Most assuredly not. We hold similar views, by virtue of having spent many years discussing abortion, but we are not the same person. Moreover, dave and I do not agree on every single thing, as evidenced here.
Regarding the rest of your statements,
That is simply false. Medical science does define the terms “alive,” “dead” and “human.” We have, on many occasions, cited medical texts which assert that the unborn is human and alive. If you insist that these terms are simply arbitrary, then I must challenge you to defend that claim with scientific texts.
None of which pertain to either humanity, life or the fundamental right to life. The beginning of “adulthood” may be a fuzzy boundary, but this does not mean that life has a fuzzy beginning as well.
Wrong. Science and medicine have plenty of reason to define life, death and humanity. Unless, of course, you’re willing to let a physician pronounce you “dead” without a clear meaning of that term.
People can declare any number of things. There are people who declare, for example, that blacks are not persons. Your willingness to declare something counts for nothing in reasoned debate.
First of all, your premise is false. It CAN NOT, and DOES NOT, set forth laws which permit a mother to decide “all aspects of a child’s life.” Even children have fundamental rights which their parents can not overturn.
Second, even if your assertion would correct, this would not give the mother permission to end the child’s life. It’s one thing to say that the mother can control aspects of the child’s existence; it’s another thing to say she is allowed to end that child’s life.
And third, the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. It is the one right without which all other rights become meaningless. This makes it decidedly more paramount than, say, the mother’s freedom to decide how a child should dress, eat or behave in public.