Demonstrators converge before Planned Parenthood; STGnews videocast

ST. GEORGE – Pro-life and pro-choice groups gathered to protest and raise awareness for their beliefs and views in front of Planned Parenthood in St. George on the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade case which legalized abortions.

The Affirmation of Choice Gathering and the Stand for Life Gathering stood outside of Planned Parenthood Tuesday, with each gathering holding up signs expressing their beliefs for cars passing by on Bluff Street.

(report continues below)

In support and opposition, respectively of Roe v. Wade, “Affirmation of Choice” demonstrators feature Wendy Worthington and Dorothy Engelman, “Stand for Life” demonstrators feature John Sullivan and Wes Lounsbury. In front of Planned Parenthood, St. George, Utah, Jan. 22, 2013 | Videocast by Sarafina Amodt, St. George News

…  …  …  … … … ….

One sign from the pro-choice side read: “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” Drivers heading north on Bluff Street would first see this sign and then down the line they would read another sign from the pro-life side urging them: “Protect the innocent.”

“I just believe that somebody has to stand up for the innocent and for the weak in this world,” Crystal Sullivan, from the pro-life side, said, “and if it’s not me, then who?”

On the pro-choice side, Dorothy Engelman said, “I think it’s a very important issue for women to have reproductive freedom and we need to remind all generations of that.”

Engelman, who wrote the letter calling the community to join in the “Affirmation of Choice” demonstration, is the current chair of Washington County’s Democratic Party; although, her call to action in this incident was done in her own personal capacity, not on behalf of the party. She also said the reason she was there was to let others in the community who support reproductive rights know that they are not alone.

John Sullivan, Crystal Sullivan’s husband, who wrote the letter calling the community to join in the “Stand for Life” demonstration, is a pastor at Cross Point Christian Fellowhip. He said his reasons in protesting were related to his religious views that life begins at conception and must be protected.

Roe v. Wade Background

Jane Roe was an unmarried, pregnant woman, who lived in Texas where it used to be illegal to have an abortion, except for in medical reasons to save the life of the mother. She was unable to have an abortion because her life was not endangered by carrying on her pregnancy.

As held by the court, the right of privacy under the 14th Amendment is broad enough to support a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Hence, it legalized abortions as well as granting rights to birth control and the right for women to choose when and how they reproduce.

Related Posts

Letter to the Editor: Affirmation of Choice Gathering, anniversary of Roe v Wade; invitation to assemble

Letter to the Editor: Stand for Life Gathering, anniversary of Roe v Wade; invitation to assemble

Planned Parenthood: Sexual Education Before Abortion as STDs On the Rise

Abortion in Utah Legal but Availability Limited, Especially in Southern Utah

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @STGnews

Copyright St. George News, LLC, 2013, all rights reserved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Dorothy Engelman January 22, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    Thank you for this piece; I would like to remind the gentleman speaking of Planned Parenthood and “what they do here” that PP in St. George does not perform abortions. It provides STI testing, health care for all and birth control information.

  • Jessa Lee January 22, 2013 at 10:50 pm

    I love how they got two beautiful women standing for pro-choice and two men (who can’t get pregnant) standing for pro-life. 🙂 Perfect demonstration on how this argument tends to play out. Also, this morning there were only people demonstrating for Affirmation of Choice, and there were wonderful men standing out there supporting us. 🙂

    • darren January 23, 2013 at 8:26 am

      Over 50% of the people who call themselves ‘prolife’ are women. Dont try to make this a sexist men vs. women issue.

      • Jessa Lee January 23, 2013 at 8:21 pm

        Okay then, and of those women, what percentage of them are religious? Christian perhaps? And what percentage of Christian based religions are Patriarchal?

        And what percentage of men are there in our government that can potentially take away our reproductive rights, in comparison to the percentage of women in our government? Yeah, I think in my opinion it’s safe to say that gender and religion plays a HUGE role in this debate. And, in my opinion, I’m not okay with anyone else having a say in what I can and cannot do with my body.

        • darren January 23, 2013 at 9:32 pm

          All of your rambling about men is a smoke screen. More men than women call themselves prochoice! You should be attacking women, not men! And by the way, it’s not your body. It’s the body of an innocent child.

