>"There is a complete difference between abortion and somebody abusing or starving a cat. The cat has been born. It has a cerebral cortex. It can interact with humans, and even reach a mutual understanding. Whereas the fetus is not a person, yet. "
Cats are also not people.
>"You know the difference between an seed and a tree, an egg and a chicken. Would you ever mistake one for the other, or treat one for the other. It would be a fairer comparison if the cat were a parasite attached to your back and feeding off your blood."
It is a parasite. In the example it is fully reliant upon the owner for survival. That is the morally relevant detail, not whether it's inside or outside of a womb.
Am I the one special pleading when one of your arguments involves a parallel universe with alternatively evolved marsupial-sapiens? "If everything were completely different, what then?" Well, it isn't that way.
I never said that partial birth abortions are done gratuitously. I just re-read my article and cannot find that statement anywhere. If you can directly quote where I said that, I'd appreciate it.
I agree it's no longer relevant to the topic, because it's banned, which is what I said already. This is a distressingly common experience when arguing with neurotypicals. You don't actually internalize what I say.
Instead you make up a similar but exaggerated or otherwise tweaked statement according to what your own position requires and proceed as if that's what I said. It's very frustrating to be trampled and misrepresented in this way. As long as I live, I will not understand why you people think that's a reasonable way to argue.