is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[OldTrees]

I agree that women's rights need to be discussed when talking about abortion.

However I recognize that Human Rights (including Women's Rights) are topics discussed in ethics and thus are a morality question.

Well, an ethical question =/= a moral question, but that's not important.  I'd still like it very much if anyone would care to respond to my point that the best (most morally/ethically justified position) is abortion, if we're willing to work from the assumptions given in the OP.

I too would like people to respond to that response. (provided below for reference)

I don't like that this is framed as a morality question; isn't it more one of women's rights?

Accepting the (hugely game-changing) assumption that a fetus is sentient from conception on, then both mother and father are automatically in the wrong, for having caused a 9-month prison sentence upon an unwitting, sentient being.  9 months of, essentially, solitary confinement.

Even after as short a time as a few days, the effects of solitary on a sentient human can be devestating.  Hallucinations, self-mutilation, suicidal depression, associative disorders, etc...

So, basically, the OP has put us NOT in a questioning of the morality of abortion, but rather in the sticky spot of deciding whether it's more morally permissible to be a jailor/torturer, or a killer.

Going by some of the highest standards accepted by the bulk of humanity (the Universal declaration of human rights; the Geneva convention), torture is actually LESS approved than killing.  Look at the rules of war - it's fine to kill an enemy combatant, but POWs have basic rights against torture.

With that considered, it's not only morally permissible for the woman to terminate the pregnancy; it's a moral imperative to do so, as quickly as possible.

[Cheesy111]

Spoiler for Hidden:

I agree that women's rights need to be discussed when talking about abortion.

However I recognize that Human Rights (including Women's Rights) are topics discussed in ethics and thus are a morality question.

Well, an ethical question =/= a moral question, but that's not important.  I'd still like it very much if anyone would care to respond to my point that the best (most morally/ethically justified position) is abortion, if we're willing to work from the assumptions given in the OP.

I too would like people to respond to that response. (provided below for reference)

I don't like that this is framed as a morality question; isn't it more one of women's rights?

Accepting the (hugely game-changing) assumption that a fetus is sentient from conception on, then both mother and father are automatically in the wrong, for having caused a 9-month prison sentence upon an unwitting, sentient being.  9 months of, essentially, solitary confinement.

Even after as short a time as a few days, the effects of solitary on a sentient human can be devestating.  Hallucinations, self-mutilation, suicidal depression, associative disorders, etc...

So, basically, the OP has put us NOT in a questioning of the morality of abortion, but rather in the sticky spot of deciding whether it's more morally permissible to be a jailor/torturer, or a killer.

Going by some of the highest standards accepted by the bulk of humanity (the Universal declaration of human rights; the Geneva convention), torture is actually LESS approved than killing.  Look at the rules of war - it's fine to kill an enemy combatant, but POWs have basic rights against torture.

With that considered, it's not only morally permissible for the woman to terminate the pregnancy; it's a moral imperative to do so, as quickly as possible.

I do not believe that solitary confinement has the same effect on a being that does not know of anything else.  Thus, I doubt that beings existing in the womb would feel tortured, and without the being in the womb being tortured abortion does not become a moral imperative. 

[northcity4]

No, my question (sort of the original forum makers question as well) has not been answered. One person said basically if we act spontaneous upon being threatened then it is fine...but when you are pregnant, you have plenty of time.
The question is about if abortion is morally wrong: a question if the fetus is human or not? [please stay on topic, mentioning all those other philosophical ideas are getting us nowhere and only leading us off topic] Why cannot we just say a) fetus is not human, therefore abortion is okay whenever or b) fetus is human, therefore abortion is never okay (even in war, killing some1 on your side to save your city is still morally wrong, but you won't feel as bad).

Can you really say it doesn't matter? No you cannot, it does matter if that fetus is human---> I am going to ask again: is there any record of a non-human becoming human? Stuffing of a 2yr old inside a woman: can she now legally kill it? Why does the law say killing a pregnant woman is double homicide?

