I have said repeatedly that it is my opinion that the extension of civil individuality to a zygote is a misapperception, but that that statement is my opinion. You continuously ask me to deal with an alternative opinion that interrupting the cellular process is the same as "killing" a "person" and therefore disposes the "convenience" of the person in whose body the process has begun as more important than the judgement of "murder".
How do you want me to "deal" with it? I think it is misguided biologically, spiritually, ethically, and socially; but I cannot impose a clear line on the point where the change should be said to occur between a cellular process and a prenatal infant, or a human being.
I simply do not have the data necessary to give you a solution to the problem you keep badgering me about. In my opinion, the only person who DOES have that data would be a well-informed pregnant woman, a classification which I fail to qualify for on three counts.