And as far as your attitude towards other viewpoints is concerned, so long as you insist on describing your ideological opposites as pro-abortion instead of pro-choice I will continue to think my criticism holds at least some validity.

As for “unreasoning hatred”, please don’t look in the mirror and assign what you see there to me. For example, I’d invite you to examine my follow-up post and tell me where you find “unreason” or “hatred” anywhere in that argument.

An anti-Huck, presumably pro-abortion, advocate notes “all those who don’t agree that life begins at conception”. OK. Let’s get this straight. Those who don’t believe life begins at conception are ignorant nutcases. One might wonder why the same crowd who jumps on the non-scientific basis of the young earth crowd don’t jump on this just as hard. An atheist has a suggestion as to why, liberals are anti-science (too).

No, they are not. They just don’t agree with you and your definition of human life. They might think a nervous system is needed first. They might think viability is the point at which the full rights of a human being are conferred on a fetus. There is no solid scientific opinion on this question. Your religion guides you to this belief and in your desire to have the law of the land enforce your beliefs you try to claim that science agrees. If the poster you criticize is pro-abortion then I believe that you must be labeled anti-choice, not pro-life. As far as the atheist you cite as offering an idea, the only thing he offered was a bigoted rant against those who he and you apparently consider the source of all evil, the American liberal. It’s a nice, simple answer that ignores the reality that the real world is more complex than either of you are happy with and so you focus an unreasoned hatred against those who don’t agree with you.