Will someone please show me how a fetus cannot be human if nothing non human has never become human. You can't say fetus' are not human if their genes are that of humans...even evolution cannot prove how anything caused human life.

My question: is abortion wrong? From what I have been reading...it doesn't seem to matter the situation. It seems everyone is hinting towards if that fetus is human or not. To say it's not human based on size/mental capacity/age is like saying someone who is not as old, not as smart, and not as big as you are is not human.

[OldTrees]

No, my question (sort of the original forum makers question as well) has not been answered. One person said basically if we act spontaneous upon being threatened then it is fine...but when you are pregnant, you have plenty of time.
The question is about if abortion is morally wrong: a question if the fetus is human or not? [please stay on topic, mentioning all those other philosophical ideas are getting us nowhere and only leading us off topic] Why cannot we just say a) fetus is not human, therefore abortion is okay whenever or b) fetus is human, therefore abortion is never okay (even in war, killing some1 on your side to save your city is still morally wrong, but you won't feel as bad).

People disagree on
1) If a fetus is human due to different definitions of human
2) If a fetus is alive due to different definitions of life
3) If a fetus deserves moral consideration due to different assumed conditions for moral consideration
4) If Women have rights relative to their womb
5) If Women have rights relative to their womb that are relevant to abortion
6) If Women have rights relative to their womb that are relevant to abortion and superior to the moral claim of the fetus
So in brief the answer to your question is: Because the topic is not that simple.

Can you really say it doesn't matter? No you cannot, it does matter if that fetus is human---> I am going to ask again: is there any record of a non-human becoming human? Stuffing of a 2yr old inside a woman: can she now legally kill it? Why does the law say killing a pregnant woman is double homicide?

Will someone please show me how a fetus cannot be human if nothing non human has never become human. You can't say fetus' are not human if their genes are that of humans...even evolution cannot prove how anything caused human life.

My question: is abortion wrong? From what I have been reading...it doesn't seem to matter the situation. It seems everyone is hinting towards if that fetus is human or not. To say it's not human based on size/mental capacity/age is like saying someone who is not as old, not as smart, and not as big as you are is not human.

1) Does being human entitle something to moral consideration? Under some definitions of "human" I am killing a human each time I eat a scab. So unless you believe scabs are worthy of moral consideration, some definitions of human do not deserve blanket moral consideration. The question is not whether a fetus is human but rather if it is worthy of moral consideration. The argument about whether a fetus is a human is a proxy for the argument about moral consideration where each side thinks they are using the minimum definition of human that also gives blanket moral consideration.

2) What are human genes? A fetus from human parents will have a unique genome that has not existed in any prior human. Are they human? Due to which genes? Even more important, why in the world would my scab (which contains life that has the same genes as a prior human) be worthy of moral consideration?

[memimemi]

Spoiler for Hidden:

I agree that women's rights need to be discussed when talking about abortion.

However I recognize that Human Rights (including Women's Rights) are topics discussed in ethics and thus are a morality question.

Well, an ethical question =/= a moral question, but that's not important.  I'd still like it very much if anyone would care to respond to my point that the best (most morally/ethically justified position) is abortion, if we're willing to work from the assumptions given in the OP.

I too would like people to respond to that response. (provided below for reference)

I don't like that this is framed as a morality question; isn't it more one of women's rights?

Accepting the (hugely game-changing) assumption that a fetus is sentient from conception on, then both mother and father are automatically in the wrong, for having caused a 9-month prison sentence upon an unwitting, sentient being.  9 months of, essentially, solitary confinement.

Even after as short a time as a few days, the effects of solitary on a sentient human can be devestating.  Hallucinations, self-mutilation, suicidal depression, associative disorders, etc...

So, basically, the OP has put us NOT in a questioning of the morality of abortion, but rather in the sticky spot of deciding whether it's more morally permissible to be a jailor/torturer, or a killer.

