Thank you for your challenging reply.
May I quote:
"So you determine for others what their values are...and you say their values are the same as yours...even if the other persons are trying to tell you they have different values? Alan, how did you obtain the qualification to override the minds of others concerning their own opinions?"
Some may say that some propose to overide the minds of unborn others?
I suppose I could say that maybe I'm qualified to speak on behalf of unborn babies in that I have recall of when I was less than a few days old after birth, probably less than hours after birth. Not that anyone would believe that.
But hey; you may complain that common ground basis is needed here.
Well: the scientific literature is accessible to us both; the web-sites I listed before in this debate are acessible to us both. There is no evidence to draw a line at some age and de-humanise the unborn. NO EVIDENCE!
Look at your arguments: using them, how can you oppose slavery or cannibalism or witch-burning in certain historical cultures?
I may specify the term "infants" with "unborn infants" if you like.
I do not know about whether the ingredients of life are technically alien; but once fertilised; science says the fertilised egg is an alien life-form.
"And Your denomination would not let its own laypersons even read the Bible until 1890...right? " But you might add "and what about the scandalous murders and so-on in the history of the papacy?"
I am not defending the mistakes of the Catholic Church.
I am saying that honest logic + science + fair play = no abortion. If the values of honesty, fair play, and logic, are unacceptable to some people; what kind of society will that be?
Surely you see merit in my reasoning?
It has been said: "As you judge. So you are judged". Those who are "dead to themselves" re: their unborn time (no recall), thus encourage such personal death if they judge other unborn as non-human, as "dead"?