An argument against elective abortion

[The Omnissiunt One]

It is not about Homo sapiens being special; it is about Homo sapiens being the subject. It is a fallacy to construe an argument against the killing of X innocent creatures as being in any way for the killing of all ~X innocent creatures.

In that case, to avoid being arbitrary, you would have to say that it's wrong to kill any being with the same attributes as an embryo at any stage, which would probably include bacteria at the earliest stage. To avoid this problem, you must show the moral significance of homo sapiens.

Interesting. What species, then, might a 28-week old fetus belong to?

It is not a human in a moral sense, in any meaningful sense. A dead body of a human is genetically a member of homo sapiens, but we do not accord it the same rights as a living, fully developed human being.

Again, interesting. So on your view, sexually molesting a coma patient is not a moral issue.

That would depend on a) the reactions of those close to the patient and b) the chances of recovery of the patient and that he or she would find out. Otherwise, no, from my view, not particularly.

In what way is 'species' an arbitrary category but 'self-awareness' is not?

Because self-awareness provides a being with the desire to continue living, and with the capacity to make plans for the future which would be thwarted if it were killed. That's from a utilitarian perspective. Unless you deny that a stone is morally worth less than a cat, you can't deny that it's a being's sentience that counts. What then surely makes a human worth more than a cat is his or her rich emotional life, interests in living to achieve plans, etc., all of which is dependent on self-awareness.

Species, however, is entirely arbitrary. If you disagree, you must show why.