Going by some of the highest standards accepted by the bulk of humanity (the Universal declaration of human rights; the Geneva convention), torture is actually LESS approved than killing.  Look at the rules of war - it's fine to kill an enemy combatant, but POWs have basic rights against torture.

With that considered, it's not only morally permissible for the woman to terminate the pregnancy; it's a moral imperative to do so, as quickly as possible.

I do not believe that solitary confinement has the same effect on a being that does not know of anything else.  Thus, I doubt that beings existing in the womb would feel tortured, and without the being in the womb being tortured abortion does not become a moral imperative.

Fair enough.  Keep in mind, however, that the presumption of sentience for the fetus was embedded in the OP's original question.  For the purposes of this discussion, the assumption has already been made that the fetus is fully aware of its situation.

Though your point is an important one, when considering the larger debates surrounding abortion, and the question of mother's rights vs. fetal rights, it's an irrelevant point to this discussion.

Without the presumption of sentience, my entire point is invalidated (and would be replaced with what is, imho, a more interesting discussion of the meaning of rights, and of humanity).  If we're to keep this thread on topic, we should limit ourselves to discussing the ramifications of the axioms presented in the OP.

To recap those axioms:

1. THIS fetus is completely sentient;
2. THIS fetus, if brought to term, will be healthy;
3. THIS fetus, if brought to term, will kill the mother; if not brought to term, the mother will survive (with probability of 1 in either case).

We can argue the validity of these axioms 'til the cows come home, but that isn't especially productive to the thread - the question was concerning the ethics of the sitiuation, given these initial conditions.

If anyone would like to start a thread to discuss the validity of these axioms (and, let's face it, there's an awful lot to dispute in these simple starting conditions), count me in - but let's not do it here, ok?

My argument, that the ethical imperative is to abort, only requires axiom 1 to be accepted as true in order to be valid.  IF we accept the initial conditions given in our hypothetical sitiuation, is there any other ethically defensible position?

If this thread is to have any merit, whatsoever, we need to not bicker about the given conditions, but rather explore their ramifications if accepted as true.  Sidenote: I, personally, doubt the truth value of ANY of the axioms given - but that's neither here nor there.

[OldTrees]

Fair enough.  Keep in mind, however, that the presumption of sentience for the fetus was embedded in the OP's original question.  For the purposes of this discussion, the assumption has already been made that the fetus is fully aware of its situation.

1) Sentience does not imply being fully aware of your situation. You can be aware of yourself and confused by your situation.
2) Awareness of your situation does not imply being aware of alternate situations to compare it to.
3) Even if the fetus was aware of alternate situation to compare it to it still might not feel tortured since it has not become addicted to social interaction yet.

If we're to keep this thread on topic, we should limit ourselves to discussing the ramifications of the axioms presented in the OP.

To recap those axioms:

1. THIS fetus is completely sentient;
2. THIS fetus, if brought to term, will be healthy;
3. THIS fetus, if brought to term, will kill the mother; if not brought to term, the mother will survive (with probability of 1 in either case).

We can argue the validity of these axioms 'til the cows come home, but that isn't especially productive to the thread - the question was concerning the ethics of the sitiuation, given these initial conditions.

1) Initially the specific case was addressed and then the thread moved onto the general case as would be expected in this kind of thread.
2) Usually the specific case cannot be solved if there are relevant but varying premises of the general case that are not specified by the specific case. In this case: the requirement for moral consideration, the limits to the rights of the woman and how the moral consideration and rights would interact.
3) Finally this case does bring up an interesting question of whether the fetus qualifies for moral agency. Aka does the fetus's choice to stay attached/become stillborn fall under ethics or is it an amoral choice as a result of not qualifying for moral agency?

[memimemi]

1) Sentience does not imply being fully aware of your situation. You can be aware of yourself and confused by your situation.
2) Awareness of your situation does not imply being aware of alternate situations to compare it to.
3) Even if the fetus was aware of alternate situation to compare it to it still might not feel tortured since it has not become addicted to social interaction yet.

