come before it (right to life comes before at least most things as it is the ultimate threat against someone (and if you're an Atheist like me, you should really believe in it, as life is ALL we have, and without life, all other rights are meaningless as we wouldn't be alive to be able to use them, and this is why they put life first in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and it's almost like a lot of them don't even think right to life is a thing, because if bodily autonomy always exists in the context of "even if someone dies" as so many of them like to argue, then you can go around killing people an excuse it by saying "Well it was my body doing the killing so you can't do anything about it because bodily autonomy" ), when talking about abortion, they act like the only thing to bodily autonomy is whether or not you allow someone to use your organs (there's much more which I'll explain), and they think forget about the unborn's bodily autonomy because the woman's autonomy is the only thing we should really care about etc.

Now essentially bodily autonomy has a few different things to it (and no not all of them are legal.) It means you can do whatever you want to or with your body (get tattoos or piercings or body mods, take drugs, be a stripper or prostitute, have sex whatever way you want it however much you want it with whomever you want (unless they are underage or someone else non-consenting) refuse to shave or wear makeup etc.), no one can do anything to your body without consent or invade the personal space of your body (think of rape, molestation, inflicting pain or injury, even just touching someone without them wanting you to etc.), and yeah having control over your organs is part of it, but the main thing is that no one can hurt or kill your body without consent (this is actually sort of related to right to life as someone being killed means their body was killed and hurt to the utmost extreme, so they aren't even mutually exclusive in the first place). You get to be in charge of your body, and no one else can ever hurt it (unless you're into that sort of thing and it's completely consensual ).

Of course according to science, the unborn is another individual living human being and different body than the mother. The unborn's bodily autonomy is the one being threatened here as the act in question is abortion and the unborn is the one being aborted, not the woman. Abortion is forcing death (and various things with the various types, such as dismemberment which is also obviously a great threat to bodily autonomy) on it without it consenting and having a choice in the matter. That is the biggest threat to bodily autonomy.

Now trust me, I get that the woman has autonomy too and she might not want to be pregnant and share her body with the unborn. Talking about the unborn's right to bodily autonomy and right to life DOES NOT mean we think little of the woman's right to bodily autonomy (remember I'm a super liberal and radical feminist, super pro-bodily rights type, so don't use that stupid "they all just hate women and want to take away their bodily autonomy" misconception on me). I am female, I live with thinking about what it is like to be pregnant all the time, BUT abortion is still a greater threat to bodily autonomy. Someone hurting or killing someone else's body is obviously a greater threat than someone using someone else's organ to stay alive. Also the unborn has two violations pushed on them (right to life and bodily autonomy) vs. the woman's one.

Abortion being the greater threat to bodily autonomy is true even more so for various reasons. It is completely innocent in the matter, it could not have consented or chosen to be there, and it is already there before a woman can find out she is pregnant or an abortion can take place. It did not "take over the woman's uterus without consent" as it could never have consented to that, and comparisons like that imply intent, but it never could have made a conscious decision to do something like that or even be aware of what it was doing. Just like newborns and toddlers can't be held responsible for certain actions because they couldn't have consented to it or realized what they were doing (from needing to be fed down to more serious things like accidentally hurting someone) the unborn is purely innocent. It can't consent to being killed either, just like infants outside of the womb couldn't consent to being killed so since it's not legal to do that, it doesn't make sense to allow someone to do it to the unborn (other examples of how bodily autonomy still applies to those who aren't aware to be able to consent either way is how women who have passed out can't consent to having sex, so doing that to her is rape, or sleepwalkers can't consent to sleepwalking, yet they also can't consent to being killed). Usually people know that things like circumcision or piercing a baby's ears are against it's bodily autonomy, yet some of them do a 180 when it comes to abortion. Those aborting specifically decide to do so and DID consent and make a conscious decision. The abortion is a direct an conscious action on someone. The unborn being there was there by the actions of the woman and man, or in case of rape man and woman's body. It happens to be using her uterus because that is how science works and the only home it has. Once again, it didn't "force itself into her and take her uterus hostage." Other analogies I've heard are ones like you can't drag an unconscious person into your home and then shoot them because you want them to leave *or something like that*, and extensions of that.

Want of womb empty is definitely not an adequate excuse to literally, purposefully, consciously, and actively kill someone who already happens to be there and by natural circumstances made by other people/bodies, especially those who are the ones wanting to kill them, and without their own consent to be there or a conscious choice made, who is the most innocent out of anyone innocent ever. Anyone for bodily autonomy should be pro-life above all else. No one is saying they should get more rights, we're just saying give them actual equal rights, which pro-choicers don't seem to understand. Someone's rights to their own body stops where another's begins, and we know that that is at conception.

Also I never liked the "kidney transplant" type of analogies. Abortion is different than refusing to give someone an organ or something like that as that hasn't already happened and when someone gives an organ, part of them is gone forever and put into someone else, whereas with the unborn, it is only using the woman's uterus and only for 9 months and she gets to keep it in her, and it is already there and happening by the time she finds out, and she will have it back to herself in months. Also, one might say that if a parent were the one to make their child's organ non-functioning, they should be obligated to give them theirs, or if someone already had an organ transplant, they shouldn't be allowed to take it back (which is actually an actual thing. You can't take it back once they are already using the organ, and the unborn is already using the organ) and anyone can also refuse to take an organ, and if they don't they agree and make a conscious decision to take someone's organ, but the unborn can't refuse to use the uterus, and like I said before didn't make the choice to use it in the first place, and then there is the difference between actively killing and letting die, but even beyond all of that, I'm sure even the most pro-choice people still think very poorly of those who just flat out refuse to give someone an organ if they really need it.