I'm not clear which item I have not adequately challenged in your view.
I showed some questionable elements in your arguments. Also my comments on the apparant gap in personal history knowledge by humans showed there was insufficient information to draw conclusions that would deny unborn-child humanity; while that gap remained.
I could further back that with argument about recall-ability in young children and the nature of recall-blanks in adults.
Quoting: "I think what you have done is formed your opinion
and will endlessly seek arguments in its favor."
If that were true I would hardly be as open to debate as I am. In any debate one of course seeks information to counter the arguments of the other party, and to back one's claims. It is up to you to seek evidence to back your claim, as it is up to me to produce evidence to back my claim.
There is nothing wrong with my seeking arguments in favour of my opinion or my eyewitness experience. If contrary arguments collapse because of the strength of the arguments I have, it is a possibility that the contrary arguments are in error.
Your situation seems to be that you allegedly have insufficient information to decide the issue; but that might not always be the case.
Often in life people take a stance on something based on partial information. I claim that the mutually available scientific information on unborn humans is such that; even though it may leave you and I both with incomplete information, it backs the view of the humanity of unborn children from conception. Opposing arguments are often easily shown to contain fallacies or errors in logic etc.