> I can see why circumstances make you feel that there's a special something about a fertilized egg
This is being intentionally dismissive. The fact is a fertilized egg inside a woman has, for centuries, resulted in a baby being born without the woman being able to do anything about it. Being able to safely terminate a pregnancy is a relatively new development. The fact that my grandmother had an abortion and, because of the law at the time and the circumstances surrounding it, the procedure didn't succeed in terminating the pregnancy is very different from playing the what-if game.
> Neutral is pro-choice. No law.
No, neutral is letting others determine the law without interjecting my opinion.
> That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. There's no reason you can't apply science to religion.
I never said you couldn't. I only said that both science and religion can both be the basis for political positions. It was you who made the connection of science being rational and religion being irrational. I was merely pointing out that neither rational nor irrational bases can inform this issue. A position on this issue is strictly based on morality and philosophy. This contrasts starkly with other issues like climate change or tax policy where math and science can inform a more correct position.
Okay...I'm done feeding the troll :-)