I think it's a lazy tell, attacking and ascribing to the messenger when the message is the point. My argument is neither religious, sentimental, nor depends on anyone's belief about when right is vested, including my own. The only required point is our common recognition of a) the right and b) its inviolate nature within the circumstances considered.
You keep making the same mistake you made with some scientists, assuming a foundation. Again, no such consideration exists where the right of the unborn is established. Inconvenience can't control.
I've given examples that include your own conduct on the point. No one is going to allow a woman to end the life of a child she would otherwise give birth to tomorrow because she feels horribly inconvenienced. Why? Because we recognize the right of that unborn and that recognized right obliterates the lesser consideration. People with widely differing notions on when that right began will unify their actions and opinions at some point along that chronological line of being.
So inconvenience is really not much more than throwing intellectual sand into the air to obscure the argument and point. Saying, "We cannot know if we do harm but we can know we inconvenience" may illicit compassion, but it cannot control the argument.
And the point remains that however you or I feel about it, neither of us can demonstrate a point of belief that isn't reduced to a subjective valuation.
Once that sinks in you have to recognize an error you're making above. You're presuming the right doesn't exist and that the inconvenience controls absent a proof that the right does, a thing no one can provide.
But if that's your standard then the woman who would end the life of her unborn the very day it would otherwise be delivered should be as free to do so--and neither of us agree that should be allowed, I'd hope.
And so my argument.
The same way you would an hour before delivery.
