No, he's skirting that - he's saying all fetuses are 'potentially' human beings, and therefore should be protected. It's a junk argument. At least it's a junk argument against abortion. It's a pretty good argument for setting up a dna bank or whatever.
Yes, that is a stupid argument, because all living human beings are living human beings and should have their rights as a human being protected by law. "Potential" nothing.
Every human being potentially ages another day when they aren't killed or die a natural death.
Pearls before swine, of course, as you distinguished mentally-challenged fellows don't know the difference between an organism and an orgasm.
You're a cretin. The point was as you say: that potential is insufficient - that there must be something
else about a fetus (or in addition to) that makes it worth preserving, if it's worth preserving. That's why the argument was a non-starter. I deliberately left it open as to what
does constitute a creature worth moral consideration, and how much it's due. You have not the slightest idea what I regard as morally important, maggot, so spare me the chest-puffing indignation.
Also, 'human being', as distinct from 'human' is a label best-reserved for humans with an actual mind/intelligence. It's synonymous with 'person'. Not all fetuses meet those requirements - early-stage fetuses are as much 'beings' as crabgrass is. I mention this in the interests of clarity and honest discussion. You are not entitled to that little rhetorical punch, so can it.
