I've read it twice as well. For someone donning an authoritative tone to speak for God, you seem to have missed the mark pretty badly. I'd expect that from someone with a grade school level of reading comprehension, so... no surprise there. But if you put in the effort, then you get credit for going through the motions. As for classifying a fetus as a person, there are lots of contradictions in the Bible to that point. If we were to abide by the example of Abraham, abortions could be committed into years after a child's birth. If we were to abide by the parables of Jesus, then abortions at any time of realization of one's existence is an abomination. For whatever reason, you've decided to clump all of these together into a singular paradigm of your own choosing. As for a grotesque procedure, if you're lamenting the shooting of a lion while being fine with fetal dismemberment, then your conscience is pretty hollowed out and/or twisted to rationalize a practice that doesn't dovetail with your ideology. You are correct that personhood is a philosophical question. Because people come to different conclusions does not invalidate the question nor does it lessen its importance. So, given all of this, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that you cannot comprehend what is a relatively simple exercise to understand ethics from various perspectives. What makes you an ogre is that you insist that everyone else conform to your level of non-comprehension rather than consider that perhaps not knowing an answer definitively may be indicator where laying down the "faith by the sword" mantra is a more sensible option.
Not surprising given the makeup of DC politicians these days. I'd wager that Democrats want to dismantle the Constitution every bit as much, but build an America in their own image. In essence, we've devolved from a political model ideally conceived in tolerance to one of jockeying for the position on the top of the mountain. Let's hurry up and wreck this train to get the cycle over with.
How do we know this? And even if we do know this, how does this change the qualifications of the ethics? Perhaps we are little more than gnats to an alien species because we cannot comprehend our own existence as they do. Do we then become as valueless as you have described other life on this planet?
It would seem that we have a clear showing of how far the "collective mindset" holds fast in many posters' ideologies in this thread. At least a few people can wrap their head around a perspective outside their own. The next step is considering the ramifications in light of said perspective.
God sent angels to kill off entire nations of first born children if we are taking the Bible at a literal stance. You are assuming a lot in that I attend a church/synagogue/mosque/etc. For as much as you'd like to pigeon-hole me as a backwoods hillbilly, your haughty display of ignorance speaks volumes about your lack of character. Also, before you assume to speak for God, how about you do Him the common courtesy of at least reading the book. By simple action of how you've classified a fetus as a non-person, it isn't a great leap to classify disabled humans as non-persons. Hrm... let's see.... what is this a logical extension of? Any number of eugenicists would be proud to have you as a member. Regarding the article you just posted, much of that has been discussed ad nauseum without addressing what could be a central issue to the ethics of abortion: "When does someone become a person?" There are all kinds of things in science to delineate where tissue is human and living, but nothing to substantiate when someone is a person and when they cease to be a person. The reason that people like yourself won't approach the question is because you realize the ramifications of such a line of reasoning. So, for all of your ethical posturing, even your lizard brain refuses to allow you to rationally engage the dilemma. That said, revisit that article you just posted and replace the words "abortion"/"fetus" with "electively terminated child" and then "miscarriage" with "accidental child death". If you can honestly engage in that exercise and feel no different, then your conscience is severely compromised. Mind you, this isn't to say that I wholeheartedly believe that I can impose my own personal views onto other people. Just as honest science cannot answer a question of when someone becomes a person, I cannot assume that role either. Given the nature of the issue, it does warrant something more than a cavalier and jocular attitude towards what is often a grotesque and barbaric procedure.
Prove when human life begins and ends, then you may have a basis for your casual dismissal of what may well qualify as sociopathic behavior. Until then, you are engaging in classic rationalized subhumanism.