This post does nothing but illustrate your extreme inability to comprehend logical arguments. I never attempted to redefine the meaning of a "human being," as you would very well know had you read my post in its entirety.
Killing persons who possess a physiological inability to feel pain is not a morally acceptable course of action because they presumably have an interest in continuing their lives, and it is morally wrong to deny the interests of a rational moral agent.
You hold that personhood is based on membership in the human species. But I hold the converse position that species membership is an arbitrary distinction such as race or sex when it comes to the issue of equal consideration of interests. This is because nonhuman animals are self-aware and are able to suffer in the same manner that humans are.
Self-awareness has traditionally been considered an essential trait of personhood, as most firmly established by Enlightenment principles.
The reason for this is that creatures or objects that lack self-awareness are incapable of suffering. Suffering, of course, leads to pain, and the avoidance of pain is a natural biological imperative. It is for this reason that we do not consider it immoral to kick a stone down the road, but consider it quite immoral to do the same thing to a puppy. The stone is not a self-aware creature that is capable of suffering and feeling pain, while the puppy is.
Thus, it is not logical to hold that the infant that is not self-aware nor has the capacity to ever become self-aware should be granted the equal consideration of interests that is granted to self-aware beings simply because the infant is a member of the human species.
