Someone had to. Screw babies. My left leg has more value to this society than any random baby. Much more expensive to replace.

It's not about being gross. It's about replacability. A baby cares about as much to stay alive as my leg. And a baby is replacable within 9 months.

Considering that humans are able to kill cows and pigs and chickens, who actually want to stay alive, in the millions, this argument over a handful of abortions is ridiculous.

And I'm talking about full grown babies here while people are arguing about whether a bunch of random cells has a face. A fetus is about as much alive as my dandruffs and we produce fucking shampoo to actively kill those things.

It's indirectly for food. Unwanted babies are a financial burden for the people who produced it or for the state who has to take it. Guess what's the most favorite thing is people do with money. Buying food.

I was going to guess buying drugs.

Yea, I include those.  I always find it funny that most Americans don't think twice about prescription drugs.  Hell, drug is right there in the name but shit if it is a doctor pushing these drugs then everything should be a okay.  Just ignore those multiple paragraphs listing side effects such as death, diarrhea, suicidal thoughts and organ failure.

So money in politics... It's a bitch and Citizen United only made it worse. So where the fuck do we go from here?

Let me just show you why having groups/corporations donating to political campaigns is bad...

Taxes? Should perhaps be easier than repeal and replace right? Think again. If you don't close the loopholes then dropping the corporate rate from 35 to 20 is only going to balloon the deficit (let alone a good cut to the top individual rate and chump change for the rest). In the end using phony projections of economic growth from the cuts that never materialize is only going to pile on more debt. You can't use bullshit projections which never come to fruition. Sure there might be some economic growth but it is always overstated which understates the true debt incurred.

Getting back to why it is bad for lobbying groups to give money to politicians. The only way to make the cuts more viable is to close all loopholes which we know isn't going to happen because of the campaign donations. I guarantee whatever bill that tries to move forward will have provisions here and there for whoever is coughing up the most money. Our system is a joke.

I will assume you mean a complete set of human DNA, rather than a partial set e.g. sperm cells / unfertilized eggs. 

It seems your definition of person (or human person) is quite reductionist as it does not incorporate any function or form beyond growth and movement which is ubiquitous among all forms of life. If I were to take some semen and an unfertilized egg and tossed each into a whale's mouth you would consider the whale a person since it contains a complete set of human DNA and it is moving and growing. I see no reason to consider your definition to be proper as a result of such madness. Specificity is very important in these discussions due to each individual having a different mental picture of what is meant by certain words. The only way each of us can share our mental pictures is through language; unclear language leads to unclear mental pictures.

Let's take a more practical example, one which I think matches your mental picture better. Suppose there is sufficient capability to supplant DNA into a cellular shell. Suppose we take human DNA and marry it to such a shell. Now suppose we tweak the genetic switches a bit such that the development of the entity is completely shut off let's say at the equivalent of a day 3 fetus. Is that a person?

I think we part ways not in regard to what constitutes a human, but in what constitutes a person. Certainly a fetus is a human, but what makes a person is consciousness / personality which is why we can euthenize brain-dead humans - they are no longer a person as they have neither of these things (and neither does a fetus).

No worries :) 

Well I do not recall making any metaethical propositions as I am not sure I agree with moral realism at all. I've been very sympathetic to a non-cognivist stance recently.

Inability to evaluate the veracity of a proposition does not mean that there are other assignment values than True / False.

On 10/12/2017 it rained in Washington D.C. 

This will either be true or it will be false. I cannot yet establish which it is, but it does not mean there is some additional possibility in regards to classification. 

A death tax or inheritance tax is a little dirty and shouldn't exist. If a person earned their wealth wanted to pass it on to someone else, they should be able to without being taxed by half or even some it. 

The Clintons proved that spending twice as much as your opponent can still serve you a loss. It seems that donations in politics are losing influence.

The parents earned their money and they can choose to pass it on or do whatever they want with it like donate it. It's logical that it would pass on to family or an heir of their choosing. A death tax shoudn't exist.