Oh that's what I said? Your reading comprehension is lacking my dude.

Your supposition, I responded to it with my reasoning. You just re state the same supposition. That's not a path to a fruitful discussion.

I can re explain my reasoning. Life is a process. What makes a human? Hands? Speech? Bipedal walking? All that is true. But a baby can't do any of that. So is a baby objectively human? If so, how do you reason about that consistently?

You do it by stating "that is it's fate if it is not killed first". The process of life, if left uninterrupted, that baby will walk and talk and make things. It will do human things, it will behave like a human unless someone stops that process. So it is human, just as a caterpillar is a butterfly.

Take that same reasoning back before birth. Will a fetus become a grown adult if it it's life process is not interrupted? Yes. Keep going back. At what point in that process, if left undisturbed, does it become the case that the thing will become a full grown person? Where prior to that, there's no likelihood, just a possibility? That's the objective point where you can say it's a person.

Without this, you can't say anyone is objectively human until they can say "yes I am a human". By your reasoning, a baby is not objectively human. We know this is untrue.