Are pro-choice people "science deniers"?

Are pro-choice people "science deniers"?

No, or no more than anyone else. (Illiteracy is common; scientific illiteracy is common; logical illiteracy is common). 

But, anti-abortion activists sometimes say they are. They claim that it's not uncommon for pro-choice people especially found online (so, not experts) to reject clearly true scientific claims, for example about whether embryos and beginning fetuses are biologically "alive," or biologically "human," and the biologically of "when life begins," meaning, when mammals' bodies begin, at least.

I doubt it. 

I think that when anti-abortion online folks think pro-choice people are "denying science," the pro-choice people are thinking of "alive," "human," and "when life begins" not in in their biological meanings. 

(For people unaware of these meanings, I recommend reviewing these: 

• When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life", 
• Are fetuses "human beings"? Biological versus psychological definitions, 
• ChatGPT: Mammal's bodies start at conception or soon after conception. So human mammal's bodies start at conception or soon after. Does that suggest that abortion is wrong?).)

I think some online pro-choice people say thing that anti-abortion activists misinterpret as "anti-science" claims this is because, well, anti-abortion activists generally do a bad job asking questions about these matters: in particular, they don't bother asking anyone what they mean and patiently listening for answers. 

Why would they? Their goal is often to try to "dunk" on anti-abortion folks and try to make them look stupid: being patient and seeking understanding is not part of that goal, and doing that doesn't make them look cool to their buddies and show they are part of the "tribe." They often don't even know that there are different meanings here and how that makes an important difference to the arguments—indeed, they often actively resist learning about all this—so they would not even be able to engage in these conceptual clarification activities.

So I made two (new?) videos explaining why, yes, embryos and fetuses are biologically alive and biologically human, why agreeing to this (as all trained philosophers and ethicists do) does not in any way imply or suggest or support thinking abortion is ever wrong, and how there are different concepts that people might have in mind here that they are confusing the issues. (I think I have some old videos on this exact topic; I will try to find them). 

I sought anyone who might would listen to this and then explain how and why embryos and beginning fetuses are not biologically alive or biologically human. 

I got no responses. While there was some engagement with them, and some comments, nobody listened to the clarifications I provided and then tried to claim anything contrary to basic science. This supports my interpretation of all this.

Here are are those videos, which I am sharing in case anyone wants to "show up" and try to argue for what I suspect really nobody believes!

@nathan.nobis Nobody denies that (typical) embryos are *biologically* alive, right? #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosopjy #life #whatdoyoumean #biology ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Replying to @chrlwtts Nobody "showed up" to try to explain why embryos aren't biologically alive. Not surprising! #abortion #life #biology #living #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis