The reason your discussion gets as far as it does is because you outright rejected the possibility of a fetus being a person. If you are honorable enough to admit that we don't know when someone becomes a person, then you are immediately thrust into a known medical dilemma of useful medicine being drawn from immoral acts.
It is further complicated that if we consider this possibility we are not even given an option of leveraging knowledge at the expense of evil people. If a fetus is a person, they are, by definition, innocent.
Hence, the question.
If you want to be taken seriously on commenting on the hypothetical of how killing of innocents should be justified, I'm all ears. Until then, you're like everyone else in avoiding what is a very real issue for the sake of pride.
I get what you're saying. However, if a fetus is a person, then that would essentially be giving someone the okay to kill an innocent because of an action not their own. As for PP being essential to women's health in this country, I think you're drinking the kool-aid for that one.
Will like to see this new logic of marriage equality across all state's be applied to second amendment rights. Then again, insert some logically fallicious point about how they are apples and oranges..... hence, 14th amendment through some other gambit of mental gymnastics