Sentiencemeansthe abilityto sense,as in proprioception.

If this was a point of semantics, then I stand corrected - your refinement of terms is quite justified.  I was using the more colloquial understanding of the term, as that seemed to be the tone in which it was first used.

However, this point simply strengthens my argument.  Sticking to a strict definition of sentience, we can replace the emotionally-charged 'fetus' with the more neutral choice of 'rat.' After all, carrying a rat to term is likely to be quite deleterious to the mother's health; a rat is sentient enough to be useful as a model, but not self-aware enough to cause many ethics issues (as far as actual studies go); and the work has been done on it, making it easier to reference harder data.

A rat would not be aware of its situation, or alternates to it, then, would be your argument.  If it is unaware of alternatives to its sorry lot, it may well not feel tortured, or pained, is then a potential argument.

Spoiler for Counter-Point:

Sadly, it's also an irrelevant argument.  Science has a few things to say about the physiological harm caused by isolation:

www.j-pbs.org/pdf/171/muchimapura.pdf  - Rats reared in isolation exhibit similar hormonal and neuronal abnormalities to schizophrenics;

Neonatal rats' ability to sense the world develop abnormally when reared in isolation

There are more, but all this formatting is giving me a headache - .  Basically, the jist of the evidence thus far collected is that social behaviours are hard-wired into the very way mammals develop - they are as much an 'addiction' as glucose, sodium, and phosphorus are, at least as far as neuronal development is concerned.

So, the choices, as I see them, are still:

i) Bring the fetus (er.... rat) to term: a) the mother will die; b) the child (er.... rat) will develop abnormally, due to having been sensate without stimuli during the first 9 months of its life; ergo c) the mother dies, having held a sensate, social creature in solitary confinement, and having doomed it to, at best, a sub-par life (with a good chance of very strong anti-social behaviours developing/harm to others down the line).

ii) Abort.  a) the mother will live; b) the fetus (rat) will have been euthanized (a word carefully chosen, and not as a euphemism); ergo c) the mother, having done essentially what anyone working at an animal shelter has to do on regular basis, lives on to work out what lessons are to be learned from the experience.  Probably to find a new breeding partner, is my guess.

Verdict: changing 'sentient fetus' to 'rat' doesn't change anything, as a sense of self is irrelevant to the question of sentience; except, of course, that it allows us to look at hard data collected from what would be unconscionable experiments to perform on humans.

Those data show that measurable harm is done to social mammals, due to social isolation and lack of stimuli, on a biological level.  Regardless of the question of awareness of contrafactual situations.

Therefore, though both choices may be repugnant, the only ethically defensible choice is to limit the harm done, from a Utilitarian position, by saving one human life (and preventing future harm to not only the child born developmentally stunted, but also motherless - also preventing potential harm to society as a whole [which leads to criminal psychology, a fascinating but completely tangential discussion]), at the expense of ending the life of what is functionially equivalent to an emotionally and physiologically aberrant rat.

1) Initially the specific case was addressed and then the thread moved onto the general case as would be expected in this kind of thread.
2) Usually the specific case cannot be solved if there are relevant but varying premises of the general case that are not specified by the specific case. In this case: the requirement for moral consideration, the limits to the rights of the woman and how the moral consideration and rights would interact.
3) Finally this case does bring up an interesting question of whether the fetus qualifies for moral agency. Aka does the fetus's choice to stay attached/become stillborn fall under ethics or is it an amoral choice as a result of not qualifying for moral agency?

Spoiler for Responses:

1.  Initially, the specific case was questioned on its vagueness, then edited, then refuted by its own poster, then generally lost in the confusion of discussion of specific terms tangential to the originals, etc.... as would be expected in this kind of thread.

I found, personally, that the situation presented in the OP, as it stands at the time of my writing this (and as it was when I first replied) was both fascinating and inadequately explored. 

