Abortion is NOT Murder, and it is perfectly SAFE

This is a debate about huma procreation, abortion, and "fetal viability" where gestational development is concerned.

You keep saying reading comprehension matters but you then proceed to misread my statements and those of biologists and even the federal law repeatedly.

Also, insulting people doesn't make you smart, if you have to resort to ad hominem and appeal to ridicule then that means you can't actually attack the position. Your arguments are fallacious and an if-by-whiskey attempt at credibility and therefore irrational.

If you want to simply assert your own personal definition of personhood without any logic or reason or even a study or statement of fact associated with it, then so be it. But biologists, world religions, and the U.S. code have all assigned personhood to a preborn human. I am simply repeating what is already being said by others.

It isn't just my own personal opinion that a baby is a human. It is the opinion of almost every biologist in surveys, and they (and I) base said opinion on the current known science.

If you disagree, then assert facts and studies and reality as your point of contention, not insults. Insults are not arguments, they are irrational statements masquerading as intelligence when there is none present in the actual argument.

Infants, young children, and crippled geriatrics are all good examples of people who are unviable.

Is it ethical to euthanize infants, young children and crippled geriatrics because they can't survive on their own? 

This is a debate about huma procreation, abortion, and "fetal viability" where gestational development is concerned.

Viability can not be the basis for being a human being. Otherwise, it is ethical to murder infants, young children and crippled geriatrics.

I think your circumventing my argument. Your wasting my time. 

You have not cited a single definition of personhood.

You have not cited a single definition of a human.

You have not cited a single instance or reputable source stating a pregnancy is not a human being.

And yet I need to prove my assertions?

If you assert a baby has no personhood, you need to defend that.

If you assert a baby's life does not begin at conception, you need to defend that.

Your argument is irrational, and getting more irrational by the second.

I, on the other hand, have continued to cite reputable sources to defend my claim. I have supplied evidence, you have not. Who do you think is living his life in the Dunning Kruger effect currently? A person who cites sources, argues rationally and prefers to stick to the facts and data, or the person who responds with insults and doesn't offer proof of his assertions or definitions?

From gamete fusion to birth, the zygote/embryo/foetus is naturally* reliant upon the host for survival.

From gamete fusion to birth, the zygote/embryo/foetus is naturally* reliant upon the host for survival.

this implies that it is alive, if it needs somethign to survive. 

you are arguing with science 

All of the human being photos you pictured are all merely clumps of cells. What makes one clump of cells different from another clump of cells?

It is for this reason virtually all biologists disagree with you and claim human life begins at fertilization.

That zygote you cited is considered just as much human, from a biological standpoint, as all the other photos of people you gave. Because, at the end of the day, from a biological standpoint, you and I are clumps of cells too.

And since we have no idea, from a scientific standpoint, how life force works, you can't make a claim that the zygote has no consciousness or no soul or any such similar claims because it is an entirely unprovable assertion.

So, once again, you demonstrate your lack of expertise on biology and resort to endless appeals to ridicule and irrational rants instead of citing serious academic texts or rigorous defenses of your position based on facts, logic, and intellectual acumen.

I recommend reading this rigorously documented article in an internationally recognized think tank concerning facts about Abortion, because you clearly need to learn more on this topic:

https://justfacts.org/abortion

Clearly that life is human in origin.

A grass seed has nothing to do with this debate/discussion.

What I refer to as selective morality.

"Abortion is settled codified law" Is it really? I wonder why all the states are debating it since the supreme court sent back to the states to decide.