That's correct. It's already has been established since the mid 1970's (or even earlier) in the fields of phylogeny, biology, anthropology, organism life, genetics-DNA, human embryology etc are all in consensus that a human alive as alive as can be, begins to exist after fertilization. Until both sides to the debate can accept that fact, then philosophical arguments can be made. For pro choicers, it makes no sense you can be pro choice without even knowing what it is that you support killing in the womb. For pro lifers, make sure you provide quotes from the embryology textbooks or the embryologists themselves in your debate immediately just to let everyone know in the audience what it is that's killed in abortion every time. I remember in elementary school 8 years back, by the basic law of biogenesis we know that the offspring of two humans must be of the human species. It can't be a cat or a dog or a monkey or something. It has to be a human and nothing else. And, we also know that where you are doesn't determine what you are. Your size doesn't determine what you are. Your level of development doesn't determine what you are. Your degree of dependency doesn't determine what you are etc. Kinda see the point? We use other things like DNA for example to determine what species a organism belong to. The last thing I want to say is how should the concept of a person be defined? Should it be defined by what you are or should it be defined by various mental characteristics like rationality? Can any other society that might be existing in the billions of galaxies in our universe qualify as persons? Popular examples being Star Wars, Star Trek, Avatar etc. How about artificial intelligence with how our technology is advancing and the current team working on trying to produce AI's that could be considered ''persons'' on the complexity as shown in science fiction?
That's all fine and dandy until it becomes convenient to you for them not to be considered humans. The COVID stimulus checks will not pay the promised $500 per child to expecting mothers. Kind of blows your sanctimonious bullshit out of the water.
I remember in elementary school 8 years back, by the basic law of biogenesis we know that the offspring of two humans must be of the human species. It can't be a cat or a dog or a monkey or something. It has to be a human and nothing else. And, we also know that where you are doesn't determine what you are. Your size doesn't determine what you are. Your level of development doesn't determine what you are. Your degree of dependency doesn't determine what you are etc. Kinda see the point? We use other things like DNA for example to determine what species a organism belong to.
The last thing I want to say is how should the concept of a person be defined? Should it be defined by what you are or should it be defined by various mental characteristics like rationality? Can any other society that might be existing in the billions of galaxies in our universe qualify as persons? Popular examples being Star Wars, Star Trek, Avatar etc. How about artificial intelligence with how our technology is advancing and the current team working on trying to produce AI's that could be considered ''persons'' on the complexity as shown in science fiction?