Abortion is wrong

So now your criteria for a person are: not a single cell or not a small collection of cells. Why? Babies are small collections of cells too, size is relative, they are still people. One cell is an arbitrary number. "Children are people because they exist within this world as individuals, as opposed to existing in their mother's womb as non-individuals, or rather "cell(s)". A child, as with any other human, will have its own distinguishable features and characteristics. A zygote and an embryo has no distinguishable features or characteristics (that separate it from other zygotic or embryonic cells). It will only begin to develop its genetic identity when it reaches mid-term fetal stage, by which point, abortions generally do not occur." Children are still a bunch of cells, just like an embryo. Embryos can have distinguishable features, every embryo is different, because they all have a unique set of DNA. The DNA code forms right at conception, it is not formed later in the pregnancy. "Rather simply, it makes someone a person because that is when they have left the environment they've developed in for (what should be) nine months. Upon this, they are granted legal rights -- as persons." Environment does not determine personhood, what if a bay is in an artificial incubator? Does it not become a person until it left the incubator? You keep saying you showed that an embryo is not a person, and I have refuted your reasoning for it, but you just try to refute that in turn by saying some other criteria has been meet in a being who is missing one criteria,. But I talked about all the criteria, so it doesn't matter which criteria a being shows, because none of the criteria are legitimate arguments for personhood. "a human being regarded as an individual." You've thrown this definition around, it does not back up your reasoning at all, nor does it back up mine actually. The question of an "individual" is still not settled. An embryo can be called an individual because it has its own genetics, even though it needs a form of life support to live. "A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility." Some people do not have the brainpower to reason, some people are amoral, some are unconscious (for a time), not everybody has a family, not everyone owns property, not everybody follows laws. All the above criteria can be non-existent in a being for you to call that being a person. You say a child does not have the criteria, but will develop them. I can say that exact thing about an embryo, because an embryo will develop into a newborn, in turn developing into a grown adult. I also have another question, is a fetus at, let's say 22 weeks, not a person? It cannot survive without the mother but it has developing organs, including a brain, it also develops pain receptors around this time. Bottom line: you have provided some criteria for personhood (more than a small number of cells, independent of life support, capable of sentience, etc.) and I have shown that each of those criteria can be non-existent in somebody and you can still call that somebody a person, so clearly those are not proper criteria for personhood because you are not required to have them for being called a person. You really have not proven to me, succinctly and in your own words, how one needs to be outside the mother to be called a person. I do not use the "independent living" argument because I have said that one does not be able to live independently of someone else to be called a person.