Welcome to Gaia! ::

They aren't outright defined as fallacious; They can be fallacious or valid, but the way I saw it, your version looked fallacious.

I mean, even though you disagree with us, I'm sure how you can understand our fear that the personhood of fetuses being based off of things like whether it can react to it's surroundings, or whether it is as sentient as a born human, could lead to the personhood of anyone being based off of that (Because the idea that "Once a person, always a person" is fairly weak if we are to say that any stage in the human life is not a person).

So based off of that, the slippery slope of "Then those in comas, then the old, then the terminally ill, then the crippled," sounds valid to me. Because, when personhood is defined in such a way as to exclude, who says it couldn't be changed to exclude another group? Not to mention that it's already happened before.

I agree. One can use the slippery slope to be fearful that personhood could be more and more restrictive... which means that it is up to one who is pro-choice to stop that slope. Just as people marrying animals and children are stopped by informed concent, a supportor of the pro-choice movement would be obligated to demonstrate where the slip would stop by being clear in their definition of person.

That's fine XD. I don't mind hopping back and forth... I just thought it was sorta amusing... I'd get done posting in one thread and then see you responded to the other.