Am I pro-life by definition?

Fair question.

Let me look it up and see...

PRO-LIFE

adjective

opposing abortion and euthanasia:

By that definition, I am.

Are you?

Do you oppose any efforts to ban abortion and to criminalize it?

If you do... you are by definition pro-abortion.

I used to be "pro-choice / pro-abortion" myself so it's very easy for me to look at it from the other perspective.

I was in denial... and so are you (in my opinion.)

There are only two sides to the "abortion should be legal" debate.

Those who are opposed to it remaining legal are anti-abortion.*

Those who fight to keep it legal are pro-abortion.

The Oxford Dictionary and others have it right.

You are for abortion remaining legal.

You are opposed to abortions being banned.

That alone is all it takes for others to see you as pro-abortion.

Again, the Dictionaries have it right.

You do know that an increasing number of people call themselves pro-abortion... Don't you?

Google the phrase +"I am pro-abortion" and see for yourself.

That is a typical pro-abortion response and attitude.

You have not only defended abortion by giving justifications for it.... you have also announced your opposition to anyone who wants to make abortions illegal.

You are pro-abortion.

Accept it, embrace it... look at it from another's perspective for once.

This is why you are incorrect in your analysis.

Any person who wants to can proclaim their indifference and leave it at that.

It is their actions of taking a side in the debate - either for or against the legality of abortion - that makes them what they are.

By opposing people who are trying to ban abortion, you are making a pro-abortion statement with your actions.... even if you deny it with your words.

You have it exactly right!

If a person wants to see voluntary abortions criminalized, they are anti abortion.

Anyone who opposes that effort is taking the pro abortion side of the debate.

guns

Plural.

Our right to keep and bear arms is not based upon a need.

It is based upon the knowledge of the fact - that "it is better for the people to have guns the ability to defend themselves and their rights and not need them - than it is for them to need gun to defend those things and not have them."

Dear Santa... I know it's a little early to be writing you and that I've not really been a very good boy for much of this year...

That's right.

That's what the 1st Amendment is all about. .

We all can do that.

Do you disagree that our laws are also an extension of the people's 'morality?'

"Depending on what personhood means, I'd want to change the law to make consciousness a factor in that. "

Well then you have an ever greater task ahead of you than I do. Because it is the most recent laws which define it as a child in any stage of their development and many States have followed suit with that (federal) definition.

Thank you for considering the information.

You are missing the point though - that 'brain waves' are not legally required for "personhood."

What about children born with no brain at all?

Would you consider reading this case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court?

There is no need to change the definitions of word children to include human fetuses because they are already included as such in many medical and legal definitions.

A 'child' in the fetal stage of their life can be called a fetus.

It's still a child.

It's still the young of the parents who created it.