Nothing of the sort is stipulated because it would be a lie. 

But you must admit that none of my points have anything to do with religion, ensoulment.

They are instead a set of rational points intended to spur on an intellectual examination regarding "same/different" of two cases (fetus and new-born) which the irrational pro-choicers simply don't want to pick up and think through, principally because they realize their position is intellectually bankrupt, and they need to hold on to their position with emotion alone.

My points are more taxonomic, the sort of questions that scientists used to use to understand "same/difference" as they classified the material (not spiritual) things of the world.

Your points "balderdash" "twisted" "nonsense" are on instead the emotional plane. 

I understand that this sort of intellectual/scientific approach isn't your way, and maybe we can for the time being agree that we're on two different planes of discussion.