Funny how in the other thread I started about the UN and 'Mother Earth' it speaks to the earth having 'the right to life' when the same people pushing that for the planet, won't extend that to an unborn child simply because it would be inconvenient to have. Sad, real sad.
This is shown the fact that I can find literature that says something different. All depending on what aspects of development we want to look at.
PERSONHOOD---when does a fetus become a person?
The focus of this book asking “When is a person?”
has been on empirical, observable facts.
The line between personhood and former personhood
is drawn by looking for the four capacities of persons:
consciousness, memory, language, & autonomy.
There is no such thing as "personhood". It is another of the pro-abortion people's made up mask to cover up the humanity of the unborn human being. The word "person" was derived from ancient Greek to denote an actor's face mask, nothing more.
I don't consider those phrases any more dramatic than the situation itself. In fact, if anything I am being less dramatic than I should. That has nothing to do with getting my point across as I am fully capable of doing so without using such phrases, but I am not going to dehumanize the unborn by always calling them fetuses and referring to their deaths as "termination of a pregnancy" like its advocates. My intention is to call it exactly what it should be called.2. Stop using appeals to emotion and dramatic phrases to get your point across because it suggests that you lack the education and intelligence required to actually talk about arguments.
"For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
- Khalil Gibran
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields