Because, as you said (btw, you copied a lot that was not my post), "It works."
The only way to protect the inalienable right to life is to refrain from discrimination as to which humans are to be given protection - as in "equal protection under the law."
The only scientific definition of human being is to use the species classification. Simple biology. Any *other* definition is a moral discrimination.
So what doc? -- We agree the embryos die.
We disagree that the embryos are viable human beings, protected by our constitutional rule of law.
Why do you support any moral code, ancient or new, pagan or Jewish or Christian?
I learned the golden rule at my mothers breast. - "Don't bit the tit that feeds you". - It works, so I support it.
Why do you support your moral code, hoc?
Because, as you said "It works."
Good to know that you can admit to reason, - when it stares you in the face.
The only way to protect the inalienable right to life is to refrain from discrimination as to which humans are to be given protection - as in "equal protection under the law."
We can both agree that a woman carrying an embryo is a human being, correct? We disagree on when an embryo is constitutionally a human being, correct? Thus, in the Constitutional view, -- the woman has "equal protection'. -- You must prove that an embryo is a human being with equal rights to its mother.
The only scientific definition of human being is to use the species classification. Simple biology. Any *other* definition is a moral discrimination.
Not true. Our Constitution defines who is 'legally;' a human being, and afforded equal protection of the law. - It says [read the 14th] you must 'born' [defined as being capable of being born]. - Viable. --- Embryos are not yet 'viable'.
Thus, in order to win your argument, you must amend our Constitution.
-- Good luck.