What science defines that an 1-year old is a person, but a zygote is not? Please. Link me a paper.

I'm a science enthusiast, but far too many science enthusiasts here try and make science speak on issues that it doesn't speak. Science is totally silent - it's work unrelated to these philosophical questions. The question of what make a person is purely philosophical. So if you try and make Science speak on questions of justice, personhood, ethics, it will respond with silence, silence, silence. The only way to respond to these questions is with a philosophical worldview, such as your philosophy of "Materialism", but don't conflate this philosophy together with scientific research - they are not the same thing.

Quite so. It's sheer recklessness not to err on the side of caution here.

I'm not american, so I don't know much about the constitution.

And I fully support all people's rights. But what do you do when rights come into conflict? People are required give up many rights to serve their duting protect infants every day. Why is it any different for those unborn?

My argument about asking the child is obviously figurative - though you don't seem to understand. My point is who gave people like us to decide these people's fates. I argue that noone has the right to take a life whoever they may be. Any attempt to justify doing so ignores the rights and interests of the infant.

I havn't been any more or less logical than arth1 has. He just has a world-view, a philosophy, the name of which is "Materialism" - you may heard the term. It's the view that all is matter and matter is all (pluse energy, space, time etc.)

A lot of people here have that worldview. Some worldviews are consistent. Some are inconsistent. You can tell the inconsistent ones because they lead you to absurd conclusions: such as a human life only has life if it's self aware, therefore it's justified to kill 1-hour old infants.

The question then is do you have the thoughtfulness to challenge the received wisdom? And say to yourself - "if this is my philosophy and this is where it has lead me, could it be that my philosophy doesn't have all the answers". But it takes a degree of intellectual humility to challenge one's self this way.

If people are decide to kill infants this is simply wrong

The circumstances of the child's concept really don't have anything to do with it.

Also there seem to be quite a hatred of right wing people among American Slashdotters. They may well be arseholes, but that doesn't relieve of your duty to protect vulnerable infants.

Sure it's hard. Life IS hard. This isn't Disney.

But one thing I can wrap my head around: Ask the child whether it would be happy to have it's chance of life taken from it. Or ask them if they'd at least like a say in what their fate be.

Ask that question - ask yourself that question; and you can see that the issue really isn't all complex.

I'm amazed by your willingness to take your worldview to it's logical conclusion. Most people try and having it both ways - and don't see themselves doing so.

I'm just thankful you don't set the rules. At least most people still understand that infanticide is evil, and that it's society's duty to protect children - though it seems you're too wrapped up in your theories to understand these simple things.

If you really live what you say you believe, then you're a monster!

It's a red herring. Almost all baby terminations are done purely for convenience.

Just because something happens, doesn't mean it should be legal, especially when it's morrally repugnant.

So SO stupid.

Do you not see? In your world-view there isn't a difference between an apple, an apple tree, a zygote or an adult human. They are all just patterns of matter. But then you're trying to reach out and say there's something more to a born human than an unborn human - which is wholly arbitrary.

(Plainly this philosphy of yours is contradictory because you DO believe there is something inherantly valuable about a human life, because you have a notion of rights - but anyway).

You can't have it both ways. You want to say the adult's life is special (though they're just matter, so really not any more special than an apple), but the unborn child is not special because it's just matter.

Oh except that you say the adult is self aware.

What about when you've been anaethsetised? or drunk? or concussed? Do you have a right to life then? How about when you were 1-hour old - were you self aware then? You suppose so, but for myself I don't remember being aware of anything. What justification can you offer to give rights-to-life to any of these different examples person but deprive it from the unborn child?

What about a concious adult? You say they're self aware. How do you know? Maybe it's all an illusion - like the turing test. And anyway, who appointed you the one to define this arbitrary litmus test of whether a person has rights to life or not?

Perhaps the fairest way to resolve this would be to allow the baby to gain conciousness in the same way that an anaethsetised person would gain conciousness, then give them a chance to choose for themselves whether they would like to live or not. I certainly am glad I was given that chance, and I suspect you are glad that you were also.

Certainly no-one has the right to deprive a person of such a choice, in the present or in the future.