Obviously. You know everything already, even if not now but only later and this unique level of knowledge is demonstrated by such affirmation as:
AHA! I've been waiting for someone to blather about "potential", even if that exact word wasn't used. See this picture:
Abortion kills a life, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the action of killing it. The thing that is targeted for killing is only mere-animal life (and is not a member of any species endangered by being too-few in number), so why is that any more significant than swatting a fly or smushing a rat in a rat-trap?
AHA! I've been waiting for someone to blather about "potential", even if that exact word wasn't used. See this picture:
That's a military unit, a mobile bridge. More precisely, it is only a potential bridge. You can't drive across that bridge, the way it exists in the picture.
And here's another picture:
That's the bridge in the process of getting deployed. It is still not actualized as a drive-able bridge, yet, so it is still only a potential bridge.
Now imagine a ravine where a bridge might be placed, to make it easy to cross the ravine. You are imagining a potential bridge, right? Can you treat it just like an actual bridge, and drive across it? No? Because you know the potential is not the same thing as the actual, right? So why do you claim that an unborn human entity, before it grows a brain, must be treated like a human that has a brain?
ONLY in the Overall Abortion Debate does anyone declare that the potential must be treated like the actual! Well, since it is a stupid thing to do anywhere else, it is also a stupid thing to do in the Overall Abortion Debate.
Abortion kills a life, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the action of killing it. The thing that is targeted for killing is only mere-animal life (and is not a member of any species endangered by being too-few in number), so why is that any more significant than swatting a fly or smushing a rat in a rat-trap?
There is nothing to agree or disagree, your post is there for anyone to read. This is nothing more that the usual stupidity that you spout in a poor attempt to be relevant or to appear eloquent.
It does not. Everything you have ever said on this forum on this topic has been pure uneducated tripe or religious drivel.
As if your help was needed or possible.
Luck has nothing to do with it. Information, an open mind and the willingness to learn are what is needed, none of which you desire.
I think you failed to provide any iota of an argument showing why "potential" needs to be treated the same as "actual". Remember the key Objectively Verifiable data items:
If you had a valid argument for opposing abortion, based on Objectively Verifiable data and not unsupported/worthless opinions, then why haven't you posted it yet?
FALSE. The basis of my conclusions is Objectively Verifiable data, such as known attitudes and the known consequences of those attitudes. Fiction merely has a way of making both more obvious, that's all.
There is nothing unrealistic about Objectively Verifiable data, such as the fact that Malthusian Catastrophes for ordinary animals are well-documented, and the history of Easter Island proves humans are not immune to them. AND the fact that most modern cultures don't seem to be trying to keep humans from proliferating like deer in a forest that has no wolves.
Excuses, excuses! And not supported with any Objectively Verifiable data, either! Are you EVER going to present an actually and Objectively valid anti-abortion argument? Because I'm by-far not the only one waiting for ANY abortion opponent to offer one, applicable to this day-and-age!!!
As with most abortion opponents, you don't know what you are talking about. For example, when you quit a competition such as a Formal Debate, you forfeit. That's all I need in the way of data, to conclude you are just another Debate-Loser.
So lets focus more on 'reality' then.
Your mere claims are utterly worthless unless supported by evidence. I explained that fiction is useful in stressing various things. I picked the movie "Independence Day" because it stresses the consequences of Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy, which is a very real thing, and exactly the attitude promoted by any abortion opponent who claims that only humans can be persons. If you want to claim that there is some "fantasy" in that simple thing, let's see your evidence for it!
Haw! HAw!! HAW!!! When you make erroneous assumptions and reach erroneous conclusions, without bothering to double-check whether or not you were correct, and quit based on those erroneous conclusions, you indeed forfeit!
If enjoyability encourages folks to read it, so much the better. I do hope you are talking about the most-recent-version that was posted here.
I'm pretty sure that article did not say up-front that it was fallacious. Please quote the exact text that supports your otherwise-worthless claim.
Now I'm not following you. Who is "they"? And please be more specific about "taking liberty in phrasing" --where is that stated?
