Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[SteveII]

No, because human babies are necessarily (it can be no other way) developing toward a known potential. Picking a point along the way to draw a line of value is arbitrary.

You quoted this from Wikipedia:

Consciousness is a loosely defined concept that addresses the human awareness of both internal and external stimuli. This can refer to spiritual recognition, psychological understanding, medically altered states, or more modern-day concepts of life purpose, satisfaction, and self-actualization.

Couldn't non-human animals be on the lower end of the spectrum of such consciousness, while humans are further along the spectrum? It doesn't seem like there is a strictly categorical difference between human and non-human consciousness. After all, empirical evidence has shown that, even in some non-human animals, there is some basic recognition of the self. Heard of Alex the parrot? You should google it.

Sure there is a spectrum. But there very much is a significant difference between human and non-human consciousness. Awareness of self isn't the only thing (and I don't think there is empirical evidence that any animal comes close to the self-awareness we have). There are matters of introspection, the use of language, abstract objects/thoughts, reasoning/rationalizing/motivation, morality (difference between is and ought), investigation, invention, creativity, imagination, aesthetics, etc. 

Assigning a baby (unborn or newborn--doesn't really matter) value by trying to find the right animal to compare its current state of development to seems ludicrous to me.