@1:29 I found the statement made by Dan is funnily oxymoron. He wants his opponent to show the difference between a fetus and human person. But while explaining this Dan refers to the fetus as "it" while as we know he wouldn't refer a human person as "it". Right there he has shown a difference while asking his opponent to show him one.
@mani_bharathy Rather clearly I was assuming the accuracy of the opposing claim, in which case the correct term would be "it". It would be a strawman to describe the opposition's argument in a biased manner.
@sharkb8 I'm not getting what you are saying. You called the fetus 'it'.Doesn't it show that you treat fetus different from a human person?
@mani_bharathy First of all, in the particular moment you mentioned, I was saying that the Con's perspective would be that the fetus does not have all of the necessary development to be human, which would make "it" not a human. If the Con's perspective is correct, then the fetus is an it. Secondly, did you watch the debate? I quite clearly delineated at what point I would contend that a fetus stops being an it, and becomes a person, at the point when it has consciousness and desire.