Why do you call a fetus, embryo, or blastosphere a child or baby? It appears that you know that you have no argument if you use proper terminology.
Rhetorical question, correct? I think you already know the answer. They have been convinced to attach the name baby to the conceptus whatever its stage of development to tap into the instinct that makes one say, "Aww!" when he sees a baby mammal (or bird). How could anybody want to hurt that? Nobody feels that way about the blob of cells or a creature that looks like an alien or a movie monster, but call it a baby, and one can coopt some of that parenting instinct that makes babies appealing for the fetus. Problem is, many people have no such feelings for fetuses, and calling them babies doesn't have that same effect on them that it does for the ones that have made fetuses babies in their minds.
nobody has the right to harm innocent people.
When you use this language to describe abortion, then I disagree with you. It is sometimes morally acceptable to kill innocent people. And you're doing what I just described, except using the words innocent and person in place of baby. You want the empathy that many feel for the unfortunates around them such as the Ukrainian people to apply to a fetus. I empathize with the Ukrainians, who are sentient and are suffering unfairly, but not the fetuses, who are neither sentient nor able to suffer.
I find it perplexing that everybody accepts that a baby that was born premature at 25 weeks is a person with rights who deserves to live. But if that same being is geographically located inside the womb then "magically" and for no reason , he is a "non person".
The "geography" matters because one location is inside the woman and the other not. Once the fetus is outside of the mother, the mother loses the ability to argue, "My body, my choice." No magic involved, and as I've argued above, personhood is an arbitrary and irrelevant consideration unless one feels that if something can be called a person that it then cannot be aborted, and then he needs to show why his definition of personhood isn't arbitrary.
The fact that this is hard and controversial is good enough reason to be pro life / if we don't know if its a person or not, then don't kill it until you are sure.
This is neither hard nor controversial to me. The objections are coming from anti-choicers based in values the skeptic doesn't share.
It also demonstrates how using arbitrary and non-biological criteria like personhood is a bad idea in this arena. It muddies the issue, not clarify it.
It's also a pretty bizarre concept that as far as I know only appears in other convoluted arguments such as whether corporations are citizens with the same rights as persons. In what other contexts does personhood arise? It probably came up in slavery debates. When people start debating personhood, it seems it's usually to argue something about rights that only persons have, even if what's being called a person isn't alive (corporation), or what's being called non-person is (slave).
