Asked what was wrong SYSTEMATICALLY.
You obviously don't believe that God flooded the world, so in your mind, no actual blood was spilled.
So what's the actual issue?
In the biblical system, blood was spilled, but it's of little importance compared to their future glorification.

I apologize, I did not.
A quick look showed that yes, the "building blocks of life" could have possible came from non-organic material.
But a quick look also hinted at some problems.

I'm going to look into it more.

Tied in a knot?
I have a straightforward answer to your objection.
Sounds more like a breadstick to me 😅

Anyways.
Yes, the riches of eternity are greater than life on earth.
So God can kill people (His creation) and then give them eternal life.
What's wrong with that, systematically?

What did the Apostles gain from preaching the death, resurrection, and deity of Jesus?

No, I don't agree that abortion is morally okay, because I think the fetus is a human being.
See replies to other comment

2/2 I believe that the One is the same nature as the Three because there are nothing about the fetus itself that is unique.
It is in a unique stage of development (being unborn) but is not a unique 'thing'

1/2 I'm not trying to push a narrative.
My argument is that a fetus is a human being, because it's the same nature as an adult, child, or infant, who are all human beings.

If dependency were a quality, it would change the nature of the fetus.
If it were a condition, it would not change the nature of the fetus.

If you describe it as condition, then it doesn't change the nature of the fetus, and there is still nothing to differentiate the Three from the One.

After reading all your replies I think the only place we're going to disagree is whether reliance on the mother is a quality or a condition.
I would say it's a condition, much like an adult might be reliant on a ECMO, since the fetus is only temporarily reliant on the mother.

15/15 So that we can keep our responses on track and on topic, I would ask that we only make one comment at a time, on one post at a time, so that the other can respond adequately and be bludgeoned by 20 different notifications in 20 different directions. (Like this post if you agree).

14/15 Yes, I know I didn’t respond directly to your medical/social/legal question, because your question of “separate” has nothing really to do with my position (you’ll notice that it wasn’t integral to the argument above).

13/15 The way to defeat my position is to present a quality (NOT a condition) that is inherent to the Three but not to the One, and to make said quality the qualification for status as a human ‘being.’ If no quality can be presented, then my argument stands.

12/15 These conditions, however, are external realities and do not bear on the NATURE of the four. It seems then that the four are of the SAME nature, and are therefore all human beings.

11/15 So, it appears to me that there is no inherent quality differentiating the infant, child, and adult from the unborn. The only differences (although substantial) are in the CONDITIONS of the four.

10/15 ...This would mean that consciousness does not differentiate the two groups, because it is shared between the Three and the One. If consciousness is what makes a human a “being” then we may have to extend that status to fetuses as well.

9/15 Second, that the fetus has the capacity to be and may actively be conscious. The studies are undecided be seem to suggest that a fetus is aware (albeit minimally so) of its body and surroundings. It seems that the gap between a fetus and an infant is the same as between an infant and a child…

8/15 First, that consciousness is a result of development and therefore a condition. We know that someone can be UNconscious even as an adult, but they don’t lose their nature as a human being. We also know that consciousness develops with age, again, making it a condition.

7/15 Or you might also say “Consciousness.” To which I have two replies.

6/15 You might say “Birth, as the Three are born but the One unborn.” But being born is not an inherent quality of the Three, but is a condition. Being located outside the womb and severed from the mother is an external reality, not an internal reality.

5/15 My question then is ‘What differentiates the unborn from the baby, or the child, or the adult? What quality (nature) does the day-old share with the child or adult, that is NOT shared by the unborn?’ If no such quality exists, then it's arbitrary to label the Three as beings and the One as not

4/15 It is not disputed that a grown man is a human being. Similarly, it is not disputed that a six-year-old boy is a human being. It also seems (based on your statement about birth) that a day-old baby is a human being. And I would agree that all three are human beings.

3/15 Now, as I said, we have to focus on the NATURE of the fetus. The fetus, of itself, is either a human being or not. The nature of the fetus does not rely on its condition (stage of development, reliance on the mother, etc) but on its inherent qualities.

2/15 If it is NOT a human being, then it does not have a claim to those rights, and therefore abortion (the ending of its life) cannot be condemned as immoral.

1/15 Our focus should be on the nature of the fetus. The fetus is a human (by species) because it contains human DNA. The question is, ‘Is it a human BEING?’ If it IS a human being, it then should have all the rights and protections that human beings enjoy (in this case life).

Okay cool.
I'll compose a couple of posts to make my case.

I think that your saying "separate" implies (and you alluded to fingers and toes earlier) that the fetus is merely a part/growth of the mother (because it is attached physically) and therefore is not a [I would say unique] human being.
Is that correct?

Why would I explain that they aren't a person?

My whole position is that fetuses are human beings/persons and therefore should be given full legal protection.

Okay, so you would differentiate between something that has human DNA and a human being?
Would it be accurate to understand human being as human 'person' ?

Again I just want to clarify terms.

you said google it (??)

Yes it's a fetus.
But it's a human fetus, because it's of the human species...