It means there seems to be no point to this debate since we are just batting about opinions.
Classic "right" vs "wrong" ...and you seem to slide into literal preacher-mode a little too often.
No, it's actually the classic "truth" vs Truth.
I get it, I was there. When I was in college, screwing around and a proud, self-proclaimed, "atheist", I was a big fan of abortion. I knew all the buzzwords, could argue the rationalizations, and spout it all off at the drop of a hat. It helped me get laid a lot, but I knew my support of abortion was a position of convenience. It was my last ditch, push comes to shove, way-out should my lifestyle choices ever catch up with me.
While I never would have admitted it to anyone at the time, alone in my private thoughts where no one else gets to listen, I never once thought abortion was right. Not "right" in a morally subjective way, but Right in a 'Standard of the Universe' way. I didn't need God to get there, simple logic was enough.
The Logic - When a sperm and egg unite, from the very moment self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell division begins, there is life. Not morally, subjectively "life", but scientifically, objectively, inarguably, life. This self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell-division is the very thing that scientifically, objectively, inarguably, distinguishes organic matter, matter that's alive, from inorganic matter, or matter that is not alive.
Pretty simple. Scientifically, objectively, inarguably, once the self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell division, chain-reaction begins, it's scientifically, objectively, inarguably, alive. Once alive, nothing can stop the self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell division, chain-reaction except the removal of life. Why? Because once the self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell division, chain-reaction ceases, it is scientifically, objectively, inarguably, dead.
Are there natural processes that can happen inside a woman's body that can cause things to go wrong? Sure. But let's be clear. Something goes wrong. Not morally, subjectively "wrong", but scientifically, objectively, inarguably, wrong. How do we know? Because if everything goes not morally, subjectively "right", but scientifically, objectively, inarguably, right, about nine months from the very moment that self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable chain-reaction of life began, we'll welcome the baby into the world.
Let's also not get caught up in the number of cells early in development, that's irrelevant in regards to the definition of life. An amoeba is a single cell animal. It's alive. When it ceases to be alive, it's dead. For an amoeba or anything else, there are only two causes of death. It was either killed, or it died of natural causes. That is not morally, subjective, emotionally charged language, it's scientific, objective, inarguable fact. Something either dies on it's own, or it's killed by an outside force.
Also, scientifically, objectively, inarguably, just like the amoeba, a human being is there since the moment it sparks to life, because scientifically, objectively, inarguably, from the moment self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable cell division begins, that life cannot be anything other than, scientifically, objectively, inarguably, a human being. That "genetic material' or 'clump of cells', 'zygote', 'fetus', or whatever euphemism you want to use, is at no time anything other than, scientifically, objectively, inarguably, 100% a human being. No morality needed, just objective, inarguable, scientific, genetic, biology.
In fact, the only time subjective morality starts to get injected into the issue is when you want to argue life does NOT begin at conception, or it's NOT a human being. Say it all you want, but you're then a science denier. You're saying, "Nope, sorry. I don't like your definition of life, or what defines a human being, so I'm making up my own."
Now I ask you, with the definition of life being the epitome of settled science, used without question since the beginning of time, what would suddenly cause a person, society, or nation to redefine what is life in this one specific instance and this one specific instance only? Que bono? Who benefits?
As far as moral relevancy, as much as I love both puppies and babies, it doesn't take even a second of thought to instinctively know that only one of those two is worth protecting to the point of my own death. Hint: Not the puppy. Even if it were my puppy and your baby.
Once you inject moral relevancy into the equation, it's then all a matter of agreement. Once we agree 'they' gotta go, off they go.
The natural end result of a culture unwilling or unable to control it's sexual lusts is unwanted children and lots of them. As such, we will always find a way to dispose of them. Once we've grown accustomed to disposing of our children, we then set our sights on the sick and the elderly, once we're used to that, who's next?
My bet is you'll vote for the Christians. Seeing how we can get all preachy.