Bingowings said:
Darth Vader is a fictional person, he has a history, he likes things he dislikes things.
He was a fictional baby where he hadn't yet formed these tastes, thoughts, personality traits.
A character in a film can be within the context of his fictional world be a person but a baby can not.
It hasn't got the language skills to turn environmental data into thoughts let alone the ability to turn those thoughts into deliberations on future actions.
It can't even survive without assistance.
It is a human biologically, it has value but it's not a person.
To me this is the exact same argument you've already made without addressing the article that warranted the thread bump, without addressing the analogy I made, without addressing the convenience of defining personhood to suit a pro-choice stance, and ignoring several other arguments I've made.
More food for thought? Why, if a fetus or newborn is not yet a person, is it illegal to kill past a certain point of viability? What does it matter, especially if done in a pain-free manner?
Why is killing a pregnant woman considered a double homicide, even if the child is at a pre-viable stage? This may only apply to US laws, but still, how could such be valid?
Honestly, if we're talking the life of a person or pre-person or potential person or partial person, I feel that pro-choicers need to be the ones answering most of the moral questions. If I don't have DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) paperwork on a patient and that patient goes into cardiac arrest, we assume he/she is a full code and begin CPR regardless of how futile or terminally ill the patient was. We err on the side of life. But it seems that pro-choice folks seem to feel that we err on the side of consequence-free sex rather than life. I'm sorry, but I demand answers to the questions I bring up, otherwise I simply see the needless killing of underdeveloped people.