But clearly, the opening post most certainly did demonstrate that from an unconjecturably state-of-the-art accurate scientific perspective at least one unique individual human being absolutely does begin to live at the moment of conception.
The scientific fact of this matter is so obvious a reality ... I'm left to wonder what it is that's blinding you into your unjustified attack on the opening post's accurate scientific presentation.
Ah, and there it is, the reason that's bothering you to the degree you deny the obvious scientific reality of the opening post: you're troubled by the implications.
Indeed, though abortion on demand may personally trouble you, like most, you're apprehensive about the thought of being incarcerated -- or worse -- for murdering a newly conceived person ... so troubled by that thought that you are thereby blinded by cognitive dissonance to the degree that you can't see that the opening post most clearly beyond rational conjecture presented the scientific reality that at least one unique individual human being, at least one person, begins to live at the moment of conception.
Yes, you were, though obviously without merit.
And, obviously, your argument is based, not on rational reason, but on your own personal fear of what the opening post reality will mean to society ... and maybe even to you, personally.
Your implication that the opening post contained legal and not scientific criteria is, of course, false.
Your implication that the opening post contained religious criteria is also, of course, false.
Your implication that the opening post contained anything other than accurately presented unconjecturably state-of-the-art scientific criteria is again, of course, false.
No you didn't.
By making your statement as you did here, you were alluding to the opening post being other than truly scientific in nature, which means you didn't stay away from these matters in your fear of what the opening post means, hoping to devalue the opening post by casting dispersions that are unwarranted.
Though your statement about "dogs, or Indians, or whatever" is topically irrelevant ... what you were truly addressing was your fear of what the reality of personhood at conception will ultimately mean ...
... And in so doing you are spot-on topically ...
... Because, indeed, facing the truth that at least one person, one unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception rationally means also facing the truth that to unjustifiably take any action with the intent to kill that person, action that succeeds in so killing, when that person was not rationally a legitimate threat on the life of the mother, is, most certainly, clearly, rationally, murder by definition ... and, perhaps, one day, maybe sooner than we like to think, law will also reflect the truth of it.
This is the crux of the matter when accepting the truth of the newly conceived person's existence.
And many people, who so greatly fear those repercussions, rather than maturely accepting the natural inevitibility of those repercussions, can concoct some of the most creative sophistries of denying the scientific truth of the matter. 