2.  This is what drew me to this thread in the first place.  By the very vagueness of the OP, one is able to argue nearly any position, by manipulating the hidden assumptions behind our scenario's creation in the first place.  Are there any general, universal human ethoi which are applicable, even in a world wherein a 4-celled zygote with no nervous system can be described as 'sentient?'  From this angle, I looked to some of the most global statements of ethics I could summon - the Universal Declaration of Rights.  Notably, this document itself is filled with 'relevant and varying premises' - particularly articles 3, 4, 5, 9, and 25.  It seems, as a whole, we value liberty and self-determination above life.  Do these general principles apply to this specific situation, in a contrafactual world?   I took the side that they would, and do - ergo, abortion.  I believe the requirement for ethical consideration was stated pretty clearly: 'Looking at it from an outside point of view, do you believe it would be ethical for the woman to abort the child to save her own life, or should she have to die and let the child live? why or why not?'

3.  That's a discussion I'd be very interested in having with you, and anyone else, OT.  Of course, being male, anything I'd have to say on the matter ought to be taken with a grain of salt!

TL;DR - OldTrees posted some interesting points.  memimemi replied with some long-winded responses.  Somewhere, a squirrel dropped an acorn.  Squirrel don't care 'bout ethics; smug squirrel.

Cheers to those who waded through all that!

[mesaprotector]

I do care about ethics, my ethics are just different from yours.

Incidentally, sentience is something we shouldn't even get into. There are respected philosophers who argue that machines are sentient, and destroying a machine, even for no reason at all, is not controversial.

Anyone want to actually go back to the topic?

[OldTrees]

Sentiencemeansthe abilityto sense,as in proprioception.

If this was a point of semantics, then I stand corrected - your refinement of terms is quite justified.  I was using the more colloquial understanding of the term, as that seemed to be the tone in which it was first used.

However, this point simply strengthens my argument.  Sticking to a strict definition of sentience, we can replace the emotionally-charged 'fetus' with the more neutral choice of 'rat.' After all, carrying a rat to term is likely to be quite deleterious to the mother's health; a rat is sentient enough to be useful as a model, but not self-aware enough to cause many ethics issues (as far as actual studies go); and the work has been done on it, making it easier to reference harder data.

A rat would not be aware of its situation, or alternates to it, then, would be your argument.  If it is unaware of alternatives to its sorry lot, it may well not feel tortured, or pained, is then a potential argument.

Spoiler for Counter-Point:

Sadly, it's also an irrelevant argument.  Science has a few things to say about the physiological harm caused by isolation:

www.j-pbs.org/pdf/171/muchimapura.pdf  - Rats reared in isolation exhibit similar hormonal and neuronal abnormalities to schizophrenics;

Neonatal rats' ability to sense the world develop abnormally when reared in isolation

There are more, but all this formatting is giving me a headache - .  Basically, the jist of the evidence thus far collected is that social behaviours are hard-wired into the very way mammals develop - they are as much an 'addiction' as glucose, sodium, and phosphorus are, at least as far as neuronal development is concerned.

So, the choices, as I see them, are still:

i) Bring the fetus (er.... rat) to term: a) the mother will die; b) the child (er.... rat) will develop abnormally, due to having been sensate without stimuli during the first 9 months of its life; ergo c) the mother dies, having held a sensate, social creature in solitary confinement, and having doomed it to, at best, a sub-par life (with a good chance of very strong anti-social behaviours developing/harm to others down the line).

ii) Abort.  a) the mother will live; b) the fetus (rat) will have been euthanized (a word carefully chosen, and not as a euphemism); ergo c) the mother, having done essentially what anyone working at an animal shelter has to do on regular basis, lives on to work out what lessons are to be learned from the experience.  Probably to find a new breeding partner, is my guess.

Verdict: changing 'sentient fetus' to 'rat' doesn't change anything, as a sense of self is irrelevant to the question of sentience; except, of course, that it allows us to look at hard data collected from what would be unconscionable experiments to perform on humans.

