May I ask what "looks like" has to do with "real facts"? Sounds to me like YOU are trying to avoid the real facts, ie. that a fetus is a human being, by saying, "Oh, but it looks like . . ." I thought humanity had matured and become more intelligent than to dismiss someone's true nature on the basis of appearance.
But I'm glad that the Denial Party has managed to convince women that they aren't killing a human being as long as he looks a certain way.
And while we're on the subject of things you're being disingenuous about, it's less than honest to say, "At the stage most abortions take place, the fetus looks like a blood clot", and "most abortions take place too early for arms and legs". The stage at which most abortions take place is 6-12 weeks (or 4-10 weeks after conception, in other words), which is a rather large range, and one which includes an enormous amount of rapid growth, including the development of arms and legs. So unless a woman got INCREDIBLY lucky and found out she was pregnant more or less IMMEDIATELY after she conceived, her fetus does, indeed, have arms and legs. Also, by about week 9, that'd have to be a mighty big freaking blood clot to compare in size. He is certainly recognizable to the naked eye as more than just a blood clot, since the two methods of abortion used during this time period do include the step of the doctor visually ascertaining that all parts have been removed.
You also left out vestigial gills and a tail. It is still somewhere between a simple mass of cells, and a fully sentient, conscious human being; though it potentially would become the latter at some later point, IT ISN'T, not yet, any more than a fertilized embryo is. What you really can't get around, is that it lacks a developed, functioning cerebral cortex, and therefore is not self-aware. So much for the "abortion is murder" argument, which is an appeal to emotion rather than reason in the first place. In fact, any fully gestated baby primate has a higher degree of cerebral development and function than a human fetus at that stage, but we don't insist that those are "human life", now do we? The truth is, that argument (abortion=infanticide) is only valid if one concedes the "accuracy" (it is nothing of the sort) of the false, emotionally-driven first premise.
They have neither vestigial gills nor a tail. These are misnomers, also originally created and now perpetuated by the desire of the ignorant to base things solely on appearance.
I realize that it's very important to you to somehow convince people that "real" human beings are, by definition, ADULT human beings, but you'll excuse me if I decide to go with biological science, which does not include "sentient and conscious" or "self-aware" - especially not the way YOU mean it - in its classification of "human".
If you wish to discuss the "abortion is murder" argument, I suggest you do it with someone who has actually MADE that argument, rather than trying to put words in my mouth so that you can project your favorite "abortion debate" script onto me. If you wish an actual debate, you might try confining yourself to rebutting things I'VE ACTUALLY SAID.
Furthermore, YOU are the one who barged in here, insisting that the definition of "human" involved cerebral cortexes and higher reasoning, so may I ask why the **** you then turn around and demand that
I answer for the fact that "we" don't classify other primates as human? When did I become responsible for explaining the ramifications of YOUR bullshit argument? MY arguments on the subject of abortion and human life require no explaining away of other primates whatsoever, which ought to tell you something.
The truth is, the abortion = infanticide argument is only valid if unborn babies are infants, and are being killed. Since both ARE, in fact, scientifically AND grammatically true (and in no way "emotional", the way you're "but they aren't like adults" nonsense is), the argument is valid. Call me when you have the cojones to debate my actual arguments, rather than blathering on at me about what you WISH I had said.
