Would have replied on the other thread, but the sprawl thing...

Human at conception. This is primarily a religious viewpoint, but some scientists use it on the grounds that this is a gray area we should not tread in, and should therefore choose the most inclusive definition of life.

Human at the point of detectable neural activity, which is somewhere around 18 weeks of pregnancy, and is definitely way before birth.

To respond Tac's comment about separating humans and apes via Turing test and being able to communicate. Apes(such as chimps) are in fact able to communicate with each other and to some degree, with humans. For example, it has been shown that apes can learn sign language(to some extent) or point pictures that make words(written language). In one situation, the chimp pointed out symbols for(or was it the sign language, I can't remember for sure) rice and sauce when the caretaker gave it some rice to eat. From this, the caretaker understood that the chimp wanted to have some soy sauce with it's rice, as the caretaker had forgotten to add it to the meal(the rice was usually served with soy sauce, so the chimp pointed out that the sauce was missing).

So, the apes are capable of thinking and communicating(apes are not capable of speech due to the structure of their mouth, but such should not be the defining factor, as there are mute humans too, who can clearly be judged sentient), even though they are not of our species nor are they as intelligent as we are. Also, I'd like to point out that Turing test has been made for testing intelligence of computers programs, so its suitability for judging intelligence of human being is questionable. Computer programs do not have an infant stage and judging infant humans by the standards set to computer programs is plain ridiculous. An infant is not human because it does not know things right now? Quite frankly, that's just ####. Where exactly should the line be drawn for abortion I'm not quite sure about, but the kid is sentient enough by the time of birth. I'd probably draw the line somewhere between fetus and embryo.

Many animals appear "smart" by the way that they react. My dogs have learned very fast, to heel, to sit, and other things. I know Apes can learn a lot more, and so can large birds for that matter. My question though, and my opinion is that animals learn and react on instinct. I do not believe they "think" like people do. I'm not an "animal rights activist," far from it, but I do believe they should all be cared for. However, I'm a big advocate of hunting, fishing, and pest elimination. (ie woodchucks are a huge problem for farmers as they dig large yet hard to see holes that can literaly break the wheels and axles off wagons.)

Sorry to use a farm analogy, but thats where I grew up. Anyway, sporadic thought patterns are my downfall!

With my dog, "sandwich" means sit, "burrito" means lay down, "eggroll" is left paw, and "taquito" means right paw. The downside is, whenever somebody says the word "sit", he starts drooling and looking toward the refrigerator. Does that make him really smart, him really stupid, or myself an idiot?

Stanley Coren does a pretty good write up of intelligence in dogs and he would say yes, but I disagree with his weighting of learning ability and problem solving ability.

The best thing to remember when you start thinking of dogs as smart is that a dog in a kennel will pee in it's only source of freshwater when it is 100+ degrees outside.