Yes, this is an opinion piece I'm linking to. I'll admit that up front. But the writer makes some very good points quite as well as I could have made them myself, and I think they should be considered and discussed. Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science - HUMAN EVENTS In their Pledge to America, Republicans are promising to repeal Obamacare, which has imposed taxpayer-funded abortion on the nation. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of the American people do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortion. A poll of likely voters put the number at 72%. Liberal counter-attacks are resorting to the old slur that Republicans are anti-science. The current issue of Nature bemoans the anti-science streak on the American right. ---- In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: Its just a blob of tissue. Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is humanbiologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that the life of a human organism begins at conception. How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science. Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a person, generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities. ---- Ethicists disagree even on the point when personhood begins: Is it when the fetus starts to exhibit neural activity, or feels pain, or achieves a certain level of consciousness? Or even after the child is born? According to British bioethicist John Harris, Nine months of development leaves the human embryo far short of the emergence of anything that can be called a person. ---- Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values. ---- Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance to other life issues, such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and genetic engineering. According to personhood theory, just being part of the human race is not morally relevant. ---- The concept of personhood is so malleable that anyone at any stage of life could be demoted to the status of non-person and denied the right to live. Anyone care to comment, or even to try to dispute these points?