The ant doesn't feel pain, it just dies, just like the lobster.

So awareness is out.
pain/feeling/nervous system is out.

So would a good measure be the moment the baby takes it first gulp of air, breathes in, then lets our a cry? Once it takes that first breath and starts crying it is considered "alive in the world" breathing on its own.

?

There has to be something that determines when a baby has rights or is considered a human, or when its considered "wrong to kill it". If not, or if you cant think of any, then you could stretch it and say the baby doesnt have rights until hes 18.

For us commoners its a complex problem to solve.

The right answer would probably come from a Politician/Doctor/Philosopher.

From a politican? What do fucking politicians know about this? The only thing politicians know is what other people tell them. Philosophers look at things too abstractly. They're not after the truth, just after something that sounds wise, so I don't thrust them either.
The only people qualified to determine things like this would be specialized biologists or doctors.

Doctors could tell you the scientific argument.

Politicians could give the political one.

Philosophers could give you the philosophical.

There is more than just simply a scientific answer.

Yeah Derf is right in this one. Its like the question of GM crops. Morally it isn't a good idea sometimes.

Morality is bullshit.

Morality is most definately bullshit idd.

A little while ago, i conducted an experiment on another message board and asked a few general people too (Satis might remember, atleast i think it was Satis).

Basically i asked about 40 people 2 questions based on morality or ethics.

The first was something along the lines of:

'Would you sacrifice one persons life, for the life of one million others to be saved? If you fail to choose those million people will not be saved'

The results of this one was that there were about 35 votes saying yes and 5 saying no.

Then the other question (cunningly asked later) was:

'Supposing one man today has the answer to the AIDS cure inside his body. Supposing we need his body (and life) to find the cure, and he refuses to sacrifice it, should we forcefully sacrifice him in the name of science and humanity so that we can possibly save many millions of people?'

Now, the results of this one were of THE SAME MAJOROTY as the first question but flipped around totally in the opposite direction. That is, about 35 people said NO to forcefully sacrificing this man.

So there we have it, morality is a load of bullshit because people openly contradict themselves. They do so somewhere between ethical concept and ethical context. In other words, many people have open views and beliefs of things they call morals, but when they are confronted with a real life situation many of them forget about their morals or think theyre not suitable anymore.