Animals are capableof feeling pain also, and must do so when killed. You can only speak from that position if you have never directly or indirectly contributed to the death of an animal.

The real question is; does it deserve full human rights? It doesn't, because it is fundamentally(not temporarily) incapable of what many humans can do. We need to consider its rights against the other people that are affected: in each case a moral decision can be made, but an outright ban after a certain time/development milestone is stupid and insensitive to the wider situation. 

For all the pro-choice people, should parents just be allowed to kill their baby until it turns one year old if they change their mind or decide they made a mistake and want to get a divorce or just because...?

@fkusumot

It's not a poor argument. If I am aware to the point that I have sensory perception, then I am aware of my own existence (even if I have yet to develop the intelligence or vocabulary to express the idea). If I can feel pain, for example, then I must be aware in order to feel it, and self-aware to realise that it is me who is feeling the pain.

 You're really failing. It's like you don't understand Descarte at all, or is that your own argument?

Pro-Life.

No, you've done backwards logic there.

You are saying: we see foetuses feeling pain -> pain implies self-awareness -> foetuses are self-aware

All you can actually conclude from that is that the foetuses aren't feeling pain but rather we are seeing a simple chemical response, rather than that foetuses have self-awareness.

There is a difference between an unborn child and one that has been born.

What, besides for a few hours of labor and delivery?