I’m pretty confident in my views on the subject, but it isn’t a very important issue for me.
There is no philosophical middle ground... Either a human being is a person (whose unjustified killing would constitute murder) from conception, or a human being is not a person until it attains higher cognitive function, the capacity for self-motivated action, the ability to communicate, self-awareness, etc.
If one believes the latter, then a human being is not a person until even well after birth. This would not allow killing infants though, as even a human being which is not a person has rights, and those rights would no longer be in conflict with the woman’s (who can give the baby up for adoption).
My logical conception of personhood leans toward the latter, but I’m afraid of the consequences were that view to take hold among people at large. I think the pro-life view is best for society, even if I question its philosophical basis.
What would it be then? A dog? A cat? A toaster?
An unborn child can only be a human being at a particular stage of development. Why would a person only be accorded the right to life at a specific stage of development? And if the right to life could be accorded on this basis, this so-called right wouldn't really be an unalienable right attached to personhood. It would be an arbitrary bestowal of legal protection.
Well, at least you stopped short of making math skills and reading comprehension part of the criteria.