As you say; ‘Your view’, not that of the creator, and science can show no proof of this conjecture.

The creator doesn't share his view. Except that an ancient law on causing a miscarriage that remains in exodus, shows that anciently a foetus was not a human.

Science can inform our ethics. On one boundary we know how much brain you need to be conscious (in the sense of awake). So we are very cautious about abortions during the third trimester, because at some point during that we suspect that there's the beginnings of personhood.

This is starting to contrast with Christian-based law where the infant must draw breath in order to realize human rights.

On the other boundary, we know that where there is no brain at all, there cannot be a human.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Yes. Breath and life are two sides of the same coin anciently. And you can find passages like this throughout the bible that day that before breath there is no living soul, consistent with the passage in exodus about the penalty for causing a miscarriage.

A foetus doesn't breathe.

This slide into arbitrary actions denies the obvious truth that if you don’t kill it it will manifest in a form which even a lawyer would have difficulty explaining away without negating all definitions of life.

Lots of things move without having life. A kite. A landslide. A planet in orbit.

But your argument is that because the infant John the Baptist kicked, and Elizabeth felt it, therefore:

1) he already had a soul.
2) everyone else also suggest has a soul at that age.
and
3) he has this soul since conception.

None of those follow from the premise. I personally feel that (1) and (2) are probably right, but this is late in the pregnancy.

But (3) isn't right to my thinking. And it certainly doesn't follow.

This is your obtuse definition of the effects of mixing dust from the floor of the temple with water and drinking it.

No.

Are you not following the conversation?

Am I wasting my time talking to a bot?

The passage is the one we're discussing. That I quote in this comment above.

The whole of your defence crumbles when you recognise that your whole case rests upon the fact that if you don’t kill it it will become the same thing as you are.

Which case?

The one about when I think l human life starts, or our disagreement with what the Bible states?