New Iowa Law Restricts Abortion To Before Most Women Know They're Pregnant

[Amarok]

No you could not use evolution as justification to say mentally disabled people as less human . And already made the distinction between someone who is disabled and a fetus . So this is disingenuous.

---

So where do you put that threshold then?    It would seem that what you are talking about, that there is no significant change, when the baby is born.   So this would seem to put the limit either before (possibly between the 2nd and 3rd trimester)  or if you raise the bar (you had mentioned other animals) it could be as late as 4 years old or so.  It all depends on when you arbitrarily put that line on what you consider human.  

Personally I prefer a biological point of view, in which the fetus is most definitely human.  However for the intelligence thing, could we possibly give them the Kalam cosmological argument, and see how many false fallacies, and how many times they contradict themselves?  One could make the case from a natural selection and evolutionary standpoint to make stupid people less than human.

I think I would put it at 24-28 weeks, which is also when the fetus can be viable. I took a cursory look at Kaalam's Cosmological argument and I don't see how it applies here. I find it inconsistent that it makes the exception for the concept that everything has a cause that came before it, for god. I don't see a reason why he gets an exception. You could say it's just possible that some things existed forever, that's what some physicists think about the Universe. At least that it existed in some form, which may have been energy. Also if some things existed forever, that blows out 2/3 to 3/4 of the argument.

Indeed Kalam is a classic case of special pleading. and no amount of saying "but only things that begin to exist count " helps the theist on that one .