          • Jessa Lee January 25, 2013 at 2:12 am

            How is it a body of an innocent child when the body hasn’t grown to full term yet? And how is it not a woman’s body when the woman’s body would be the one providing nourishment? And what if that woman’s body wasn’t nourished enough, and the baby would be born with deficiencies or something like that? And what if the woman couldn’t afford to raise a healthy baby, and what about the fact that most people will not adopt a baby that has health issues?

            And I do not attack men, nor do I attack other women. A huge factor of being pro-choice is being in support of my fellow women. All I was pointing out is that I don’t trust this decision in the hands of men in our government who don’t have the slightest clue what it would be like to be pregnant. Though I was thanking the wonderful men that came out and demonstrated in support of pro-choice.

            And how do you “know” more men are pro-choice than women?

            All I’m saying is there’s a lot of factors people fail to consider.This decision is a very personal one, and is not something that comes easy for ANY pregnant woman.

  • Wendy Worthington January 23, 2013 at 6:30 am

    Dorothy, i took issue with what he said as well. After interviewing the VP of Public Affairs for PP here in Utah for my radio show I learned that In all of Utah abortion services account for a fraction of a percent of the 154,186 services provided to over 57,000 women. The other 99+% are helping to save their lives through cancer and STI screenings as well as helping them control their reproduction through education and access to birth control. I’d like to point out that 94% of those served were uninsured and the average income was $11,170. It’s important that our community know that, because without PP who would provide these services?

  • Wendy Worthington January 23, 2013 at 6:37 am

    Jessa, don’t worry, our group was well represented in the evening by awesome men and women of all ages. I’m proud of what we did, and I am proud of our community who showed their support with encouraging honks as they drove by.

  • darren January 23, 2013 at 8:23 am

    Less than 1% of the 1.2 million abortions performed each year are the result of rape, incest or life of mother.

    • Jessa Lee January 25, 2013 at 2:16 am

      Yeah, because that looks like the most reliable source of information you can find on the subject. The fact of the matter is 54% of sexual assault goes unreported. My source?

  • DoubleTap January 23, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Wendy Worthington and Dorothy Engleman are so proud of being Pro-Kill. They are so proud of the many infants that have been killed by abortion. The term pro-choice is a misnomer. The choice was made when the participants chose to have unprotected sex. These two women are so proud to inform you that they are for killing infants. Yet, they are so anti-2nd ammendment. Abortions KILLS more humans than guns do. Go ahead and be proud ladies…(more appropriate name would be KILLERS).

    • Who Am I To Judge? January 23, 2013 at 9:07 pm

      You’re very closed-minded…It’s a personal choice what one does with his/her body, what right does another human being have to control a personal decision like this? There are many “gods” in this life to many different people and no gods at all to many others. Besides, not to sound cold, but while I support birth control methods over abortion, we are getting over-populated in the world, nonetheless.

      • darren January 24, 2013 at 7:29 am

        Your statement “what right does another human being have to control a personal decision like this?” could be reworded to say, “What right does another human being have to kill another innocent human being?” It isn’t your body, it’s the body of another human being. What right does another human being have to control my personal decision to kill my 6 month old child? I assume you would be against that and you would be in favor of a law against that. But if the child is still in the womb, it is then ok to kill it?

      • DoubleTap January 24, 2013 at 10:08 am

        Who Am I To Judge: and who are you to decide that “we are over-populated”?
        You also must be so very proud to be a baby killer. So proud that you would not use your real name to post your comment, like you fellow killers Wendy and Dorothy.

    • Sassy B$%#@ January 23, 2013 at 9:11 pm

      Okay, Mr. Tap, these women you speak of are not killing infants! Lol! They are still in the uterus for godsake. You are obviously a dense headed male

      • DoubleTap January 24, 2013 at 10:12 am

        You yourself say that “they are still in the uterus”. So just because they are not in the world they are not infants? So you must be a special kind of lame, Ms.B$%#@.

    • Pam S. January 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm

      I’m pro-choice and pro-2nd Ammendment.

