You would be perfectly fine to rationalize your thinking in that way. You would then be responsible for getting others to conform to your ideology. If you can do it to a sufficient degree of success, power to you.
Then remember that most of us on this side know for a fact that millions of babies are being aborted long past the embryo/zygote stage of development. This baby for example, was born 16 weeks premature, which means that her mother was only five months pregnant when she was born.
Based upon what you said above, would you agree that since this baby was demonstrably not an embryo or zygote, killing her would have been wrong?
Well, there’s also a substantive difference between a fetus and a baby, kid, child, etc. If one side gets to blur the line whenever they want, why is the other side denied the same right?
I said it was a matter of nomenclature, not that the nomenclature defined the propriety of the action.
You said “child.” I said that I do not accept that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is a child.
I notice you leave out the word “fetus” from my post. I happen to believe that abortion of certain-term fetuses is also permissible.
So, in terms of integrity, you fail, on grounds of misquotation, and in terms of reasoning, you fail, because you attempt to attribute a line of deduction to me which I did not specify.
Nonsense, excuses and diversions. Clearly you don’t want to answer the question.
Bullshit. You left a word out of what I said. Now you’re trying to argue on the basis of that distortion.
An utterly meaningless distinction, and one which in my opinion is designed to allow you an escape hatch to avoid answering my question.
It’s been my opinion that to many liberals it really doesn’t matter whether a human being exists or not, they simply support abortion on demand as part of what they consider a woman’s right to do as she wishes “with her own body”. I’ve even heard it stated boldly and without reservation that it’s a woman’s right to abort a baby even a day before it would be born.
What I would like to know is if there is some point in a pregnancy where you feel the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever has developed sufficiently to be regarded as a human being and therefore should not be aborted, and if so, whether you agree that rubicon has been passed in the case of the baby in the article I linked to above?
Your question began, “Based on what you said above…” but then introduced ideas that I had not actually said. I couldn’t answer the question, because it was predicated upon a falsehood.
This is correct. Many on the pro-choice side hold exactly those view.
I am comfortable with the compromise reached in Roe v. Wade, where, at various arbitrary points (the trimesters of pregnancy) the state’s interest in the unborn grows incrementally. I also agree with the Casey decision that no undue burden may be placed upon the obtaining of a legal abortion.
I do not like the “bright line” of viability as a cut-off for legal abortion, but I do accept it as a realistic compromise. I am willing, politically, to concede it as a boundary, although, as a political matter, there are concessions I’d like to receive in return.
I’m perfectly willing to answer your questions when they are straightforward and do not involve perambulatory clauses that involve me in opinions I don’t share.
Given your support for our Martian Overlords, wouldn’t you agree?
I am pro choice. Choice.
Pro life is against the womans ability to choose. Even in the case of insest or rape.
Those that are againt choice are misogynists IMHO.
‘Pro Lifers’ are saying that it’s horrible that you got robbed and shot, but the hole in your body is just an inconvenience.
At least they’re consistent. 
Pro choice to kill kids.
A fetus isn’t a kid. You’re using inflammatory language to demonize your opponents.
Can you not make your point through intelligent discourse?
It is a human being that is not an adult. So it’s a kid. But if you prefer, “pro-choice-to-kill-human-beings”.
I prefer that you use the caveat, “mindless-clump of cells that is genetically human, of course, but by not intelligent measure, a person.”
That sound fair?
That’s your opinion, not a fact. Of course, the other is my opinion. But yet you think that my opinion is “inflammatory”, “demonizes” and not “intelligent discourse”. Is yours?
It is a fact that it’s a mindless clump of cells. It is your opinion that it is a person.
Facts and opinions are important things in crafting policy. The fact that a fetus is (up to some point in its development) mindless is unassailable.
Its position as a person is what comes to opinion. You are equating those who don’t share your *opinion *with murderers. That’s clearly inflammatory.
A key part of murder is intent. Do you think someone who thinks a fetus isn’t a person has intent to murder?
Your language simply shows how utterly without merit your positions are. Or at least that you are unable to effectively advocate for them. You wouldn’t have to resort to petulant accusations of murder if you could argue the case dispassionately.
It is a fact that it’s a human being. It is your opinion that it is a mindless clump of cells.
Cool. So a white supremacist who thinks that a black guy isn’t a person and kills him is not a murderer? That’s an interesting viewpoint.
It is human, certainly. It is simply factual that a mind cannot be generated by the neural clump at the center of a fetus’ head-ish area.
If you argue that fact, you’re venturing into absurd biology denialism. If you accept the existence of a soul, well, that’s just an opinion.
He had intent to kill a human being. There is no doubt that black people are humans. It isn’t a matter of opinion.
As I say, you are resorting to emotional outbursts to rally your point, instead of reason.
I’m quoting myself here.
Do you, Terr feel that pregnancy is just an inconvenience? Even by rape. That is what you said. Do you still feel that way?
Since Trinopus has now answered your question, it seems fair to ask whether you believe there is some point in a pregnancy prior to which the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever should not yet be regarded as a human being when assessing the rights of the woman carrying it?