I am a pro-life atheist

[NoMoreFaith]

I have yet to come across a logical argument that can simply argue away the right to life, other than the argument for self-defence.

A logical argument is only as strong as the terms it uses, and until you can prove the accuracy of your terms, you have no argument.

It is an unproven assertion that a zygote = human being rather than living human cells. You assert cherry picked dictionary definitions but then ignore any definitions that contradict your position (different definitions of life, murder, human being).

Tu Quoque fallacy by declaring someone supports abortion but not the death penalty, argumentum ad nauseum (repetition of murder, life, human despite refusing to acknowledge the many definitions), argumentum ad misericoridiam (you kill a defenceless baby who cannot speak for itself), petitio principii (Human beings are made of human cells, thefore killing human cells is murder) and so on and so forth.

But keep going, I've almost won my game of logical fallacy bingo I've got going running on this thread.

In regards to the comment we should release all murderers, I'll add fallacious reductio ad absurdium which wasn't on my bingo sheet, as it ignores the fact the combination of unconscious cells give consciousness and the victim is a person. The combinations of cells in a zygote do not give consciousness and cannot be defined as a person beyond its potential to be.

Now I apologise if this appears to be ad hominem itself, I'm not trying to have a go at you, I apologise because I respect that you're representing a minority view in this thread, and I am trying to provoke some actual argument instead of unsubstantiated assertions because essentially your position is by no means indefensible, its perfectly defensible and I'm confused because you don't even seem to be trying to justify it beyond the assertions "Its Life Jim, but not as we know it". (EDIT: Dammit, now I have star trekkin' by The Firm stuck in my head and it won't go away!)

You've asserted its a moral view, but failed to define what moral standard you're using.
You've asserted life and human cells, but failed to define what gives it equivalent rights to a person.
You've asserted murder without defining the previous two items to support it

However, I would really like to hear your answer to the question posed several times.

Do you ban someone from attempting to have a baby which is unlikely to come to term because they are engaging in an activity which will probably lead to at least premeditated manslaughter.

I would also like you to defend your assertions and assumptions beyond ad nauseum and cherry picking only those that support your position.

This isn't personal, and its not fair for me to single your fallacies out instead of those in some of the pro-choice posts as well, I acknowledge this completely. There does not seem to be any anti-choice petitioners other than yourself willing to discuss the matter, and it simply wouldn't be much of a discussion if we all agree with each other.

Once again for clarity, there are several incidents of logical fallacies on both sides of the argument (I'm not excluding myself, we're all guity of it from time to time, since few of us have formal training), I'm simply asking for pro-life to provide arguments instead of assertions.