No idea why you keep reading things as "hot-tempered," etc. C'est la vie. Probably just ham-fisted attempts to poison the well. Most posters here are solidly on your side, man. No need to fret. There's a difference between human life, a member of the species homo sapiens, and living human tissue. The organism can survive with a remarkable amount of damaged or missing tissue. Animate, living matter as opposed to inanimate, non-living matter. Children cannot develop without the assistance of providing food, water, shelter, etc. for many years. Your point? The wall of the blastocyst is one cell thick except in one area, where it is three to four cells thick. The inner cells in the thickened area develop into the embryo, and the outer cells burrow into the wall of the uterus and develop into the placenta. https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/w...-pregnancy/stages-of-development-of-the-fetusYou were saying? Egg and sperm joining does not instantly become new human DNA, unless you really think humans can have 46 chromosomes. On the fifth day after conception, the new genome takes over development, after the maternal transcripts have been depleted. Don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. It doesn't "gain" anything, much less your latest ham-fisted straw man of personhood. It simply starts to develop as a new human life. Do children have all the human rights of an adult human? Obviously not, because that's just a reducio ad absurdum. The baby has no say in its conception, but the mother generally had some say in it. Why should the choice of one human require the death of another? Because it became accepted or the new norm? Slavery was once the norm too. Should we have kept that too? It also allowed some humans to decide if other humans should live or die, deciding who was property and who were persons. And all because choices the slaver made, not any the slave had a hand in. I say those slaves had human rights, regardless of the accepted norms. The moral difference is that an objective standard valuing human life is a safeguard against just such subjective definitions of persons. Most women know the risks of having sex, but they also know that, if they fail to routinely take the pill, don't demand the use of a condom, and don't use an emergency contraceptive, they can always resort to abortion. You know, as an emergency emergency contracep (oops, forgot the Plan B), an emergency contrac (oops, forgot to take a pill yesterday), as a contraceptive. That's at least three choices, to have sex, to not be responsible with contraception (if at all), and not use emergency contraception in a timely manner (if at all). Newborn babies still require other people for their survival, and if you're the parent, you can face criminal charges for failing to provide care, even without your permission. Imagine that. How does a 1-5 year prison sentence and up to a $3,000-10,000 fine compare to 9 months of freedom? That sure starts to sound like the newborn baby has more legal rights, even if abortion were completely banned. Yes, egg, sperm, and fertilized egg are not members of the species homo sapiens. A zygote certainly has all the contributing DNA, but until it is developing under the direction of its own new genome, it is only a combination of living human tissue, not a member of the species (any more than a wart is). Human tissue to human life, not "other than human" to human life. Once it is a unique organism, it is alive and a member of a species. If that species isn't homo sapiens, it's an absurd claim. Probably asking too much, but can you see how you twisted my claim? I said something other than human developing from human DNA and you twisted that into the straw man a zygote is something other than human. A wee bit of intellectual honesty please. I had already told Bells, and now I have repeatedly told you.