Real abortion debate

I am of the mind that really when it comes to abortion we need to get off the subject of choice or not, also the whole conservative vs liberal debate. It's not about politics, it's the deep dark mores of our society.

What is human life is the real question. It's simple, we take human life as sacred, or do we? Let us just state it as a fact, there is a sanctity to human life, and it should never be lost or taken in vain. If it is in vain we refer to it as a tragedy, even if it was not in vain, but for a abhorrent cause, again a tragedy.

So lets look at human life, there are basically two vantage points that you can take here. The early and the late.

The early view is at conception, simply the building blocks for human life are all there, the cellular structure is complete and a human is growing. Any loss of life after this point is the loss of a human. This is the summery of the early view.

The late view is much different, and is tied to what makes us truly different from all other organisms that we are aware of, and more simply it is this awareness. It is what makes a dog bark at it's own reflection in the mirror and an adult human inspecting themselves in the mirror.

I have noticed that some animals are able to understand this basic premise of reflection though and are not so fooled. Because of this awareness in animals, we then need to look at what truly makes us different. That being the ability to abstract thought.

Human life then starts at the point in which the individual is able to reason on their own. That they can study information and make a choice. They are aware that they are a person, and that other people think differently than they might.

Now this is not to say that homosepians that have not reached the level of understanding we shall label as reasoning, does not allow for us to abuse or degrade them, they simply are not fully human and cannot make choice themselves. Someone that reason's needs to be responsible for that non-reasoner. We see this in the elderly a lot. Any time the individual that was once reasoning, and then degenerates to a point that they aren't, they then become a ward of a family member or the state. So this isn't a new thought at all.

What this does conclude is that birth is not a state at which the creature with the genetic markings to be human actually changes to a state of humanity. They are the same unreasoning creature they were in the womb, so their protections should be no different. This continues till around the age of 8 or 9 normally, when about 2/3rds of them start to form this ideal we call the reasoning mind, and those 2/3rds are fully reasoning (though not very well for the most part) by the age of 12 or 13. The other third, well they never are able to truly reason or have abstract thought, they never really are able to grasp the world beyond that of a well trained primate. They have the same vocabulary at ability to speak and function in society, but are not truly thinking.

All creatures that are non-reasoning then should be ward's of a human, which is by nature reasoning. Again this does not allow for abuse, but it does mean that they are not in charge of their own destiny.

I challenge anyone to bring more to this thesis. We are not going to debate abortion, but the mores and philosophy behind our society making a rational and reasoned choice on the matter.