My question wasn&#x27;t rhetorical, it was an invitation to offer additional requirements for being a person on top of that the two I presented and think about the merits of those requirements.<p>Making the third criteria be &quot;being born&quot; works to exclude fetuses, but scientifically it&#x27;s completely arbitrary. There is pretty much zero developmental difference between a fetus about to be born and a newborn baby. So what&#x27;s the logic of defining one as a person with a right to life and the other not as a person, other than legal convenience? Frankly I think it&#x27;s just the byproduct of cognitive dissonance: we want abortion to be okay, but we want killing newborns to be not okay, but the scientific fact is that <i>both</i> are just <i>potential</i> but not actualized sentient self-aware humans.