Not in your lifetime. We are speaking out for those who have no voice to defend themselves from the inanity of such as you represent and stubbornly cling too ... dehumanization of the little ones in order to authorize the slaughter. You will not be left to such foolishness as defending the first trimester slaughter, while a poster at FR, trust me! I would merely like to examine a few of your assumptions that underlie such a position.
You are an angry person. While I might debate you on this issue, I'll not take part in name calling and threats. I'm just not interested in sparing with you. Peace.
I'm not trying to squash discussion, merely point out that, though there are complex political and moral questions, abortion is not one of them. Many issues have arguments on both sides; this one does not. The defenses of abortion are unique in that they have no logical validity whatsoever, and people on both sides know this.
I say this to say there is only one assumption that underlies the abortionist position, always, and that is: the baby is not a person.
The baby is not a person. That is the single, naked (and indefensible) assumption you are asking for.
So there are no assumptions, plural, there is only one. Anybody who wants to carry it off must: 1. define "person"; 2. describe the baby; 3. demonstrate how the products of conception lack the sine qua non quality of "person".
They can't do it and they HATE being asked to do it, because the mental pain of having to think it through is what they work, march, talk, and shout to avoid.
The entire abortionist position is one huge chunk of sophistry, designed to hide the awful truth: they believe in abortion for no other reason than that it is USEFUL. And what it is used FOR is to make casual sex risk-free. The baby is not a person (until some magical point) simply because they don't WANT to be responsible for it. It's not a moral argument; it is the same as when a 2 year old says "No. Nonononononono."
The rest, as I say, is sophistry.
/ rant