A fetus is an in-progress human, but it's not a person yet. It won't be a person for years, because personhood requires a brain complex enough to develop self-awareness.
So anyone who suffers from neurological disorders that prevent them from establishing your threshold of personhood aren't actually human beings and therefore, postnatal abortions are a-okay?
You're missing the point so spectacularly, I cannot tell if you're doing it maliciously or just with great aplomb of foolishness.
Yes, having neurological conditions that prevent you from developing a functioning adult mind preclude you from being a person. No, it doesn't remove your base human-ness.
How you move from that to "let's just murder retards because they are lesser" is your cross to carry.
Define what you consider a post-natal abortion, and I'll answer you. And do define it rigorously, since I can see the "gotcha" with the colloquial definition of the term and arguments against eugenics from here.
According to your own definition, you described it as "bloody and macabre", but you also said the same of surgery and that we "keep at it". So we'll go with your definition as a means of ridding this existence of an organism that has not achieved "personhood".
Since you seem to adopt a morally relative outlook on such things, would postnatal abortions be a-okay under your threshold for an organism that doesn't meet "personhood"?
So anyone who suffers from neurological disorders that prevent them from establishing your threshold of personhood aren't actually human beings and therefore, postnatal abortions are a-okay?
You're missing the point so spectacularly, I cannot tell if you're doing it maliciously or just with great aplomb of foolishness.
Yes, having neurological conditions that prevent you from developing a functioning adult mind preclude you from being a person. No, it doesn't remove your base human-ness.
How you move from that to "let's just murder retards because they are lesser" is your cross to carry.
Actually, I asked you if postnatal abortions are a-okay under your threshold for what is considered to be a person (or rather, lack thereof)?
Define what you consider a post-natal abortion, and I'll answer you. And do define it rigorously, since I can see the "gotcha" with the colloquial definition of the term and arguments against eugenics from here.
According to your own definition, you described it as "bloody and macabre", but you also said the same of surgery and that we "keep at it". So we'll go with your definition as a means of ridding this existence of an organism that has not achieved "personhood".
Since you seem to adopt a morally relative outlook on such things, would postnatal abortions be a-okay under your threshold for an organism that doesn't meet "personhood"?