Killing a human being is not a “right”

You are implicitly asking the right question! Which is - When does an entity or organism become a person, and therefore should have rights (and be protected) in an advanced civil society?

I appreciate how WTF^n pointed out that for this discussion, the different terms for the various stages of development that every person goes through (zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, child, prepubescent, fully developed adult) isn’t relevant. So, I am just going to use entity / person to try to make as objective a determination as I can for when the entity becomes a person, and I’m going to work backwards starting from adulthood (mid to late 20s).

Mid to late 20s (let’s say 25 years)

For: The case could be made that everyone should be subject to being aborted up until 25 years because it is not until then that an entity / person’s brain is fully developed. Also, reasonable assessments on an entity / person’s likely productivity or possible future contributions to society could certainly be made by this point.

Against: Many (All?) entities/persons will have felt like they were persons before this point with memories, unique thoughts, abilities, etc. Though reasonable assessments of future contributions can be made, many would be proven incorrect. Entities/people of this age would defend themselves, and this would be problematic.

16-18 years

For: Not yet fully developed physically or mentally. Serious deficiencies are easily seen at this point and reasonable assessments on an entity / person’s future contributions based on their own actions or aptitudes could be made. Most are not independently living yet. Many (Most?) parents would be for this being the age that abortions should be determined.

Against: Very similar to the mid-20s, but not nearly as strong or capable.

11-13 years (prepubescent)

For: It would be before major physical and mental developments are made, and future ability and societal contributions could be assessed somewhat reasonably.

Against: The future contribution assessment is more murky the younger the entity / person.

4 years (“Is it really that hard?”’s point of demarcation)

For: This is when some people believe an entity becomes a person.

Against: Not a lot different for entity’s from 3-9. Memories have been made and consciousness is evident. Uniqueness is apparent.

Birth - 2 years

For: It would be before an entity / person is able to make any memories that they would remember. They would not know what is happening when they are being aborted. Any resistance would be reflexive and easily overcome.

Against: It is clear that the entity / person is alive and is in the developmental process of becoming a fully-formed person. The entity breathes and eats more independently, though still completely dependent on having food provided / fed to them.

From 12 weeks to the end of pregnancy

For: Has not yet been directly seen by human eyes. It would be before an entity / person is able to make any memories that they would remember. They would not know what is happening when they are being aborted. Any resistance would be reflexive and easily overcome. Is attached to and reliant on the mother for sustenance / oxygen through the umbilical cord.

Against: It is clear that the entity / person is alive and is in the developmental process of becoming a fully-formed person. The entity moves on its own, reacts to stimuli, and is “conscious”.

From 5 to 11 weeks in pregnancy

For: The entity / person is very small and appears less person-like (mainly due to its giant head), though the entity / person does develop its heart, brain, lungs, limbs, etc during this time. Like the above, they obviously would have no memories or know what is happening.

Against: Dependent on whether or not those determining when an entity becomes a person concludes that this is a stage of a person’s life, or if there is an amount of development required that defines the “start” of life.

At conception

For: The entity is microscopic and does not look human-like at all (even though there is 0% chance that it would develop to become anything other than a person). It has no thoughts or consciousness yet.

Against: Dependent on whether or not those determining when an entity becomes a person concludes that this is a stage of a person’s life, or if there is an amount of development required that defines the “start” of life. It is at conception that an entity / person’s life can be “tracked” (observed as starting to exist). The sperm and eggs themselves only have half the chromosomes required to be a person (and has never been observed to develop into a person on their own). However, when they come together, they make a complete genome that is unique from the mother’s and father’s and will be the same throughout the entity / person’s life. No other "clump of cells" spontaneously develop into a person, and every person began this way.

The question of when an entity becomes a person relies solely on an event that occurs with the entity/person… absolutely nothing else. While being sympathetic to the many concerns that surround raising an entity / person… the conditions in which the entity was conceived… the financial conditions… the ability of the parents. All of those issues, while sometimes incredibly difficult for sure, have no bearing whatsoever on when the entity becomes person.

The smallest surviving baby just left the U of Iowa hospital. It was born at 5 months amd weighed 8 oz. Yet people support abortions well after that.

It guess it does seem unfair that I get what you don't.

I agree with

Aborting something that has no sense of self is no worse than killing animals for food

A "human being" is a self-declared honorific. The "soul" you also declare to be in possession of is also an undeserved non-existent gift to ourselves.
That we are animals for whom certain privileged "human beings" claim huntig and killing rights may not please, or will anger you, but it doesnt need to be a put-down. Like being a part of a vast star system, its not necessarily scary or demeaning, but quite wonderful. Just dont expect heavenly rewards for being just part of that. Enjoy it.

You think Im crazy? You ought to get a load of my neighbor Dave. Hes got an upside down flag in his yard.

Agreed with the above.

That is not to say that I specifically disagree with your breakdown by age - only that these are not necessarily the way that I would create such a framework or fill it in and they are not central to my point here.

Beyond your paragraph above, in which you correctly (IMHO) point out that conditions of conception, financial conditions, etc. have no bearing on whether the entity deserves the protection of society, there are complications related to the fact that a woman's body is necessary for taking the entity from point A to point B. And a woman might rightfully lay claim to control of her own body.

I think the discussion would be much different if the development process took place in a lab the way it is pictured in some sci-fi movies. Not to say that I advocate for society making an effort to move in that direction, just to say that there are non-trivial complications to this topic that owe to women's bodies being the means by which babies develop and women's bodies belong to themselves.

hmmm... that is a really great point. That would support the idea that some have suggested (which I am not sure that I disagree with at all) that the issue should be solely decided by women.

It seems appropriate to provide here what Bill Burr thinks about this. :)