Abortion is morally wrong

[Esquilax]

Indeed, the zygote to the fetus, fetus to the child, child to adult. Are all just stages of their development. Since the fetus is informationally complete in its human informationit can be said it is a human being.

I'll let someone more knowledgeable than myself disabuse you of the notion that you're using "information" in a remotely correct context. Esquilax? You're up.

Heh, I was asleep when this happened, but I'm at it now.

So, "information" isn't a very clear term, since information isn't a thing that exists objectively. Saying something is "informationally complete" is meaningless, because information is a construct built up inside human minds; it relates to our ability to decode reliably repetitive patterns and "read" stuff rather than something that exists outside of us as conscious entities.

When you say information I figure you mean genetics, Arthur, as you've mentioned that multiple times before, and I'm fine with that... except for all the problems with it. As I've mentioned to you before, under the definition of humanity that focuses on genetics, a corpse is a human being.

So, can I kill a corpse?

You're going to say no, why wouldn't you, after all? Corpses aren't alive, right? Oh! So now there's some additional part of the definition of life that has nothing to do with genetics? What's that? Why wasn't that present in your initial definition? We should be talking about that!

Genetics is a red herring, here; being a person has nothing to do with our genes, and many of the things that would be covered under your current definition of a person, I have no doubt, you wouldn't have a problem exposing to the abortion procedure. As strange as it might be to picture, if I tried to give an abortion to a toenail,you wouldn't object to that, yes? Why not? If genetics is the only factor involved here then the toenail is a human being!

The issue is more complicated than you're making it, and I think we need to start discussing the actual issue now, Arthur.