Those data show that measurable harm is done to social mammals, due to social isolation and lack of stimuli, on a biological level.  Regardless of the question of awareness of contrafactual situations.

Therefore, though both choices may be repugnant, the only ethically defensible choice is to limit the harm done, from a Utilitarian position, by saving one human life (and preventing future harm to not only the child born developmentally stunted, but also motherless - also preventing potential harm to society as a whole [which leads to criminal psychology, a fascinating but completely tangential discussion]), at the expense of ending the life of what is functionially equivalent to an emotionally and physiologically aberrant rat.

I agree that for your argument, the rat is the ideal model to start with. It isolates the factor (isolation) that you are suggesting is added by earlier development of sentience.
Hmm. How soon does damage start to occur? Rat gestation time is ~22 days.

2) Usually the specific case cannot be solved if there are relevant but varying premises of the general case that are not specified by the specific case. In this case: the requirement for moral consideration, the limits to the rights of the woman and how the moral consideration and rights would interact.
3) Finally this case does bring up an interesting question of whether the fetus qualifies for moral agency. Aka does the fetus's choice to stay attached/become stillborn fall under ethics or is it an amoral choice as a result of not qualifying for moral agency?

Spoiler for Responses:

2.  This is what drew me to this thread in the first place.  By the very vagueness of the OP, one is able to argue nearly any position, by manipulating the hidden assumptions behind our scenario's creation in the first place.  Are there any general, universal human ethoi which are applicable, even in a world wherein a 4-celled zygote with no nervous system can be described as 'sentient?'  From this angle, I looked to some of the most global statements of ethics I could summon - the Universal Declaration of Rights.  Notably, this document itself is filled with 'relevant and varying premises' - particularly articles 3, 4, 5, 9, and 25.  It seems, as a whole, we value liberty and self-determination above life.  Do these general principles apply to this specific situation, in a contrafactual world?   I took the side that they would, and do - ergo, abortion.  I believe the requirement for ethical consideration was stated pretty clearly: 'Looking at it from an outside point of view, do you believe it would be ethical for the woman to abort the child to save her own life, or should she have to die and let the child live? why or why not?'

3.  That's a discussion I'd be very interested in having with you, and anyone else, OT.  Of course, being male, anything I'd have to say on the matter ought to be taken with a grain of salt!

2a. My foundation comes from Philosophy classes (hence the use of "moral consideration" which might be synonymous with "ethical consideration"). As such I give moral theories more weight than compromised declarations. If only for the reason that moral theories have proofs that can be double checked for relevance when in counterfactual worlds.
2b. The question "What is the requirement for moral consideration?" is not necessarily answered by the question "Is it abortion ethical to save the mother?". More likely the answer to the first question is part of the details to consider in order to answer the second question.

An example of an answer to "What is the requirement for moral consideration?" is John Stuart Mill's answer. Mill said that it is the capacity to suffer that is the requirement for moral consideration. Others answers range from capacity to reason, having a soul, or being alive.

3.

A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

How do you think this would change the case?

[memimemi]

Hmm. How soon does damage start to occur? Rat gestation time is ~22 days.

Some data on rat/human time scales.

This question is one I can't answer definitavely, due to the difficulty of designing a rigourous experiment.  It seems, from experiments in chicks, that even they exhibit aberrant behaviours (scratching, pecking, self-mutilation) after having been isolated.  In that experiment, iirc, it was a matter of some 12 hrs before any effects were noted, and a couple days before they became irreversible.  A point to note is that although both groups showed anti-social behaviour, chicks separated from birth were more likely to be aggressive, whereas those isolated after a few days with broodmates were more likely to be withdrawn and self-destructive.

Side note: if anyone reading this can think of a way of testing the effects of sentience IN the womb, in rats, marmots, hyenas, what have you, design it, publish it, and collect your honourary degrees! 

