This is exactly correct and should be the crux of all debate on the issue. Until there are synapses firing in the neocortex it is not a human being. Our brain is what defines life at the end of our lives and it's what should be the defining characteristic at the beginning. Before there is high level brain function we are merely a grouping of cells with the potential for human life, but not human.

This is akin to asking if should we cut off an arm to make burgers when we are hungry. Sacrificing long term well being, for short term gain, doesn't make sense. And there is no reason why a country can't be developed while also protecting the environment. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm going with men, but really it's a matter of perspective of what people value.

Women generally speaking(everything must be general in this debate) have more friends, their emotional well being is given more weight, and they are largely the choosers in relationships, which usually means more power in the relationships.

The down side is they are judged more for their sexual conduct, judged on their appearance more, paid less, and are subject to misogynistic views where they are viewed as inferior. Ostensibly they have a greater chance to be happier if they get past the negatives.

While a real calculation would seem difficult, what is there seems pretty cut and dried. There is no empirical evidence to support theistic claims, and most, if not all, of the claims can be disproven. And there is no empirical evidence that suggests atheists are wrong. No evidence of a soul, no evidence of a deity, and thus far we've been able to come up with a pretty good working model of our universe, from which the supernatural is entirely absent.