Like everything in this world, laws and morals evolve over time. Unless one claims they come from God, only then can they be considered absolutes. I have no absolutes.
You seem like a logical person alang.
Can I ask you this.
Which is the most logical statement given that our Constitution makes the all inclusive statement that ALL persons are entitled to due process and to the EQUAL protections of our laws.
1. A child's life doesn't begin until it lives too long and develops past the point where society can't deny them anymore
Or
2. A child's life and rights begins at the earliest moment that we can determine their existence
3. A child's life and rights begins when they begin to display the uniqueness that makes us human and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. This comes down to the developing brain, if you don't have a functioning brain you do not qualify as a human being. < insert teenager joke here > If you're brain is dead you are dead, even if your body is being kept alive by artificial means.
Do you not see that your listed (3rd) choice is just a variation of the one I listed as number 1?
Your own position makes the same claim in only a slightly more pleasant way. . . that a child is not a child - nor worthy of legal protections (in your view) until they live long enough as to breech your ability to deny them anymore.
You say it all comes down to the need for a developing or functioning brain. . . when there is no such legal requirement for personhood on the books.
Are you expressing that view because that's the way you think it SHOULD be? Or are you expressing that view because you think that is what the laws say?
I'm asking because our current laws do NOT say that a developing / functioning brain is required for personhood. Nor is one required for Constitutional rights and protections.
There are children born who are born with no cerebral cortex at all. They have no capacity for thought, feelings or pain and there have been court cases and supreme courts rulings on their situations. (Children born with anencephalia for example)
Those courts ruled that those children (functioning brains or not) are just as entitled to the protections of our laws that anyone else is.
Does this information affect your answer to my question in any way?