Trying to reclassify a human as not human
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?
or not a person based solely on the stage of development
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 i
t 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.
from the truly horrific act that abortion is.
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....
Rights or no, it kills a human.
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?
Person or not a person is not relevant to the debate.
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.
The Constitution never grants rights. It protects them.
Grants, protects, whatever. If I misspoke, it doesn't matter, because
the Constitution only associates rights with persons.
Your argument, like the articles, is nothing more than a series of hypothetical, fantastical presumptions
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?
that have one purpose; satisfy the cognitive dissonance that comes from supporting the murder of an unborn human.
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.