Every time I login I see the bell icon with 6-8 more messages. Although I do read what's posted I don't have the time to reply to every single post. So far I've seen nothing that makes my position wrong. Instead I see attempts at justification and the most common logical fallacies being committed is the is/ought fallacy - typically the naturalistic kind followed by the appeal to law.
We could all gripe about you posting too fast to us, too. It's okay to take your time replying.
You do not explain in detail the reason you think a logical fallacy is being committed. It is you, after all, who present a model of ZEF development that is ideal, since most embryos don't implant or stay implanted. Your claiming this is an interruption of a basic pattern is wrong - it is you who are assuming the ideal, the ought, instead of considering solely the empirical evidence, the is.
I've yet seen a single poster share the same definition for what is the criterion for personhood, instead what I've seen are mental gymnastics followed by the declaration that it's the lungs, consciousness, EEG markers, viability, or birth itself that then causes a human to be categorized as having personhood. You need to explain WHY your definition of personhood is correct and why others are wrong. If one asserts that it's lung maturity while another asserts that it's birth itself then how does one differentiate who is correct? Once again what YOU are doing is just declaring without a substantiated logical basis on what the criterion for personhood is.
I posted for you Scott Gilbert's explanation that scientists do not agree on even the criteria for when individual life begins/when personhood might begin. The geneticist favors fertilization, the embryologist gastrulation, the pulmonary specialist lung maturity/viability, the brain specialist the human EEG, etc. All arguments are biased from a politico-scientific view: every scientist argues from his/her specialty's perspective.
Gilbert goes on to say personhood can't be determined biologically, as it is a political category.
Civilizations have seen personhood starting at birth, using birth and death dates. Biblical religions, Buddhism, etc., all did it.
The US Constitution implies the reasons. A free person has the rights to life, liberty, and property, including the 4th A right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th A reiteration of personal rights to life, liberty, and property. The government shouldn't have the right to search her or her medical information to know if she is pregnant. The Census is an actual enumeration of all persons, not a projected count, but zygotes, embryos, and fetuses can't be so enumerated, not even now, because of, e.g., molar pregnancy. disappearing twins, etc. This hinges on a woman's being a free person before an embryo ever exists.
The problem here is that the negative outcomes associated with pregnancy ("is") and leaping to the conclusion that abortion ought to be permissible ("ought") without bridging the gap with a moral argument. Just because pregnancy can result in harm does NOT inherently lead to the conclusion that abortion is morally acceptable. One must employ ethical reasoning that explains why certain facts about the world should lead us to adopt specific moral positions or actions. Your argument lacks this intermediary step and thus falls into the is-ought fallacy.
If you ban abortion and a woman denied an abortion by your law dies of medically unforeseeable complications in late pregnancy or childbirth, who killed her? It wasn't suicide - the wanted abortion would have saved her life. Doctors didn't commit malpractice - medical science does not claim the capacity to foresee all complications. You can't blame "nature" or "God," because what prevented abortion was the human law. We know in advance that an abortion ban is bound to cause the death or disablement of some women denied abortions in a large enough population.
Additionally, if the woman did not consent to pregnancy, but only to sexual intercourse, she consented to part of A's body being inside her body/sexual organ, not to B's body being there. She consented to a body part being inside her vagina, not inside her uterus. So even if the embryo is a person, it doesn't have a right to be in her body/sex organs. The embryo doesn't have a legally competent mind, so it isn't violating her, but the anti-abortion lawmakers have it and their law is causing the violation of her body.
These are two of the underpinnings of the moral outrage so widely displayed by pro-choice people.