Purple wrote:

It seems to me that the term 'pro-life' has been hijacked by people
whose prime concern is not the promotion of life but opposition
to any attempt to interfere with natural life cycles. 2 examples
from the UK media:

(1) A 4 year old boy suffered from thalassaemia and the failure to find
a suitable tissue match was threatening his life. His parents wanted
to create a new human life out of a specially selected embryo so as
to save this already existing life. The so-called 'pro-life' groups
objected.

One embryo out of many, presumably. IOW the remaining individuals would be
trashed.

(2) A pair of conjoined twins was born, one of whom was viable on their
own, the other could only survive by parasitic action upon her sister.
The doctors thought that this parasitic action would inevitably cost
the healthy babies life as well as the unhealthy one. So called 'pro-life'
groups objected to having them seperated.

This is more complicated. One life to save another? I believe a majority
of pro-lifers agree with the life exception for abortion and therefore
perhaps would in this case also.

Then again, if the issue is one of QUALITY of life (which presumably
includes length of life - salient to this case) then perhaps not.

Who's to
say how long they both could live anyway?

In the other case, one is
guaranteed dead!

(Btw, the term "parasitic" bears no relevance to the
human rights question.

Obviously it does to a radical pro-abort like you
since you people portray even natural pregnancy - the gestation of young -
in such a way. Such is the anti-life mindset!)