That, or I've made a distinction between one view (rights endowed at creation which means no man gets to pick a point of endowment), and his view (rights endowed at a time selected by other men).

I've invited discussion (not just with him but with all) on which is better policy.

Not sure how restating both our positions and inviting discussions is ignoring what he said. 

From Salvatore:

I don't grant myself the power to determine which human beings have a right to life. I happen to disagree with you about what constitutes a human being.

Same thing.  Your "alive" vs "being" distinction is not a distinction at all.  They are equivalents.

I don't mean to be rude either, but you wish to end the discussion with me I believe because we've reached the point where you must concede that your view allows men to grant rights and freedoms, even the right to live, and you know that puts freedom in a far more precarious position than if we accept the self-evident truth that we are endowed with rights at creation.

Your view is dependent upon the "Good King" to avoid fascism and despotism.  But we all know you can't count on a Good King forever.  They eventually get replaced with Bad Kings.

Better to keep freedom and rights away from the grant of other men.  They are safe and sound being automatically endowed upon creation, where they remain unalienable, subject to the whims of no bad kings.

No, but don't get lost in theism by my answer.  Your creator can be a random coming together of chemicals in nature. 

That is why in the Declaration of Independence, the self-evident truth is endowment of rights upon creation.  The identity of the creator is of no import.  That's why Jefferson didn't say "God."

Sal thank you for your answer in #184. Now we can finally get to the heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter is your words "I find."

Under the American construct, no human gets to judge who has rights and who does not.  This is Lockean thought adopted by Jefferson and underpins American political philosophy:  Our rights our endowed upon creation.  They are unalienable, meaning no human can interpose himself to dictate otherwise.  No man or government can take away what he has not given.  This is the only way to be free -  free from the trespasses of government and others.

You on the other hand interpose yourself on others.  "I find."  You empower yourself to decide which living human has the right to live and which does not.  I assume in a pluralistic society you will concede that others may have a view further down the slippery slope than you do, and that person will insist more people then you do have no right to life, judging so for himself. "I find."

Back to the beginning:  There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Libertarian.  Black can't be white, even if you call it white.

For a guy who was so insistent about others answering questions he posed, Salvatore doesn't reciprocate well.

How so?  I'm asking Sal about his idea, not mine.

Once again you give your conclusion.

Please tell me where you derive the authority to make the determination, and who else gets to make the determination.    Must we look for consensus, or will individuals be allowed to make their own conclusion on how far along personhood is established?

You gave me the conclusion.

I'm interested in where the authority comes from for you to decide at what point someone becomes human, and who beside you actually gets to make that decision.

Also, you need to switch to "person" because that is what you are attempting to describe.  "Human" is a settled scientific designation based upon DNA

From my prior post:

How about you explain this "moral equivalent" business to me.  You seem to have some external factor, decided upon by other men, that values some humans over another.

Delve into that.  What is the factor?  Where did it originate from?  Who gets to be in control of it? ·

Salvatore how about an answer on my question regarding moral equivalencies?

I don't think you will find a scientist in the world who will agree with you that an embryo is not human.  Do you have a citation?

You are conceding human and parsing the word "being."

Being is synonymous with live.  We are back to killing a live human.

It does it's genetic.

My apologies I thought I answered all your questions several times.  Which is still pending? (note:  merely disagreeing with my answer does not mean I owe you another).

How about you explain this "moral equivalent" business to me.  You seem to have some external factor, decided upon by other men, that values some humans over another.

Delve into that.  What is the factor?  Where did it originate from?  Who gets to be in control of it?

Precisely.