OK, I'm going to try something a bit unconventional in an abortion debate, it will involve a complete reboot of an argument I used in the last one. This is something that both sides are strongly encouraged to participate in. I will handle processing the data and drawing conclusions based on everyone's input.
The first step is for all people to mention milestones in development of an unborn human, along with any potential problems (such as extreme disabilities like anencephaly) that they may feel would negate sentience. I'd like to put together a timeline of these milestones, and I'd like people to mention why they think someone is a person at this point, with reasoning/evidence (I cannot pull numbers out of nowhere in a debate, which is why I ask for an explanation). I want to try to guesstimate a probability of personhood at each milestone. This is something I did not do in the previous abortion debate, which would be a major flaw in the model. I'm hoping people can help me put together an ACCURATE model of 'risk' of assigning personhood at a certain time. I'll do number crunching in the background and put them in spoiler sections so people can skip the mathematics if they want to, but I need to put them there anyway to prove I'm not just pulling numbers out of nowhere.
Basics of risk analysis: You think of a damaging event, and the chance that event may occur, and you put a number on both of them. The higher the number, the greater the damage, or the chance that the event occurs. The 'risk' is determined by taking the two numbers and multiplying them together. I would like people to think of all the pros and cons of assigning personhood at each of the milestones, on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the issue, not just one side. Without taking all the information into account from both sides, the model with be worthless and misleading.
Hopefully my arguments will be effectively be far more concise than in the previous debate, as you can skip the mathematical calculations if you want and just look at the conclusions. I would like both sides to use this model to try to figure out who is ultimately right/wrong. The argument by itself is not supposed to be constructed just to be pro-life or pro-choice, but to try to find the best compromise possible.
There is one thing though, should my model focus on the USA? Obviously, the risks will vary based on the country and so on, and it might be impossible to focus on the entire world. What do you think?