2a. My foundation comes from Philosophy classes (hence the use of "moral consideration" which might be synonymous with "ethical consideration"). As such I give moral theories more weight than compromised declarations. If only for the reason that moral theories have proofs that can be double checked for relevance when in counterfactual worlds.
2b. The question "What is the requirement for moral consideration?" is not necessarily answered by the question "Is it abortion ethical to save the mother?". More likely the answer to the first question is part of the details to consider in order to answer the second question.

An example of an answer to "What is the requirement for moral consideration?" is John Stuart Mill's answer. Mill said that it is the capacity to suffer that is the requirement for moral consideration. Others answers range from capacity to reason, having a soul, or being alive.

Solid points; from the tone of the discussion thus far, though, I think a discussion of, say, Bentham/Mills' Utilitarianism vs. say, Kantian Aesthetics, vs. Rand's Objective self-interest, would be outside the scope of the thread.  Should another be started, I'd be glad to nitpick over these ideas!

As far as the question and scenario posed in the OP go, I think it fair to just accept a priori that: a) this IS a question of universal (or 'absolute,' if you prefer) ethical considerations; b) there DOES exist a single, binary, yes/no answer to be gleaned from a universal set of ethics; and c) this WILL create a really long thread that makes for great fun for a bunch of nerds on a virtual card-flop gaming site.

At least, a) and b) seem implied - c) has existential evidence on its side!

3.

A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

How do you think this would change the case?

If you're asking 'assuming that our fetus is not only sentient, but a moral agent as well, what is the ethical position in re: abortion,' then my answer is that it would be adding yet another layer of abstraction and complexity to an already credibility-stretching scenario.

It would also expand the question into spaces where any answer I could provide, with my limited (okay, complete and utter lack of) experience with having a sentient, moral agent inside me, with the (apparent) express purpose of ending my existence hard-wired into its own.  One game-changing assumption at a time, please!

I do care about ethics, my ethics are just different from yours.

Incidentally, sentience is something we shouldn't even get into. There are respected philosophers who argue that machines are sentient, and destroying a machine, even for no reason at all, is not controversial.

Anyone want to actually go back to the topic?

Oh.  I see what you did there.

Though I agree with your point, the topic has sentience built right into itself.  And which philosophers argue that machines are sentient?  I'm keen to know, as their ethoi concerning machines' rights as sentient beings would quite likely be relevant to this discussion.

Afaik, destroying a machine is not controversial to most (all?) of us, because we don't see it as sentient.  For those beings that are demonstrably sentient, there are plenty of controversies regarding their use, even in the creation of life-saving medicines for humans. 

[northcity4]

So can anyone clarify a solid definition of what a 'human' is?

Some responses:
1) sentient or not?
2) can it differentiate between morals or not?
3) religious people say it's because god created, therefore it is human (not here to discuss this point).

When I first read this post all people talked about was human (specifically women) rights regarding the womb and as the situation got more complex, I saw it didn't matter, it mattered more if the baby was human or not. Should I start a thread asking if babies, or fetus' for that matter are humans? Even my professors who teach biology and chemistry admit a human is more than genetics.

Any ideas?

[OldTrees]

So can anyone clarify a solid definition of what a 'human' is?

One definition is:
Kingdom:   Animalia
     Phylum:   Chordata
          Subphylum:   Vertebrata
               Class:   Mammalia
                    Subclass:   Theria
                         Infraclass:   Eutheria
                              Order:   Primates
                                   Suborder:  Anthropoidea
                                        Superfamily:   Hominoidea
                                             Family:   Hominidae
                                                  Genus:   Homo
                                                       Species:   sapiens

However this definition is not especially useful to the topic of abortion. It does tell us that humans have increased intellegence relative to most other primates. They tend to be sentient. By this definition human embryos are human. However that statement does not generate much moral significance under this definition.

PS: Is your question really what a human is? What about the abortion of klingon (to use a fictional example) embryos? Klingons are not human.