Did I use religion as a basis for my position against abortion?
Will you agree that all laws express some moral idea (human rights, fair play, etc.) ?
Would you agree that embryos do not choose to trespass on their mothers' bodies, and that the mother is usually responsible for the embryo's existence in her body?
1. Not directly. But your position is curiously similar to devout religious stances.
So you decided to accuse me of religious fanaticism?
2. All laws do express some moral ideas. But most laws address two more more entities, agressors and victims.
Then why get upset about this being a moral issue I should preach in church, rather than simply asking me where the victim was?
Speaking of religion, I must point out that religious beliefs are not less valid than ideas like human rights, etc. But they cannot be allowed to violate another person's rights, so long as human rights are the basis of our laws, as they should be. The same should apply to the meta-physical concepts you believe in.
3. Embryos do not choose anything, they are incapable of thought. It is simply there as a result of the input of a male's DNA successfully interfacing with the chromosomal information in a fertile egg.
To expand on two, the crux here is indeed the definition of what is a human entity.
That definition is not in question. All informed parties agree that the fertilized egg is "human" and "a human," at least in the scientific sense. Unfortunately, some project a meta-physical belief that some humans are not "full humans." and use this as an excuse to kill said humans that would otherwise be protected by law.
I posit that an embryo cannot think, has never posessed the capacity for thought.
Why? Can you prove this? There has never been any concesus on whether the mind is dependent on the brain, or if the mind transcends the brain and only locates in the brain during physical life. This is another use of meta-physical belief as an excuse to kill an innocent person. Why is thought necessary to humanity? Why is the embryo expected to think? If embryos show no signs of thought, that may tell us that humans simply do not think at that level of development. This does not prove they are not human. The definition of life (below) dictates that the living organism must reproduce and evolve. The embryo does not do this, either. In fact, four-year-olds don't reproduce, but they are still considered to be alive. Your definition of human should similarly allow for differences in development.
It will eventually become a fetus. There is a line there, somewhere, where there would be an "awakening", the creation of a self-awareness of a conscious sort.
You are welcome to your religious beliefs, but not at the expense of others' lives.
The dictionary definition of "life" is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. The biologist's definition of life is that which are cellular with complex organization, undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt in succeeding generations.
So you agree that the fertilized egg is alive?
It is the difference between "human" as an adjective and "human" as a noun. Abortion whilst an embryo is still but an adjective should be freely available for the host to choose according to her own faith, morals, and ethics.
Since when? When did we start allowing murder in pursuit of religious practices?
The argument can also be made that the embryo is "half male" and the woman can accordingly choose to eject that half since it is not native to her person.
No, it can't be made. When you figure out how to un-fertilize the egg and remove only the male half, leaving the female half un-touched, perhaps then you can make it. And if said woman didn't want that "half-male" embryo, she should not have had sex.
"Not native to her person"? Where do you get this stuff?
Other arguments, as before, state that the embryo cannot demand and win care from the woman without her consent; withdrawl of consent is an abortion.
I thought you agreed that embryos can't be shown to be demanding anything? In any case, it should be obvious to you how ridiculous this sounds. The consent was either freely given by the woman, or she was raped. In neither case can the embryo be blamed. Additionally, abortion is absolutely NOT a "withdrawal of consent." It is a deliberate act, intended to kill an innocent person. We call that murder.
