...most men when talking amongst themselves talk in the way trump did

...and women do the exact same thing with regards to men when men aren't around...

Nope, that's the law of noncontradiction. 

Because a proposition can be both not right and not wrong.

To say that a proposition is not right is equivalent to stating that the proposition is wrong. I think you see the issue with your statement here now.

I wish people would stop incorrecting me. 

Equivocation fallacy in regard to treating a fetus and a baby as the same entity as there are both biological and classical distinctions between such entities so if that's the secular argument I see why no one takes it seriously.

As to the subversive act of treating Jerusalem and Israel as the same entity, see above as well.

How do you define person?

In my understanding of what it means to be a person (at least a human person), it requires a few things that fetuses lack.

1. Sentience

The entire body of scientific literature I've come across has concluded that self-awareness is something which arises post-birth.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

2. Human DNA

Of course a fetus satisfies this criteria

3. The ability to act of one's own volition

A fetus has no control over its own bodily functions. Even newborns fail this requirement to be honest.

Additional thoughts:

From peering over your other comments, it seems as though you view fetuses and babies as the same. This is a false equivocation as stated in my other comment. Let's consider the morning after pill example cited. Well, plan B merely inhibits pregnancy to prevent fertilization from occurring so this ought to be no issue for you. The other option is the abortion pill and I presume that is the one you really intended to consider. 

What is a fertilized egg exactly? What are its functions? What does it look like? 

Yup.  Got the laws mixed up.   My bad.  But the statement still stands.  

Assuming we take right and wrong to mean demonstrably right or wrong (which I generally assume to be the case because otherwise, I'm not sure why we'd bother) a statement can definitely be neither right or wrong.  

Just to go with the easiest example, take the statement god exists.  We can say it's not true.  As in, it has not been demonstrated to be true.  We can also say it's not false.  As in, it has not been demonstrated to be false.  Even though there is a definitive answer that's really of little interest since it's inaccessible.

That's the problem with claiming everything to be binary.  In a system with perfect definitions and perfect knowledge, that might be the case.  In reality, where we have imperfect knowledge and imperfect communication, the there are definitely statements that cannot be shown to be right or wrong.  

Is a child's leg a person?  It meets all your criteria.  If we have to remove a child's leg to save his life, should we be able to or is that murder?

Is there any chance of a leg developing a consciousness for the future? No. That's the difference between a leg and a fetus

Umm, have you forgotten Idle Hands? Limbs can develop consciousness.

That's a different argument.  So lets go with a different example.  My sperm can potentially develop consciousness.  Each and every one of them.  Do they deserve the same protection as a fetus?

How does it not?  The criteria was alive, moving, growing, with human DNA.  A functional leg can move, grows, has human DNA, and is definitely alive.

That is probably a more accurate description, but lots of people in the USA see it as a "death tax" and that's not an unreasonable viewpoint to me.  What I see as unreasonable is the opposition to its existence. 

My question would be if they have been subjected to political polarisation (ie. If their stance on say...abortion or gay marriage is decided only by the party they side with, and no other reason).

In the end it really comes down to morals, which are inherently irrational. A more rational approach would allow even postnatal abortions. A human baby is nothing but a lump of flesh with no ability to sustain itself and no sense of self. Which makes it less of a living being than a common rat.

That's why I couldn't care less when a baby dies. A baby can just be redone in 9 months with a bit of effort. The bigger tragedy is when someone aged 20-40 dies. Those people actually had lives, they wanted to keep their lives and they contributed to society. A baby is worth nothing.

That's why I find it kinda amusing when people argue over fetuses and month old clumps of cells when even a full grown and born baby is nothing but useless flesh.