Thank you topgun, for making my case for me. I was perfectly capable of doing it myself, but I do appreciate your efforts to undermine your own argument and congratulate you on doing it so effectively.
As you so correctly noted, there was no conesensus when life began. And he clearly noted that if it is a living human being, then it is a person. That is what the "(i.e. personhood)" means. At the time he said that, it was possible to make an argument of sorts that unborns were not only not human beings, but might not be alive. Such an argument is no longer possible. Science has gone way past that stage.
Believe. Just like you. It is a matter of faith for them also. I have brought forward credible, peer reviewed science that states that unborns are human beings. To date, you have not provided a single piece of credible science to call that into question. If faith is all you have, then you have nothing in this argument.
When I say that unborns are human beings, I provide credible science that says that unborns ARE human beings. How about you provide some credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.
More beliefs? Like I said, you are arguing from a position of faith and now you bring religious and quasi religious writing in an attempt to bolster your position of faith? This is how you expect to support your argument?