  • Omari January 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    He’ll yea, nice to see St George with a backbone out on the streets!

  • Ms. Jackson January 23, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    Um, of all major intersections in town, looks like you guys chose the seemingly odd corner of Tabernacle and Bluff to protest? I would’ve atleast did it one block north at the busy intersection of Blvd @ Bluff, , but that’s jus me….:P

    • Jessa Lee January 24, 2013 at 1:24 am

      The Christian pro-lifers chose it for the past few years because it was actually 600 S and Bluff which is in front of Planned Parenthood. The pro-choicers went to the same spot because we wanted to sort of counter-protest, as a means to peacefully demonstrate that there are people in our community who are pro choice. And of course, if Planned Parenthood is supported then women are provided with contraceptives and health information which means they are less likely to one day choose abortion. So, while we’re not sure why pro-lifers always seem to demonize Planned Parenthood, we wanted to share our beliefs with the community and support Planned Parenthood.

      • DoubleTap January 24, 2013 at 10:15 am

        Jessa Lee: what is the matter? Can’t bring yourself to call yourself Pro-Kill? That is what you are afterall.

        • Jessa Lee January 25, 2013 at 1:58 am

          Being pro-choice does not mean one is pro-abortion. Get it right.

  • Not Saying January 23, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    Because those of us that are “killers” are DoubleTap would call it, are so terrible for not wanting unwanted children born into this world. How many of you that are pro-life are super excited about having to pay for food stamps, medical support, etc for the children that aren’t planned and most likely not wanted in the first place? Have you not read any stories about neglected and abused children? The lack of funding for CPS, etc is a huge issue here as well. I am pro-choice but mostly because if someone decides that they are not fit to be a parent, the less likely we will have that child suffering here on this earth.

    • DoubleTap January 24, 2013 at 10:22 am

      Have, you that claim to be pro-choice, never heard of birth control or, heaven forbid, abstention? There are other options to abortion, ever heard of adoption? Why is it that those of you who claim to be pro-choice have a hard time understanding that having unprotected sex had consequences? So your idea of birth control is abortion? Your choice was made when you chose to engage in unprotected sex and get yourself pregnant. You shouldn’t define yourself as pro-choice….you ARE Pro-Kill.

    • Roy J January 24, 2013 at 10:51 am

      I am reasonaby sure that if those children were far enough along to speak for themselves, they would not agree with you. Your mom was prolife, at least in your case…what a pity.

  • Dsull January 23, 2013 at 11:23 pm

    Doing everything to enact gun control using the phrase “if it only saves one child” and yet killing hundreds of thousands of children each year is somewhat hypocritical. I cannot believe that any same person that cares about children would allow someone to kill their child because it comes at an inconvenient time.

    • Jessa Lee January 24, 2013 at 1:20 am

      Why do people keep tying this together with the gun control issue? I may be pro choice, but that doesn’t mean I’m for gun control. And thousands of sperm die, which are also potential children, yet nobody seems to care in that case. Why is it different when it’s a woman’s body?

      • DoubleTap January 24, 2013 at 10:25 am

        Jessa Lee: The only reason it is different, is because men cannot get pregnant.
        You are still Pro-Kill.

      • Roy J January 24, 2013 at 10:49 am

        Sperm aren’t potential children. That is a fact, which is why nobody argues it.

        • ken January 25, 2013 at 3:01 pm

          “potential”? Guess you can’t even believe in your own BS! Too funny!!!

          • Roy J January 25, 2013 at 5:36 pm

            Complain to Jessa Lee about the “potential”. If she’s ok with it, i’m ok with it…but by all means swing away you sweet, little, cultured genius, you!

  • UrbanDesert January 24, 2013 at 10:06 am

    I’d rather deal with someone having an abortion than an unwanted child being brought up in a disfunctional, abusive, neglectful, druggie etc. family…Accidents happen, not everyone can wait to adopt etc.

    • Roy J January 24, 2013 at 10:55 am

      I see…so it really is all about what you want and not what the child might want.

      • ken January 25, 2013 at 3:03 pm

        I see it’s all about how you want to spin and since you called it only a potential child your point is again mute!

