No, you're really not.

(January 21, 2017 at 11:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: How's this then? An unformed fetus requires the nutrients from a very specific person's body. Unfortunately, another person cannot simply take over to support that fetus. This is what I mean by not fully formed. When any other person can step in to provide in the biological mother's stead, then that is a viable person.

Have I made this clear enough now?

Only bc now a days we have bottles and formula. Someday we may have the technology to keep the unborn alive outside of the womb. That shouldn't be what defines a being's humanity.

(January 21, 2017 at 11:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: How's this then? An unformed fetus requires the nutrients from a very specific person's body. Unfortunately, another person cannot simply take over to support that fetus. This is what I mean by not fully formed. When any other person can step in to provide in the biological mother's stead, then that is a viable person.

Have I made this clear enough now?

Ok, so now my question is why does that make a human a person? What is the reasoning behind that definition?

(January 21, 2017 at 11:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 11:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: How's this then? An unformed fetus requires the nutrients from a very specific person's body. Unfortunately, another person cannot simply take over to support that fetus. This is what I mean by not fully formed. When any other person can step in to provide in the biological mother's stead, then that is a viable person.

Have I made this clear enough now?

Only bc now a days we have bottles and formula. Someday we may have the technology to keep the unborn alive outside of the womb. That shouldn't be what defines a being's humanity.

And when we have that technology we might be able to revisit this. Right now we do not.

(January 21, 2017 at 11:04 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 10:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No one is fully formed until after puberty.

Don't be silly.

Is she saying kids should be abortable up until puberty then?  Maybe I have to go back and read the earlier posts.  Otherwise she may have become even more pro-choice than me.

(January 21, 2017 at 11:04 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 10:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No one is fully formed until after puberty.

Don't be silly.

Indeed as I said those aren't formations those are modification to what already there

(January 21, 2017 at 11:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 11:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: How's this then? An unformed fetus requires the nutrients from a very specific person's body. Unfortunately, another person cannot simply take over to support that fetus. This is what I mean by not fully formed. When any other person can step in to provide in the biological mother's stead, then that is a viable person.

Have I made this clear enough now?

Ok, so now my question is why does that make a human a person? What is the reasoning behind that definition?

This is getting down to a semantics battle.

That actually doesn't concern me as much as the reasoning behind abortion. A woman should be able to decide when she doesn't want to care for another life in any form at any time. This is why we have adoption for viable children. If that life is still relying entirely on that person's body and another cannot take over, then that does not mean it owns any right to that person's body.

(January 21, 2017 at 11:12 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 11:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Only bc now a days we have bottles and formula. Someday we may have the technology to keep the unborn alive outside of the womb. That shouldn't be what defines a being's humanity.

And when we have that technology we might be able to revisit this. Right now we do not.

And even if we did it still only moves the dependence not the personhood

As for Tiberius silly argument dependence of a  child that is injured or malformed still wouldn't count because if said child were of the same age and normal well they would be normal and thus they are still a person because if they were normal all the developments would be present

---

(January 21, 2017 at 11:20 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 11:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Ok, so now my question is why does that make a human a person? What is the reasoning behind that definition?

This is getting down to a semantics battle.

That actually doesn't concern me as much as the reasoning behind abortion. A woman should be able to decide when she doesn't want to care for another life in any form at any time. This is why we have adoption for viable children. If that life is still relying entirely on that person's body and another cannot take over, then that does not mean it owns any right to that person's body.

The fact it's a reasonable definition

(January 21, 2017 at 11:17 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 11:04 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Don't be silly.

Indeed as I said those aren't formations those are modification to what already there

You may be surprised to know that pretty much everything is "already there" by the first trimester. It's just a matter of all those things continuing to grow and mature. Which they keep doing for years.

(January 21, 2017 at 11:20 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(January 21, 2017 at 11:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Ok, so now my question is why does that make a human a person? What is the reasoning behind that definition?

This is getting down to a semantics battle.

That actually doesn't concern me as much as the reasoning behind abortion. A woman should be able to decide when she doesn't want to care for another life in any form at any time. This is why we have adoption for viable children. If that life is still relying entirely on that person's body and another cannot take over, then that does not mean it owns any right to that person's body.

Which is really the only relevant issue really

But it's a perfectly good definition