> Fringe; from ethics point of view “pro-life” is no different from flat earth.

This facts are all scientifically indisputable:

1) A fetus is a genetically distinct and unique human life from the moment of conception;

2) By 6-8 weeks, an embryo has a four-chambered beating heart;

3) By week 12, a fetus looks recognizably human, has a face, fingers and toes, internal organs, etc: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-...

All of these comprise scientific bases for the range of "pro life" positions.

> Many countries legalized abortion over the past 20 years; very few went the other way.

So what? Eugenics was seen as a progressive advance in the early 20th century, before humanity reversed course. "Progress" doesn't happen in an arc, but hits dead ends.

>This facts are all scientifically indisputable:

They are also all irrelevant. We don’t force parents to donate organs for life-saving transplants; why would we have a different rule specifically for uterus?

Worth pointing out you’re comparing the idea of bodily autonomy, one of basic human rights, with eugenics, because it opposes a certain religious superstition.

I’m pro-choice, but this is a bad argument.

In the case of abortion, the default (inaction) means the baby lives, whereas having an abortion is an active action which ends the “life” (I don’t entirely believe it’s a life up to a certain point, but just conceding it for the sake of argument).

In the case of forced organ donation, not donating unfortunately results in the death of the other person, but that’s the default state (inaction).

For those with agency, we place greater moral weight on active actions than on the absence of action.

I'm curious, do you not agree that the life in the womb is valid, or is it that you don't even agree it's a life?

In other words, is it that you acknowledge what is inside _is_ a life but you reject the validity of its right to be alive ? or do you _not_ agree that it is a life in the first place, therefore it couldn't possibly have a right to be alive?

Neither - that alternative only makes sense if you assume at most high school level of knowledge of biology. If you knew anything more, you’d see how absurd it is - for example you’d know what a mole pregnancy is and how it demolishes that assumption you’ve made above.

This, btw, is a common element of Catholic ideology - a lot of it is literal bullshit written in a way to make it hard to parse; one cornerstone of it is abusing the language, but another is exploiting people’s ignorance.