I DID, BUT STOPPED AT DEUTERONOMY 17:9-12. That's where it reveals the whole purpose of the Bible is to form the basis of a Government Of The People, By The Preachers, And For The Preachers. You do know, don't you, that it was preachers who assembled the Bible? Do you think they included anything that didn't benefit themselves? Ha!
A PROVABLY STUPID/IRRATIONAL LIE. As I already showed. Your mere say-so means nothing. Especially it means nothing when other Religions disagree with you!! So, why should anyone think your claim is superior to theirs, eh?
HAS NO EFFECT ON GOD'S SUPPOSEDLY INFINITE KNOWLEDGE. You cannot rationally claim that God knows everything and also claim that when a woman chooses to abort, God didn't know she was going to make that choice! Therefore if an unborn human has a soul because God puts it there (per your claim quoted above), and if killing an ensouled entity is murder, then if the woman aborts, GOD is partly an accomplice to the murder! Entirely because of the Standard Claim that God knew the abortion was going to happen even before installing the soul.
CAN'T SHOW I'M MISTAKEN? Tsk, tsk! If unborn humans don't have souls, then there is no problem with Judgement of souls of miscarried unborn humans, when the main things those souls can be associated with is theft from, and poisoning and drugging another human.
WE CAN MEASURE CLAIMS MADE BY RELIGIOUS ENTHUSIASTS. Such as the claim that every individual human body has a soul --even though the number of human bodies in the womb does not always remain constant, per perfectly Natural physical events. Such as the claim that souls are immortal and cannot be either destroyed or created by purely physical events. WE CAN BE RATIONAL. Even though religious enthusiasts apparently don't know how to do that.
NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR. If they can't understand for years, then why do they need to start inside unborn humans, instead of starting at birth? Therefore we have another way to reach the Question: What does an unborn human need a soul for?
ACCORDING TO THE GREEDY PREACHERS. Why should they be believed, just because they say so?
IRRELEVANT TO THE OVERALL ABORTION DEBATE. Murder means killing a person, such as, say, an intelligent extraterrestrial alien being peacefully walking down the ramp of a landed flying saucer --not the killing of a mere-animal entity like an unborn human.
PERSONHOOD HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE. We know this because we expect, in the not-distant future, to be building True Artificial Intelligences, fully equal to humans in cognitive and other abilities.
PERSONHOOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE. Otherwise, why don't you claim that a lobster qualifies as a person, eh? You actually do know what a person truly is. Just Answer this simple Question: "If you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical research laboratory, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, but rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save YOU-THE-PERSON?" (And we most certainly have the technology to keep either alive, else no one would be talking about doing "head transplant research".)
HUMANNESS AND PERSONHOOD ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED THINGS. For example a "hydatidiform mole" is a 100% human and 100% alive entity that begins to exist with an ovum-fertilization event, just like a normal human embryo, but not even the most vehment of abortion opponents will insist that a hydatidiform mole is a person deserving rights. MORE: When an adult human happens to be brain-dead and on life-support, at the time that brain death is verified, no mistake possible, a Death Certificate gets filled out. Note that the only part of that adult human body that is dead is the brain --all the rest of that human is still alive. Nevertheless, the living human body is not a person and does not have right-to-life; after the Death Certificate is filled out, it is perfectly OK for the life-support "plug" to be pulled. MORE, since we fully expect extraterrestrial intelligent alien beings to be non-human, yet qualify as persons, that is yet another reason why personhood and humanness are too totally different and unrelated things.
Like I said before.
IRRELEVANT TO THE ABORTION DEBATE. Unborn humans are alive. But since they are not persons (provably cannot possibly qualify as persons!), they have no right-to-life and can be killed. Simple!
IRRELEVANT TO THE ABORTION DEBATE. Robots will one day be primarily relevant to the topic of personhood. It is more likely that "life" will be defined in terms of machinery, than machinery will be called "alive".
IT IS NOT A PROBLEM, except perhaps for ignorant abortion opponents.
IN TERMS OF PERSONHOOD --yes, we expect that to happen in the not-distant future. However, since no human person qualifies as "more" of a person than any other human person, why should we make an exception for robotic persons, or for non-human persons? If an entity has what it takes to qualify as a person, fine. If it has more, so what?
YOU SEEM TO HAVE A POOR UNDERSTANDING OF "HUMAN LIFE". Read this.
YOU CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT KILLING. Your immune system routinely destroys invading life-forms every hour of every day. One of the greatest-of-all stupidities of abortion opponents is to call themselves "pro-life" when The Fact Is, They Are Only Pro Human Life, And All Other Life Can DIE, As Far As They Are Concerned. Tsk, tsk!
EVERYTHING IS DANGEROUS. Here's something about ordinary water, for example.
YOU ARE EXHIBITING STUPID PREJUDICE, essentially saying that human life is the only type of life that matters. But since other entities can say a very equivalent thing about themselves, the result of such Stupid Prejudice is this. LOGICALLY, it is much better to claim that personhood matters most, regardless of the entity that has it (and as I mentioned before, it is provably impossible for unborn humans to have personhood).
IT IS WRONG TO CLASSIFY AN UNBORN HUMAN AS A "CHILD". Here's the proof of that. YOU are more similar to a newborn baby than any unborn human is similar to a newborn baby.
NOT NECESSARY. All that matters is, neither the lobster nor the unborn human qualifies as a person.
WRONG QUESTION. Since humanness is irrelevant and has nothing to do with personhood. Only personhood matters. Therefore, the correct question is, "how are unborn humans not persons?" And The Answer Is: They cannot exhibit any characteristics different from the characteristics exhibited by ordinary animals. Meanwhile, actual persons can exhibit characteristics that ordinary animals cannot match. Here is a significant amount of information about that.
NOT QUITE. Basically, a person is a mind. The body is irrelevant. That's why True Artificial Intelligences will eventually qualify as persons (because of their minds), and that's why various extraterrestrial aliens can be expected to qualify as persons (because of their minds), and that's why, after decades of research, various scientists have claimed that dolphins qualify as persons (because of their minds). Meanwhile, unborn humans don't have person-class minds, period. They only have animal-class minds (or no minds at all, such as during the earliest development stages, before the brain begins to exist).
YOU HAVE A PERSON-CLASS MIND. That's what matters.
NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Life has absolutely nothing to do with personhood. Consider various fantasy stories that include ghosts. Ghosts are disembodied persons, right? Not biologically alive, but still able to interact with others in a person-class way (as described in those fictions, anyway).
HUMANNESS IS DEFINED BY BIOLOGY. Personhood is defined by mental capabilities that ordinary animals cannot match. I linked this, about those capabilities. Perhaps you should read it.
Both of us have vastly different views, and I am glad we can express them freely here. That being said, I respectfully say thank you for the conversation, and I hope you will think on what was said.