Anyways, I don't hold that conception is a viable dividing line between human/non-human.
A mere assertion argument? Very nice. Your evidence is compelling.
it's an argument without evidence, and not worth considering in this situation. they can argue that embryos have souls and I'll argue that animals have even higher value souls, and we should especially not eat them. we'll each bring the same amount of evidence to the table and get nowhere. I'm interested in arguments that are logically consistent and have evidence supporting them.
No, what you're interested in is pretending that you don't have value judgments, when all of your supposedly "logical" arguments rest squarely on them. You value life. You value choice. You value freedom. Then, when these values overlap, you make more arbitrary value judgments to establish which takes precedent in any given situation or set of circumstances.
"Abortion is wrong because the soul exists at conception" presupposes a) a Christian conception of the world, and b) a value for eventual life over choice. "Abortion is right because it's just a cluster of cells" presupposes a) a scientific conception of the world, and b) a value for choice over eventual life. Please, please don't act like religious arguments aren't "logical" or "worth discussing," because I have quite a bit of respect for you as a poster at the moment.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd