I'll start with the first mini-joke, as it is right in the title. He calls his joke "The Scientific Pro-Life Argument"; the problem though is that there is quite nearly no valid science in his argument anywhere.
After all, his bit about
one or more of the following phenomenon -- mitosis (cellular division where the DNA is duplicated), cellular respiration, as a result of osmosis or photosynthesis, etc.
Applies as well to an embryo as it does to the skin cells that you wash off in the bathroom. Or the cells from your respiratory tract that you literally sneezed out the last time you had a cold. Or any of a number of other living cells that we regularly shed as part of our daily existence. In short, there is nothing special about that list; he posted it to make the conservative anti-abortion argument look silly (and it did a pretty good job there).
He follows up with this logical failure:
Some times, there is no explanation for a in-vitro death.
Which, presumably, was chosen just to show how conservatives can make themselves look more ridiculous when trying to sound scientific than they already look when they just embrace their ignorance.
It goes well with his interesting term
Which should basically mean "people who love to stop". And who runs around with giant stop signs to proclaim their political stance?
He also included an obligatory political jab as the conservative stance is often to assume that the reader isn't smart enough to figure out on their own who the favored audience is:
some Democrats consider people to be dependent children up to age 26.
Even though that has nothing to do with the matter at all.
He then pretended to be knowledgeable on medical ethics - and of course advocated for forcing the stance of a conservative male on the population of the entire world - while also pushing an unsupported line about the effects on the mother.
So what was the final punchline? It appears to be primarily the notion that conservatives support redefining "science" to push their agenda (while simultaneously doing everything they can to prevent funding of scientific research, mind you) on topics that they refuse to actually become well versed on. There were a few others buried in there but by and large this seems to be much like when a certain radio host claimed to be educated in "the sciences" before repeatedly shoving his foot in his mouth on pretty much every scientific matter he could think of to lecture his audience on.
By the way, friend, if you're reading this you forgot something. Namely, you didn't have a bestiality / homosexuality / anal sex / genetic inferiority line in there. I know it's been a while since you've been here to put on your act, so I thought I'd mention it to you as a service to help you get your act back up to par sooner. Good luck.