I misspoke

Even if it is not, you have failed every step to prevent a pregnancy and have got to the last one, which is ambiguously a life or about to become a life. And then you terminate it

It's disguising, vile and shows a damning pattern of behavior in not having any responsibility for your actions.

would you sacrifice a baby to save an adult?

Stupid questions.

(already born baby)

Depends on the adult.

For you? No.

But it is a stupid question. That has no practical application to a abortion debate.

LOL

That's a top fucking response.

Stem cells can save lives?

The potentiality of an actuality = actualized actuality in terms of the actuality

*no :(*

ater botum so cleber!

Do you define personhood by “having a much more developed network”? @Ater Votum

Conception is what defines personhood.

I fail to see any problem with abortion.

agree

The fetus doesn't seem to have any qualities deservig of moral consideration, and I don't see how you could ever argue that it's potential deserves protecting without arriving at other absurdities.

@Spider Sutra it has a heartbeat to say the least.

?

Who cares

Cows have a heartbeat and we literally eat them.

Cows are not human.

We do not eat fetus'

So the qualities of human and having a heartbeat are what grant the fetus moral consideration?

They are a start.

Are they by themselves enough?

Thats not a question.

Perhaps

It is a question.

Perhaps isn't much of an answer though.

If they thenselves are not enough, then what characteristic is enough?

Indeed. You asked a vague question, you got a vague answer.

How is my question vague?

What would you quantify as being enough?

Is having a heartbeat and being human sufficient for moral consideration?

When is humanity non sufficient?

This question is not vague

I don't see a reason to see humanity has sufficient or necessary.