As I said, for children, there is the potential for life for consciousness, and for neurodivergent people, the "consciousness" at a higher level is paramount. O

As I said, for children, there is the potential for life for consciousness, and for neurodivergent people, the "consciousness" at a higher level is paramount. Of course, how you define a higher level is a question, I admit. Once you draw the line, there should be a level of equality in that group, like a "more cognizant being" doesn't get more value than a "less cognizant being", for example, a child doesn't have more value than an adult, although sure, adults can make decisions children cannot. That said, and this is something I don't think everyone will agree with, I think the rights of cognizant beings are more important than for beings which aren't. For example, I'm pro-choice personally, and I find the rights of a cognizant mother more important that that of a clog of cells even if they have potential to become a cognizant being eventually. Of course, once a child is born, it becomes another issue because an infant is more aware in some sense, has viability, and greater potential for becoming a cognizant being. Another opinion I have is, for example, I have no problem with say guardians deciding to pull the plug on individuals in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. I personally, and call me all the names you want, value the rights of cognizant beings or beings with potential for cognition as more important that that of beings which aren't. Finally, regardless of logical consistency of any sense of morality, I actually think that ultimately it isn't that important as material and social context, and I personally believe that whatever we decide will always be subject to that ultimately.