Pro-Choice doesn't have to end in a dead baby. Just ask Alyssa.

Are you submitting that?

Done.

No Immigration until only White people come in

Abortion is not legally equatable to murder per the law. However, no rational person can argue that abortion does not end a life.

I am a rational person. Abortion does not end a life.

It is clearly a life based on the scientific definition.
It is clearly a human, distinct from its mother, based on its DNA.
The philosophical (not scientific) issue of whether or not it is a person may be up for debate.
But if you want to base the answer on science, the only moment that something truly transformative happens would be conception. The rest is just growing, developing, and relocation.

I am happy to discuss the science and ethics of it with you if you take it seriously. jplowry is incredibly childish about such discussions and it's a waste of time going through it with him and there is no scientific merit to his responses.

Let's start with your point, which is really a semantic one: there are biochemical reactions within a fetus that chemically we call life, as indeed there are in a sperm cell or a tumor, both of which are genetically distinct from you. A sperm is technically a living thing. That cannot by any definition be the basis of life as needing legal protection, otherwise you'd be committing mass genocide every time you masturbate or cut off a cyst. Every time a woman has a period, an egg that could have been a baby dies and is flushed out: there is no way that that is somehow a murder, there's 40,000 of those things in a woman's body, she's not going to have 40,000 babies, that will never happen.

The fact is that doctors put much more weight on the growth, development, and relocation than you are giving credit for. The reason doctors cannot treat a fetus like it is already a person is because so many things are happening during a pregnancy that can go wrong. 10-20% of pregnancies will not be successful despite everyone's best efforts, and sometimes we never find out the reason. There is no reason to put couples through more heartbreak than they might already experience through sheer disappointment alone by telling them that it was a full human being that died in the womb. There's no medical reason why that's necessary. An acorn is not a tree, an egg is not a chicken, and we have actual children in the world to worry about.

For the purposes of medical life - not biochemical life in the technical sense that a gelatinous slime in a swamp might be considered to be living, but the medical sense of a human life - as well as the growth of all its organs, birth itself still involves the severing of the umbilical chord, the extraction from the amniotic sack, and the first breath of air - at which point, the baby gains consciousness and doctors can start treating it as though it is a tiny person. It is very common (e.g. Harman 1999) for doctors to state that medically, life begins at the gaining of what could be described as consciousness - and doctors themselves argue and scream at each other about this, but nobody can really come up with a good medical reason why this is not the case, and birth, for doctors, is the line.

"There is no reason to put couples through more heartbreak than they might already experience through sheer disappointment alone by telling them that it was a full human being that died in the womb."
That is a philosophical reason, not a scientific one.
"and doctors themselves argue and scream at each other about this"
Even doctors don't agree on the defining moment, because the issue is philosophical, not scientific.
There is evidence that a fetus is conscious (aware of its surroundings) for at least a couple months before birth (assuming it's full term) but the exact moment that consciousness is achieved is hard to pin down. The line of birth is used as a matter of convenience (not science), since even gestational age is only an educated guess.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with your philosophical points. My point is that they are philosophical, not scientific.

LOL... no Skippy, science has spoken, there is life in the womb. Denial of such a common reality is antithesis of rational thought.

Don't you dare lecture me about science.

Says the person who willfully ignores settled science regarding sex/gender

I cite academic scientific literature to you regularly on several topics, and time after time, your responses are to give some hairbrained strawman you read on the internet or to move the goalpost to entirely deflect from scientific debate. You absolutely do not get to claim a scientific high ground. Certainly not on this topic.

You should hear what my students call me. And if anyone thinks that makes them the pinnacle of intellectuals, the Brooklyn Bridge is a $1 down payment and $50 installments per month.

Doesn't surprise me that your students don't respect you. Can probably smell the intellectual dishonesty the moment they step into the classroom.

They're teenagers. They don't respect anyone.

Look at this...."I previously cited scientific literature on different topics, therefore I can ignore science here."

You're a special little libtard.

Bahahaa

Bahahahaha....please when, at what age specifically the transformation from "living organism" to "baby" occurs.

Well, that is the true question underlying this arguement. If there were a consensus, there would likely be no debate. Some believe it is a baby at the moment of conception. Others, not until it is born.

So there is no change that you can explain, and in fact you admit a baby is a living organism and unborn baby is a living organism. But somehow, one can be terminated with no explanation other than, because. Okay