        • Roy J January 25, 2013 at 5:29 pm

          Complain to the Urban Desert, genius. If he wants to use the term, I’m ok with it…keep trying to sound smart.

  • OMG January 24, 2013 at 10:08 am

    So what does one think when somebody …….. and washes their hands after??!! That man jus killed millions of potential babies ahah

    Ed. ellipsis

  • Roy J January 24, 2013 at 11:04 am

    My favorite part of the prochoice comments here is the fact that one and all they demand that other people not interfere with their lives, but reserve the right to interfere with the lives of others. Why is that? There has got to be some intelligence out there behind this opinion. But based on the above, it is clear that there is not one single respectable argument from among the above prochoice comments has been advanced…that’s so sad. So very, very sad. Can’t any one of you prochoicers make a single, substantial statement that proves or otherwise suggests that a foetus, or baby, or zygote, or thing in utero, or whatever you choose to call it, is not a separate living thing? Come on, not even one? If not, what do you expect from Doubletap (you rock!!) or the rest of us?

    • ken January 25, 2013 at 3:05 pm

      “My favorite part of the prochoice comments here is the fact that one and all they demand that other people not interfere with their lives, but reserve the right to interfere with the lives of others. Why is that? There has got to be some intelligence out there behind this opinion.”

      Good … do you even think when you comment? What are you babbling about?

      Ed. ellipsis

      • Roy J January 25, 2013 at 5:30 pm

        No more than you, apparently…woot! Keep banging on those bars, I swear they will bring you a banana one of these days.

  • Wendy Worthington January 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    I was expecting a respectful dialogue acknowledging that people have different belief systems and some of us disagree with the arguments advanced by the prolife movement. Some of us truly do not believe in a god, do not believe in life as defined by the prolife movement, and do not believe that anyone has a right to impose their beliefs on another person. Doubletap can call me pro killing all he/she wants. He/she does not know me, knows nothing about me, and the accusations of my being pro killing are based on his/her value system not mine. I am fighting for the right for each individual woman’s right to absolute control over her own body and her own reproductive choices. I’m fighting for each woman to examine her beliefs and values and make the choice based on them.

    • Roy J January 24, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      Wendy: Maybe if you supported your position with some facts? I say that the thing (whatever you want to call it) is separate and has it’s own rights. Is your response really what you put above? Seriously, that’s your argument? Not very good…

      • Jessa Lee January 25, 2013 at 2:28 am

        The second one shows the reason why it’s up to each individual to decide for themselves. For the record, I think Wendy’s argument is fine without facts, but here’s the ones I found anyway.

        • Roy J January 25, 2013 at 12:20 pm

          Jessa: I believe Wendy’s argument is about prochoice, that is what I am led to believe by reading the argument she posted in her link. I also read the information at both of yours, thank you! However, the first link was to a website that listed statisics on sexual assault victims, with no explanation, so I am at a loss as to why you think it is a prochoice argument? Your second link is to an ongoing (possibly now defunct) online debate on the abortion issue. Again, reading through it I am at a loss as to how this link supports the prochoice argument, seeing as it is not an article, but a debating forum, and I could not even find a prochoice argument in the actual articles. Maybe you could be more specific.

          • Jessa Lee January 26, 2013 at 12:06 am

            On the RAINN statistics, 44 % of rape victims are under the age of 18. Of what percentage of those young girls that got pregnant via rape would you think it’s okay to force them to carry a child to full term after the child was forced upon them in the first place? I just don’t understand how people don’t think that there should be a choice for all women, because you can’t just go and make a rape victim a victim all over again by having to prove she was raped in order for her to terminate a pregnancy. How would that be considered morally okay, because that’s what is what would have to be done and it’s part of a proposed bill right now. (which makes me sick to my stomach.) Think of the fact that if that happens, many young women will resort to hurting themselves and possibly committing suicide due to the traumatic event and then the pregnancy could/would be terminated along with the life of a young girl.

            As for the second article I found, I liked the closing statement: “So, when does life begin? I do not think we can know this with any more certainty than we know when life ends. People of faith, and people of good conscience, are going to have to agree to disagree—with a good dose of humility—on matters of life and death.”

