"This does not stack up against the scientific facts. I gave an example of in-the-womb babies recognisig music a year later, that they had only heard 3 months before birth."
Journal citation please? Did the 3-month old babies give a full interview?
"Many women can tell you that their experience during pregnancy is that the baby is very much alive and aware inside her. The baby even reacts to external stimuli while in the womb."
It seems intereesting that many women do not know if they are pregnant unless the fluid turns blue or their doctor tells them.
And women who know they are pregnant by those methods will naturally give it a lot of thought.
In the meantime,you must understand it is not any kind of contempt for the seed-human that motivates my position. It is the context. Absolutes have always been maintained throughout history until context made them untenable. That alone does not prove your opinion falls in that category. The point is that I agree with your appreciation for the young seed-human up to the point of insisting there is no element of choice for the person carrying it to choose whether to go beyond the 3rd or 4th month. I do not wish to
encourage abortions. But I do not wish to encourage hockey either, which hurts many persons and kills a few. We are talking about what point our society may insist on dictating a person's behavior. I do not think persons should be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term unless they have carried it about three or four months and the baby is becoming self-aware. The hearing of music is not self-awareness, even if you have proven they recognized it.
"There is an abundance of evidence available that shows the notion of "seed-human" to be absurd."
Probably I should not use the term seed for "animal" or "human" since you will not allow its casual use.