Well, for one, depending on which scientists you ask, simply "what is life" can't be agreed upon, using the scientific process.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101-there-are-over-100-definitions-for-life-and-all-are-wrong
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin?
You see, you have various groups of scientists, that use scientific theory, to try to explain an issue and all of the groups disagree to some extent. That's a perfect example of why science is flawed. Sure, we can all agree that gravity exists, but you should also agree that some discovery could come along that would upend that belief. I mean, anything is possible, correct? You shouldn't really use "impossible" as an answer. Like my previous debate with the True Believer, who said the definition of life in finite and can't change. Well, he's wrong, as with more understanding of science the definition of what life is, even the general consensus, changes.
You start off with a hypothesis - great! What made you chose that particular hypothesis? Was it to be able to mass produce an unhealthy addictive food source cheaply to profit from? Ultra-processed high-carb food came to be because of this type of thinking and we're seeing the benefits from that, aren't we? When you involve the "human factor" in the scientific process you're going to have to account for a margin of error. This error could be the bias present in the reasoning for the research or the final process where the majority of a group of peers, who share like interests, pick which theory to go with and which ones not to go with.
Murder is the termination of any life form with or without it's consent and valid whether or not it violates any laws or not.
I'd say using my money directly to fund abortions should be included. This is giving my money to any hospital that offers the service on a normal non-emergency basis. That means if a hospital starts using "we have emergencies every day so we need to abort babies" they should start to be excluded from government funding. Does your organization or company directly refer patients to or perform abortions? Does any of my money fund this? If so, then they should be cut of all government (my money) funding. If a privately owned company wants to privately charge private individuals for an abortion in their own privately owned establishments then my tax dollars aren't directly involved then I have no say in the issue. I mean, if somehow $0.0002 gets spent on a gauze pad due to some weird process in which the company obtained one, indirectly, using my money, I wouldn't rationally care (which is why when you're counting the total number of women who have abortions for rape or incest, you know the 1-4%, it's also an pretty useless argument).
Well, you have the Government deciding if a mother should abort or not abort a baby. I don't know how to put this nicely, but if you're deciding whether or not someone lives or dies you're on a "death panel". I listed that as an example because it shouldn't be up to me or you what the women does. Remove the Government involvement, which is funded by my money, without my permission and let the women do what she pleases. I mean, she can murder all the babies she wants - at that point I still won't agree with it, but as I wouldn't be personally involved the in process I'd have no say in it.
Now, if I had a girlfriend who got pregnant and wanted to abort that baby I would have a say in it because it would be 1/2 mine or if my Sister asked me to help her pay for an abortion I'd also have a say in it.