Actually, I've gone into quite a bit of detail on what I consider constituting the threshold of being a 'person'. I've read through a number of the articles you have linked to, and find myself unconvinced. They all boil down to 'personhood just is, and that's that'. As one of the articles says "a person is more than a bundle of cells and protoplasm that the biologist can identify as an individual of the species homo sapiens". My argument is that a person, to be a person and not just a mass of cells, requires sentience. A functioning brain (or equivalent) and nervous system. A body without a mind is not a person. A mind without a body (if such a thing can exist) may well be.
Only one of the articles even touched upon that aspect, and there it simply danced alongside it, stating that such a view would cause conflict with those who want 'more human' brainwave detection. There is really no conflict there. If there is brain wave activity, then the fetus is an individual. 'More human' smacks of bigotry.
((It seems there is a limit on how deep replies can nest))
1, 3, &4: Well first, from the point of view of a tech guy, 'You have backed up recently, right?' :) More seriously, if you had someone sitting at your desk, at your computer, deleting your files, would you kill him? After all, he is deleting all your files. If the sentient AI was actively hostile, I'd except for it to be treated as any other hostile sentient. If the AI is Skynet, then it's a matter of it or humanity, and self-defense comes into play. If the AI is more childlike, it may not know what it is doing, and execution for the AI equivalent of knocking over a glass of juice onto daddy's laptop and frying the hard drive seems rather harsh.
2: I thought that was possession. Intent is certainly important, but these days it seems to be being diminished in importance in favor of 'zero tolerance' enforcement.
We are all more than just atheists. I would expect someone who can withhold both communistic and libertarian views, not to mention the myriad of all of your other adjectives, to also hold both pro-choice as well as anti-abortion views.
But what is freedom?
In American political dialog, "pro-X" means "pro-right to X". For instance, I am pro-gambling, but I still see gambling as a stupid thing to do. I am pro-gun, and I *also* think everyone should own a gun. Following this pattern, "pro-choice" means "pro-right to choose". Sounds good on the surface, but think harder. "Choose" is a transitive verb. Right to choose what? Choose to own a gun or choose to rob a bank? Choose to gamble or choose to rape your daughter? Choose to be a prostitute or choose to murder? There exists a right to do this and a right to do that, but no right to choose. What are we talking about?
Pro-choice on gambling is pro-gambling. Pro-choice on owning slaves is pro-slavery. Pro-choice on owning guns is pro-gun. Pro-choice on having an abortion is pro-abortion. "Pro-X" can also be translated as "pro-choice on X" or "pro-right to choose X".
Now let's examine "pro-life". Pro-life = pro-right to live.
"Live" is an intransitive verb. You live, and that's it. You don't live anything but a life. "Pro-life", like "pro-choice", encompasses more than abortion, however. "Pro-life" refers to a Consistent Life Ethic.
Freedom is the right to do anything you want short of the initiation of force or fraud.