You cannot apply the same logic to infants, toddlers, etc. As they have developed all of the characteristics that compose the human make-up. Such as (but not limited to) skeletal structure, all internal organs, blood content, pain receptors, a functioning brain, a beating hurt, sentience. An unborn fetus does not have these things as it is in the process of development. When we refer to children in this context, they are called "Human Child." or "Human Fetus." When you refer to a fetus you MAY say "Human fetus" not in the sense that it is a completed developed human body, but what it will become. Likewise, a chicken egg is still an egg. But it is not a chicken.
--Actually, that is exactly what you can do. You don't seem to understand that your logic, and mine, taken to its end, has consequences.
--What is the standard? You said that the fetus is not developed enough, but nor is the 25 year old compared to the 30 year old.
---That is bery dangerous to compare humans to chickens. Don't do that, otherwise, you could justify anything.
Your arguments are entirely flawed as you're taking the term of development and having it encompass the entire process from being a zygote, to a fetus, to a functioning human infant, to a functioning human child, and so on.
---That's exactly what it is, duh. You are developing inside, and outside of the womb.
Are your mental capacities so limited that this concept is impossible for you to grasp, leaving you to intentionally use such tainted logic?
---What? You disagree, so you precieve that "this concept is impossible for you to grasp, leaving you to intentionally use such tainted logic?" Fool.