            This is obviously a hard and emotionally invested debate, and no one has all the answers to say for sure when it comes to the life. But I believe Wendy is right, there isn’t a law that acknowledges a fetus as a human being.

      • Wendy Worthington January 25, 2013 at 7:27 am

        First of all, I was addressing the fact that some people on here insist on calling names and placing shocking labels on those of us defending the right to choose. Second, much of the opinions expressed here are OPINIONS. My opinion is that every woman should have absolute right over her own body. If my opinion were a fact, which in many ways it legally is, I would not call it an opinion because I have a better than basic grasp of the definition of the word.
        But if you must have facts here you go:
        This addresses many of the prolife movements ideas with factual evidence that a fetus is not the same as a human being, that no law acknowledges it as such, and that no amount of euphemistic language can change those facts. The problem with facts is that they require proof, which this article presents. The prolife movement may have a mountain pf statistics to bombard us with, but they just prove that things are happening, not that they are wrong, immoral, or a “sin.”
        In the end, you won’t be persuaded by my facts, nor will I by your statistics. We know where we stand and what we believe. Some of us can change those views as I did years ago, but some of us will go to the grave defending our beliefs. And that is fine. I respect your right to that choice. The difference is that I will not be calling anyone names or demanding that they acknowledge, agree with, or even respect my beliefs. I will simply allow that you have a right to your beliefs and I have a right to mine. And with that the world keeps spinning…

        • DoubleTap January 25, 2013 at 12:02 pm

          Wendy: Regardless of your beliefs, the bottom line is you approve of killing infants. It is my right to my opinion, like you state.

        • Roy J January 25, 2013 at 1:39 pm

          Well these article arguments usually die an inglorious death after 3 days, but I did you the justice of reading the somebody else’s argument that you posted, and I’m going to test my posting limit on this one by responding to what you have claimed are the facts in this post. Probably going to get kicked off the playground, but woot!
          This is your link-article again:

          Here are the positions I found (maybe there are more), and my responses:

          Your Argument: “Because ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman”

          My response: Statements are not arguments, and do not affect reality by being made vehemently.”

          Your Argument: ‘Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being”

          My Answer: Cloning of human beings has not been done, therefore this argument is invalid because it assumes as fact what is currently only a theoretical opinion.

          Your Argument: ‘It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken. ”

          My Answer: acorns resemble eggs and sperm, not embryos or zygotes…this is an argument by analogy, which the author of the article abhors in her opponents. Bad form and not really an argument, more of a burst of temper.

          Your Argument: “A fetus is certainly alive, and it might fairly be argued that a fetus is a distinct living entity (a debatable point though, because of fetal dependence on a woman’s body), but this reasoning can apply to any living thing, including worms and germs”

          My Answer: This argument applies all conclusions to all living things, therefore it can also be applied to the woman in whose body the fetus is as well, therefore any conclusions drawn from the argument, will apply equally to both. Not a very useful argument for prochoice.

          Your Argument: “”Life begins at conception.” Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn’t stopped since.”

          My Answer: This is a sophistical argument based on equivocation. Not valid.

          Your Argument: “The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 1869″

          My Answer: This is a soundbite meant to suggest that the Catholic Church was prochoice prior to 1869. It is sufficient to say that this is an extreme oversimplification and simply not the case, and even wikipedia knows it. If your psyche blanches at the term ensoulment, it should do the same with the term flogiston.

          Your Argument: ‘Another key difference is that a fetus doesn’t just depend on a woman’s body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive. ”

          My response: This argument assumes the individuality of the other and then negates it. To be inside and not in the sense of whole and part, is to be separate and other, therefore individual. Not a valid argument.

          I will continue this in the next post. Hopefully it wil be allowed, as there are significantly more arguments made.

          • Roy J January 25, 2013 at 3:13 pm

            To resume(hopefully):
            Your Argument: ‘Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent “right to life.” But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman’s life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount”

            My Answer: Not the position of all prolifers and in any case not an argument for or against the individuality and life of a fetus, zygote, embryo or what have you. Obviously our governing laws mandate these things, that’s not the point. The point in question is the reality of that embryo, zygote, fetus’s life and individuality. This is a political argument only and does not attempt to answer the question.