Perhaps you don't realize that I'm the author? And, of course, your mere claims about "nonsensical" are worthless unless supported with evidence. A brain-dead human on full life support is a living human body that is not a person, because the person is dead! Ask ANY doctor or scientist or lawyer! So far as I've seen, all you have offered are ancient dictionary definitions that have not kept up-to-date with modern developments. Tsk, tsk!
I'm paying attention to recent scientific data. How do old-fashioned Subjective dictionary definitions supersede Objective Fact?
SOMETIMES. Not always. See the brain-dead human mentioned above. And for another example, you might call a zygote "a human entity", and certainly would I. You might even call it a person, but I wouldn't. When that zygote becomes a morula, you might still call it a human entity, and certainly would I. You might still call it a person, while I still wouldn't. When that morula becomes a blastocyst you still might call it a human entity, and certainly would I. You might still call it a person, while I still wouldn't. But when the blastocyst becomes a hydatidiform mole, you might stop calling it a human entity, and you would almost certainly stop calling it a person --but I don't exhibit Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy, so I certainly still would call it a 100% human entity, and I would continue to say it isn't a person. You may have some Subjective definitions on your side, but I have Objective Facts on mine.
FALSE. See above how easily YOU could separate human-ness from personhood.
I NEVER DO ANY SUCH THING. Biologically, a human entity is always a human entity. Period. But biology has nothing to do with personhood, else it would be forever impossible to create person-class True Artificial Intelligences. It now occurs to me that perhaps I never asked you to read my "Wasted Minds" story, a fictional extrapolation of currently-unfolding technological developments. Are you planning on claiming that it will be forever and ever totally impossible to build a person-class True Artificial Intelligence? What Objectively Verifiable evidence can you present to support such a prediction?
THERE is where you most don't know what you are talking about! Since the Objective Fact is, a person is a mind, not a body, the stage of development of the body is totally irrelevant. Only the stage of development of the mind matters, and that is something that can be measured. The Objectively Verifiable Facts are quite clear. Prior to birth, and continuing for months after birth, the mind of a young human is quite inferior to many ordinary animal-level minds. So, with respect to the Law and the Overall Abortion Debate, the situation is extremely simple! The Law grants person-status at birth, regardless of the level of mental development (see? level of development doesn't matter after birth!). Prior to birth, personhood is denied, and it is sensible to deny personhood to a measurably inferior-to-animals mentality. Because if you grant personhood to an unborn human, you might as well also grant it to a worm. And a chicken. And a clam. And even an amoeba; it has about the same brainpower as a zygote. Only Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy would dare blather that only humans deserve person status!
FALSE. Objectively Verifiable Facts are Objectively Verifiable Facts. They can only be ignored if you can provide better Objectively Verifiable Facts.
OPINION. It is not "truly horrific" to smush a fly with a fly-swatter, or messily kill any of a long list of ordinary animals. Since an unborn human is, MEASURABLY, very equivalent to any other ordinary animal, killing it doesn't have to be seen differently. Unless you suffer from Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy, of course....
TRUE. But a human that is measurably a mere-animal entity is still just a mere-animal entity. What's the big deal, besides Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy?
UTTERLY FALSE. See the US Constitution and its Amendments, which use the word "person" throughout, and "human" not-at-all.
FALSE. Abortion is legal because unborn humans don't have more rights than other ordinary mere-animal entities.
Grants, protects, whatever. If I misspoke, it doesn't matter, because the Constitution only associates rights with persons.
Your mere claims are worthless without evidence. I admit that part of the Jake/John article is deliberately fictitious, but only to present a quite-plausible scenario. Identical twins that are difficult to tell apart do exist. Auto accidents do happen, and they do often-enough injure passengers to different degrees. Head transplants are going to happen in the not-distant future. Exactly what "fantastical" thing are you blathering about?
Killing a mere-animal entity is not murder. I don't know if any of what you wrote references the cuticle cell argument, but if you are right, then manicurists are murderers, too. Because the Objectively Verifiable Facts show that each cuticle cell is just as much "a human" as a zygote.