Certainly you can argue that it takes more than being a person, a human being, for one to be accorded rights.
But why would you want to do that?
Because it's inconvenient for you to accord that person rights?
So far, that's what I'm hearing.
Convenience is a very utilitarian perspective.
It allows you to conjure up all kinds of personal idiosyncratic moral relativistic "reasons" to "justify" getting whatever you want.
There are many historical figures who committed great atrocities from that mindset.
I would implore all utilitarians to reconsider the modern scientific reality that a person, a unique individual human being, truly does begin to live at the moment of conception.
Realizing the truth of it, does indeed change everything in the mind of the honest and moral individual with respect to the thereby rightfully endowed right to life of that newly conceived person.
Here you exhibit the typical fantastical fabrications of the moral relativistic utilitarian mindset ... a mindset that is much less concerned with the truth of reality than on simply getting its egotistical way.
Your term "final potential" is an idiosyncratically manufactured construct designed to belittlingly minimize the reality that a unique individual human, a person, is indeed existent and alive from the moment of conception.
There is no "final" "potential" with regard to being a person which is a living human being.
One either is the person of a human being or one isn't.
An eminent pre-natal, a newborn baby, a two year-old child, a 12 year-old child, a 15 year-old teenager, and on and on. There is no rationally applied "final" "potential" regarding that person's existence or accorded rights.
"Final" "potential" is merely another of the many pro-abortionists' sophistries utilitarianly employed to irrationalize the murder of pre-natal people.
Similar in nature to "final" "potential" is the term "full person" as it is employed by the pro-abortionist to again minimizingly belittle the reality of the personhood of the newly conceived, and again, to "justify" in the pro-abortionist's utilitarian mind the murder of that person via abortion.
There is no such thing in reality as a "full" person.
One is either a person or one is not.
Science has made it clear that a person begins to live at the moment of conception, an obvious reality most everyone knows to be true.
The moral relativistic specious sophistry of "full" person is laughable to all but the utilitarian pro-abortionist, who incredibly sees his fallacy as being true.
Such is a great illustration of the damage that reality denial can do to the human mind. The denial sufferer only continues to become more and more out of touch with reality.
Another in the litany of the pro-abortionist's sophistries is the "cell count" sophistry.
Here the utilitarian pro-abortionist idiosyncratically counts the number of cells in a person's body and comes to a "full" person dividing line as to what really amounts to whether that person is a person or not.
Science doesn't make this distinction. Science, modern humanity's method for rationally determining the truth of reality, says that the number of cells a living entity's body contains is irrelevant to the truth of their being.
Indeed, a single-cell conception, from that very moment, from science's perspective, is indeed a human being, a person by definition.
But the pro-abortion sophister can't live with modern science's declaration, because that would be just too ... inconvenient.
So the pro-abortionist conjures up the sophistry of "cell count" to irrationalize in his mind the justification to murder that person via abortion.
Because it is so very inconvenient to the pro-abortionist to accept their new realization that it's a scientific fact that the newly conceived person is a person indeed, the utilitarian pro-abortionist, unconcerned with ontological truths and epistemological facts, goes into immediate denial, simply to preserve their way of pro-abortionist life.
Here the pro-abortionist implies that to be a person one must have "feelings and many other things that come along with development".
Again, this is simply another sophistry in the pro-abortionist's litany.
The pro-abortionist will then go on to idiosyncratically define all those other things ... and two pro-abortionists rarely if ever come up with the same extensive list ... all, of course, in the name of denying the reality that they advocate murder of what science has unconjecturably determined to be pre-natal people.
Indeed, their behavior is quite reminiscent of the bias employed by monsters of the past to justify similar natured murder of a class of people.
But they don't see it that way.
They don't get what they're doing is so very wrong.
And they don't get that because they are in convenience based denial.
Here the pro-abortionist illustrates yet another in his long line of sophistries: the "fertilized cell" nomenclature.
The pro-abortionist doesn't say "newly conceived person", the scientifically accurate term in the nomenclature for the lay person.
Instead the pro-abortionist refers to the newly conceived person in both a technical and erroneous manner in a demeaning attempt to minimizingly belittle the personhood of the newly conceived person.
The "fertilized cell" term is erroneous, because it implies that though the sperm may be gone, the "egg" is still in existence, having just been "fertilized". Indeed, many pro-abortionists employ the term "fertilized egg" as being synonymous with "fertilized cell".
But their presentation isn't true. The egg, the "cell" in their terminology, is now gone too once conception occurs. A conception, at least once newly conceived person, now exists.
The pro-abortionist's attempt to employ what appears to be a "technical" term is done as an implied appeal to "A"uthority of "science". But, it is employed in error.
The pro-abortionist will do anything to keep themselves in a convenient state of reality denial.
Here the pro-abortionist panders to similarly utilitarian "women" by reminding the reader that today's abortificant birth control pills are "safe and effective".
But, of course, that doesn't change the fact that today's birth control can function by intent to kill what sicence has unconjecturably determined to be newly conceived people.
Safe for whom?
Effective? Like Mengala!
This statement continues to illustrate that the pro-abortionist will never give up the "fertilized egg" sophistry, even when stating a general truth.
And, of course, the pro-abortionist gets in the term "mass murder" to achieve a negative reaction from utilitarian pro-abortion women. All so very typical of their reality denial of scientific fact.
But, in general, it is true that the ingredients that can be present in both birth control and after-the-fact abortifacients do indeed function to kill the newly conceived person.
That is a fact.
A difficult fact for the pro-abortionist, newly confronted with the scientific truth that a person begins to live at the moment of conception, to accept.
But, that does remain the truth.
Denial is futile.
Acceptance is really for the best, if the truth is to be respected.
Then we can persuade the powers that be in business and government to bring the new state-of-the-art conception prevention pharmaceuticals (that lop off the tails of sperms so that can't penetrate an egg, that harden the shell of a released egg to impenetrability, etc.) through testing and into worldwide availability without further political delay.