            Your Argument: “Even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn’t automatically overrule a woman’s right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one’s moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society.”

            My Answer: Granting the right to life, under our U.S. laws, makes exercising your choice murder, and punishable as such. Not a good argument for prochoice at all.

            Your Argument: “If fetuses did have a right to live, one could make an equal case for the right of unwanted fetuses not to live.”

            My Answer: Not so. And establishing this sort of control over one group of living persons allows for the establishing of control over any group of living persons. Eugenics usually assaults the old, the insane, the poor and the infirm, as well as the unborn. A very dangerous political argument.

            Your Argument: “In the real world, however, some people commit suicide because they no longer want to live, and others wish they’d never been born. Life is not a picnic for all, especially unwanted children who are at high risk. ”

            My response: the same as to the above argument. Political argument that sets a dangerous precedent.

            Your Argument: “Ultimately though, to have a “right to life” requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must “get a life” before one has a “right to life.” A fetus is not a separate individual—it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth.”

            My Response: This argument, as it is stated, could be extended to include anyone who is dependent on anybody. The argument about individuality is used as a supporting argument here, and has been answered above.

            Your Argument: “In fact, the biological definition of “parasite” fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman’s body, just like a parasite does to its host.”

            My Answer: This is a semantical argument. The biological definition of offspring applies even more precisely. Using Ockham’s Razor, we would probably choose offspring, rather than parasite.

            Your Argument: “Anti-choicers like to demand legal rights for fetuses. Significantly, there is no support for fetuses as legal persons in international human rights codes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Virtually all national constitutions do not treat fetuses as persons or citizens.
            Declaring fetuses to be legal persons with rights would generate countless legal and social dilemmas. Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons.

            My Answer: Human laws do not supersede natural laws. Passing laws against gravity does not result in a lack of gravity. All laws create legal and social dilemmas. This is a political argument.

            At the risk of appearing to ignore the other arguments I am going to just skip to the one’s I think are actually solid and possibly damaging. I had like 3 more pages of arguments to respond too, but I don’t think this is the place. The last argument I will address here (supposing anybody is even reading this!!!) is the one regarding embryonic twinning/recombination, since of the scientific arguments given, it appears on the surface to have the most weight and be the most damaging.

          • Roy J January 25, 2013 at 6:44 pm

            the last bit:

            The Embryo Twinning/Recombination Argument:
            “Embryos are capable of splitting into two, to form twins, and may even recombine later[18]. This does serious damage to the idea of unique personhood, and the common anti-abortion belief that a “soul” is infused into a zygote at conception. Do twins share the single soul they got at conception, or is the second twin belatedly given its own soul after cell division? If the latter, which soul is lost if the embryos recombine? These questions are unintelligible if embryos are human beings, but simply moot if they are not.
            The dramatic development that turns a zygote into a newborn is not simply growth—it is a radical, turbulent, and constant metamorphosis, with individual cells reproducing, migrating, and evolving specific functions at specific times. The end result is like a complex symphony by a billion musicians that began with a single, one-note instrument.
            Can such a contingent and changeable entity really be identified as the same full and unique human being at every stage? ”

            My Response: This argument, as advanced by the author, is an attempt to conceal real scientific facts with a general gloss and misinterpretation. It is enough to point out that in order to make this argument at all, the author must admit the separate nature of the embryonic cells from the cells of the mother, and also their specifically human nature. The objection regarding twinning and recombination can only be made by granting the above first, from which it is sufficient to conclude that the embryo is of the same species and separate. There are fairly complex scientific and documented arguments that can be made about this particular issue. Here is one article that someone may find interesting. Yup, it’s from a prolife perspective, but if Wendy wants to pull her arguments from prochoice advocates, it seems only fair to produce arguments from the opposite side:

            ken: By the time you have summoned your vast intellectual powers to smite us again, this article argument will probably already out of sight, out of mind. But don’t worry, I’m puling for you!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.