X – Biological science is rather clear that human beings begin at conception.
Y – Yea, but they’re not persons. So they can be aborted.
X – Oh? So it’s okay to kill innocent human beings? As long as you don’t think they’re  persons yet?
Y – Yes.
X – At what point does a human being become a person?
Y – I don’t know.
X – What is it that magically makes a growing human being a person? A Soul?
Y – I don’t believe in a soul.
X – Then what is it? You’re not telling me when a human being becomes a person and what makes him so.
Y – Viability.
X – I didn’t ask you about the degree of dependence the human being may have: A person on life-support doesn’t become a non-person until he’s taken off. I’m asking when the small human being becomes a person and what makes him one.
Y – I don’t know. But a zygote isn’t a person.
X – That’s a declaration, not an explanation. Even so, it indicates you’re not certain about 279 of the 280 days (average) the child matures in utero. Does that mean you’re against abortion during those 279 days?
Y – No.
X – Then let’s be clear. You’re good with killing innocent human beings – unless they’re persons. You’re certain a human being in his zygotic stage of development is not a person (even though you haven’t explained why this is), but you’re uncertain about older preborn human beings. Murder is a very serious injustice, so we must be certain. And you’re uncertainty leads you to jump six months to the point when it’s currently improbable for a preborn human being to live outside his mother’s body. Correct?
Y – Yes.
X – And you’re aware that the point of viability is different for every woman & child, and that the age will continue to become lower and lower as technology advances into the future, right?
Y – I don’t want to think about it.
X – I see.
Y – A pre-viable fetus has no moral standing.
X – I thought you said a non-person has no moral standing. Which is it?
Y – I don’t know. Both.
X – So if one day you’re convinced a child isn’t a person until 7 months post-conception, it’ll be okay to kill that baby, even after he’s been born, correct?
Y – No!
X – But by saying ‘no’ you’re saying it’s possible that non-persons must be protected. What if one day you become convinced personhood kicks in at 3 or 4 months? You would then be against abortion after that point in their maturity, even if ‘non-viable’, correct?
Y – Stop challenging my position with logic! My whole vision of humans being free and women being equal will fall apart if I follow reason!
X – That is correct. Maybe it’s a sign that you’re formation on what it means to be human has been skewed – that you’ve adopted the reactionary ideology of the post-1960s Left without thinking it through enough.
Y – But if I admit women have no choice to kill their unborn offspring I admit they’re not equal to men.
X – False. You’re beginning with false premises. Equality doesn’t mean sameness. A man is on the hook for at least 18 years to support a child he ‘doesn’t want’. Further, more and more women are admitting that today’s feminism, which you seem to embrace, has made them miserable. What’s really unjust is when we degrade what makes women unique – child-bearing and child-rearing – and offer them more ways to be like a man. That’s insulting. This kind of reactionary feminism is the fruit of women-hatred, non-intelligence, or both.
Y – I can’t admit any of this. I’m too invested in the ideology. I can’t admit the truth, or even look at it for too long without getting uncomfortable.
X – Yes you can. Pray for the strength. Embracing the whole truth, even if it contradicts preconceived notions about freedom and equality, is WELL worth it. Only in truth are we set free.