I am highly educated. I am not ignorant, nor am I hiding my head in the sand. I am aware of the process of pregnancy and birth (it's my secondary profession, after all). I am not living in a "small box," nor do I worry that science will shake my beliefs.
The arguments you make are illogical when you apply them to other situations. Others have pointed this out:
The woman is sentient and the baby is not: They know that babies react, to stimulae and feel pain as early as 12 weeks, possibly earlier. Is the definition of humanity (and thereby human rights, the right to life being paramount) sentience? Logics and laws say no. A person can be in a coma and still have rights. A person can be severely disabled and still have rights. Awareness of the self doesn't even really begin into the baby is born and several months old, yet newborns have rights.
2. the baby relies on the mother and cannot exist without her, so it doesn't count as a separate human. Dorothea pointed out that ALL children need adults to care for them. They would very swiftly die from hunger, thirst, exposure, and accidents if we did not care for them. Mentally disabled adults would also die. There's even the argument that many people who become ill would die without others to provide medical care; does their dependence on others reduce their status as human beings? Logic and laws say no. To draw an arbitrary line of the age of the baby as the point at which it ceases being a mass of cells and begins to be a human is ageism.
3: the age of viability as a deadline for abortion. The age of viability has been getting pushed back farther and farther. It used to be that 34weekers didn't stand much of a chance. Now there are babies who have been born at 23 weeks and survived. Abortion is legal past that point in places. Actually, abortion is legal all the way up to giving birth, if you look closely at the wording of laws. So what was the deciding factor in the 23 weeks old baby being a "human" with rights or a mass of cells for the woman to decide what to do with? Purely her preference.
4. Not believing in it but allowing it for others. There is not other kind of crime for which we make that exception. I don't believe in stealing, but if you feel like you need that piece of jewelry, who am I to tell you not to do it? I don't believe in beating your wife, but if you think she needs to learn her lesson, who am I to not tell you to do it? I don't believe in murder with a chainsaw, but if you think the person needs to be cut up, who am I to tell you to not do it? See, legally, in our system, we have crimes that are always treated as such, no matter what an individuals' opinion on them may be. In no other situation can we say "Well, I think it is wrong, but I can't legally prevent someone else from doing it." Our culture says, "It is wrong, and we will punish those who do it."
Do you see how there is no logical or legal argument that supports abortion? It comes down to making arbitrary points at which a person is worthy (through age, size, development, etc) of the status of "human," or else saying "I think it's a human, but I think you should have the right to kill it anyway." These arbitrary points go against everything else we stand up for with regard to human rights. It is totally reduced to preference of keeping the child or not. There are cases where a mother is beaten and loses her baby. The assailant is charged with manslaughter for the death of the baby. The same mother could have walked into an office and gotten an abortion, legally. What is the factor that changes it from murder to not murder? The wishes of the mother.
This goes beyond the clear teaching that Christ, who was conceived and was a zygote, embryo, fetus, neonate, child, and adult has sanctified all of human existence and was Christ God at all of those development points. This goes beyond the insurmountable teaching that murder of the unborn is in fact murder.
There are no other parts of qualifying as "humanity" that we allow to be dictated by the wishes of another. Eugenics, racism, and other things like Dorothea mentioned stand true here. Jews were subhuman. Blacks were subhuman. Very very young children are currently seen as subhuman. Even without a Christian faith, you can see the parallel. Which is why, hopefully, a generation that fights for human rights will eventually fight for the rights of the very young.
