Well, Mick, forgive me if I seem tobe de-humanizing the actually human. It is a tough subject. As you noticed, I fear dehumanizing the mother's side of the equation. For one thing, she who carries the ova is herself an already-walking miracle.
Bruce, I find your conflation of what I said with the 3rd Reich offensive. The fact that someone wants to define human as one thing, and someone else as something else, without an explicit criterion or standard of measurement, does not mean that either of them is a fascist, a Nazi, a murderer, or an unfeeling brute.
The point you keep yelling about that must be addressed --although you didn't spell it out--is that the point where an individual MUST be considered to be a unique and sacred human life is when it is two cells big.
Personally I find this opinion uncovincing, but I emphasize that it is an opinion.
There is no objective standard for the definition, however. That is one of my reasons for suggesting that individual freedom and personal decision is the right jurisdiction here.
Until there is some such objective criterion, who gets to decide what the yard-stick is? And why, if it is based solely on individual judgement, should it be automatically accepted?
As far as I can tell the one person int he world who will have the best sense of the humanity of a prenatal entity is the woman within whose body the process is occurring. No-one else has a fraction of that connectedness with the situation. Nor a fraction of the responsibililty for the circumstances.
I greatly appreciate this dialogue, in any case, as it allows me to ponder some of the facets of this issue I have not considered with any depth before now.