Sivad wrote:Well that's not the argument, the argument is that personhood requires at the very least an initial experience of conscious awareness.
That's just an assertion, not an argument. We could also define "personhood" as having the capacity for consciousness, consistent with our general view that being asleep, unconscious or sedated doesn't mean somebody's life can be taken without repercussions.
Sivad wrote:The article presented multiple lines of evidence, dismissing it as "creative guesswork" is motivated reasoning on your part.
The author himself admits that guesswork is involved when he "wagers" that the foetus experiences nothing in the womb. I'm not familiar with the evidence on this, but I'm willing to bet that our understanding of consciousness in the foetus is even more limited than in general, and any strong claim that we can deduce "personhood" from the evidence available will almost invariably be motivated reasoning.