What you can truly think of and what you can't truly think of is irrelevant.
The fact remains that killing a person without life-or-death self-defense justification is committing the sociological act of murder.
That's the truth of it.
There are indeed many people who accept the scientific truth that a person begins to live at conception who seriously recognize the murderous truth of the matter.
And, that group is greatly growing ... while the numbers of pro-abortionist sophisters is greatly decreasing, thanks to the unconjecturable scientific revelation that a person, a human being, begins at conception.
Your statement is both right and wrong.
It is wrong in that you imply that the woman is "fully developed" in comparison to the newly conceived or pre-natal person at any stage of their growth. There is no rational application of "fully developed" to human beings in any stage of their growth with respect to rights.
It is wrong in that you imply that because the woman is "living" that the newly conceived person is not. Both are living human beings.
It is wrong in that you imply that because the woman is breathing oxygen outside of the womb that she has "more" rights. That is again a false distinction.
But it is true in that, yes, the woman does have rights to consider.
The woman also has the right to life, just like the pre-natal person does.
Only when one is unjustifiably and realistically threatening the very life of the other do those rights come in conflict.
Mere pregnancy is not a threat on the life of the woman. Thus no rights are in conflict via mere pregnancy, and the woman cannot take the foundational right, the right to life, of the pre-natal person without thereby committing the sociological act of murder.
Actually, that is false in this topical matter, as well as inaccurately stated.
As a result of the scientific determination that pre-natals are people, unique individual human beings, progress in protecting their right to life has indeed been made.
Partial birth abortion, and abortion near to the completion of gestation is now illegal in many places.
Indeed, this is the growing trend now that science has spoken, to protect the thereby revealed right to life of pre-natal people.
As more and more people become aware of this scientific reality, as more and more utilitarian pro-abortion sophisters come out of denial, the rights of pre-natal people will enter the law books.
Irrelevant and topically inaccurate.
A more accurate anaology would be that if you didn't like your brother because he was economically and temporally inconvenient for you, you could not murder him because of it.
That is more like people who find the newly conceived person to be economically and temporally inconvenient and therefore want to murder that person.
Your argument was proved fallacious in the previous quote response.
Your analogy is inaccurate with respect to the topic, and thus your conclusion is thereby false.
Your glittering generality here is simply misapplied.
But such is typical of pro-abortionists -- they create the most obvious and laughably inaccurate comparisons which they actually think are true!
Such exemplifies the mind damage done to the pro-abortionist by denial of reality.
"We" can say these inapplicable and thereby erroneous things if we're a pro-abortion sophister who sees the pre-natal person's rights as being inconvenient and inferior to their own.
But that doesn't make it true.
Science disagrees with you, Top Gun.
Rational application of the facts in the matter disagrees with you, Top Gun.
Those who don't have a pro-abortionists denial-based agenda disagree with you, Top Gun.
You really don't have a rational, truthful leg to stand on in your presentations, Top Gun.
Your denial of reality is thereby obvious.
Personhood is scientifically and rationally with respect to definitive propriety existent from conception.
That is the modern-day revealed truth of the matter.
I grant you that you have many years of convenience-based behavior and ignorance on the matter to overcome, and that such simply doesn't occur over night in most human psyches.
But, in time, acceptance is really for the best.
Not according to science and rational application of definitive propriety.
The right to life is granted to all people, regardless ...
... Regardless of whether those rights are inconvenient for those who are used to disposing of them at will.
Again, not according to science and rational application of definitive propriety.
But you continue in your "full person", "viability" test, "legal difference" and other pro-abortionist sophistries to deny the truth of the matter, a truth that even you likely intuitively know to be an obvious reality: that a unique person, a unique individual human being, is created at the moment of conception.
There is no "full personhood" test rightfully in existence to determine who gets rights and who doesn't.
All that is required is to be a person, a human being, to be in foundationally granted possession of one's rights, which, foundationally includes the right to life.
The scientific revelation of a few decades ago has presented that the newly conceived person is indeed a person.
Adjustment to the truth of this will take time.
But already legal modifications have occurred to protect the rights of pre-natals, and more modifications to protect those rights are understandably forthcoming.
The times they are a changing.
Pro-abortionists can come out of denial of the past's ignorance and stand along side the rest of us in acceptance of the truth that a pre-natal is a person from the conception get-go and respect these people's right to life ...
... Or they can go the way of the dinosaur kicking and screaming in meteroic extinction ...
... Or they can soon be branded the Hitlerian mass murderers that their futile resistance may one day accurately accord them.
The choice, Top Gun ... is yours.
