Latenter

I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully. My mention of a soul is on a purely philosophical level, not religious or mystical. There is a difference between philosophy and mysticism.

You keep claiming materialistic arguments, but you're detached from the realities of society we live in. We ascribe human rights that are protected by the constitution, and stated in the declaration of independence. Other countries hold similar values.

My argument is "I believe that at the development of the proto-CNS stage the embryo embodies enough characterists to become a distinct individual, even without full development, which requires us to assign human rights according to our society." Whether you agree with the argument or not, it is a valid argument to make.

You keep attacking my position, but without giving rationalization for your own. Why does the fetus have to be viable to be alive? At that point it has a brain, we know it would develop into a full child barring miscarriage/disease, and it is certainly homo-sapien. You need an argument stronger than "because it's weak" because that applies to many cases that are not reasonable, like the disabled, etc.

It's always great to have a debate where someone actually thinks about the other side, even if they don't end up changing their mind. Too often it's all rhetoric and bashing, without any kind of consideration for what is being said. Thanks!