Yes, it’s a moral question. But the answer to the moral question depends on the answer to “When does on become human?” which is a scientific question.

“First of all consciousness and ability to think and show intelligence should not be the measure for deciding when the fetus is a human. There are thousands of coma patients and ill people who don’t show any kind of ability to think, don’t react to stimulations or show any kind of intelligence. This does not give us the right to eliminate them.”

Coma patients who have working brains (unlike fetuses) shouldn’t be killed. People who are brain dead, don’t exist anymore and can’t come back. So, we shouldn’t terminate people who aren’t brain-dead. But keeping the body of someone who is brain-dead alive is just a waste of resources.
A human may exist as merely a body, but that is not what is important. It’s the existence of a mind (even if one that doesn’t work very well) that really counts. I find it odd that it’s usually the ones who believe in souls that don’t understand this.

“What happens for instance when someone accidentally or purposely causes the developing fetus to die?”

I would have thought this obvious. Pro-choice people want to give the choice to -the mother-. Not anyone else.

If it we are not human beings prior to birth then the majorting of the pro-choice arguments that it is purely a private decision is irrelevant.
If it we become human at the moment of birth (moment? hmm) then again there is not argument.

So as I understand your argument, since we don’t know exactly when a person is entitled to human rights then it is OK to kill it. The problem with this argument as support unrestricted abortion is that the burden of proof is on the person who advocates the killing, not the other way around. Following your logic, someone could make the claim that a newborn (say 10 ten minutes post birth) isn’t fully human (for reasons X, Y, and Z) and be justified in killing it.

Your argument reguires a very definitive definition of a human being. What exact qualities make someone a human being? This essay doesn’t provide such a detailed definitition and therefore is meaningless.

A human being is neither a good nor a possession of anybody except his own. And as we are not willing to kill those who are not able to think or feed themselves we should never ever consider killing unborn babies merely because the mother would like to. Of course there are some situations where an abortion is justifiable as in the case of severe health problems for mother’s and child’s life.

Today we have created a social situation where disagreement to feminine tyranny is considered as politically incorrect and chauvinistic. As if emancipation was subordination to women and not there elevation out of repression but turning it upside down.

The question at hand is not a scientific one but a moral ethical one.

With no belief in a creator then you can see how humans muddle up the result.

The very same thing can happen with our laws and liberty!

In fact, life only began once, a few billion years ago. It’s a cycle of life, after all! So sperm cells? Ova? Alive too.

- The claim that rape victims, who get pregnant due to rape shouldn’t be allowed abortions, because of the rarity of such incidents is absurd!

- That all living things have hearts is certainly not in accordance with the general use of the term ‘living thing’. Are humans undergoing heart transplantations not alive during surgery? Are plants not alive?

- Nowhere did Shermer’s article claim that embryos or fetuses are not alive. Even sperm and ova can be considered to be alive. The question is: Is a fetus, about to be aborted, a human? Potential to become a human, having human genes or being alive are clearly not the same thing as being a living human being deserving protection by the law.

Christina’s reasoning could just about as well be applied to an argument against treatment of cancer. Cancer is rare, cancers grow and it’s alive. The only thing a cancer lacks is a heart of it’s own, although a cancer can start from the heart and be composed of heart cells.