Saddleback point: At what point is a life a life?

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Vic
But if you must know, the change Obama is offering is that he is not yet another corrupt Republican warmonger who wins elections by being 'Moses' to non-thinking religious zealots with an agenda. And after 8 years of that nonsense, and 4 more explicitly threatened by McCain despite the pressing need of a sagging economy, is this really that confusing?
Do you really believe that, this time around, you're going to be able to convince people that abortion and teh gays are America's top political priorities while Americans are losing their jobs and their homes? Or that the most important item for American tax dollars to be spent on is some seemingly endless war against a country that never attacked us, while the terrorists who did attack us have nearly completed their take-over of a country that has nukes, Pakistan?

Your words "teh gays".

Yes, Obamessiah is dreamy. :roll: You are just another Kool-Aid drinker.

Anyone who claims 8 plus 4... whatever dude. Go log on to moveon.org and tell them how you are corrupting this messageboard. :laugh:

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Conky
I'm spoonfed because I don't think the government should control every aspect of my life literally from cradle to grave? I'm glad you have so much confidence in placing the control of every aspect of your life to people that couldn't get a job in corporate USA if their lives depended on it.

Really?... which is why you're rabidly anti-abortion, right? Because you don't want govt controlling every aspect of your life, just someone else's life? Your words and your actions do not line up. Like I said, 'spoonfed.' Because you don't even realize your own hypocrisy.
Shall we bring up other big government issues? Maybe the Patriot Act, Drug War, Bush's Medicare Act, etc etc. I'm willing to bet Paypal that we'll find out that you're anything but a small govt libertarian in no time flat.

Here's a tip for you... McCain was never and will never be considered a conservative no matter how much the moveon.org people try and push that stupid "McSame" nonsense down other non-thinking assholes throats.

Where did I say "McSame?" Oh, I didn't. So, as with most of your other replies in this thread, you must have just pulled that right out of your ass.
However, that the Republicans are running (yet again) such a known corrupt authoritarian non-conservative for President, however, is telling in just how far it has strayed from the conservative ideal. That wouldn't bother me, except that the party faithful are still going to vote for him. Actions speak louder than words.

You think Obama is some kind of answer. What the hell is the change he is offering besides wind-powered and solar-powered cars? You think I'm being funny but seriously... wtf is this guy offering other than unspecified bullshit? And why does unspecified bullshit appeal to you so much? Please tell me, I am desperate to understand why people are so hot to believe in absolutely nothing.

And where did I say that Obama is 'some kind of answer?' It's no wonder you can't understand something that isn't true. It's amazing how the spoonfed can't figure that the whole 'ObamaMessiah' crap is just mudslinging from supporters of the McCain campaign. And here you just chastised me for "that stupid' McSame' nonsense" that I've never even said. WTG dude.

But if you must know, the change Obama is offering is that he is not yet another corrupt Republican warmonger who wins elections by being 'Moses' to non-thinking religious zealots with a moral authoritarian agenda. And after 8 years of that nonsense, and 4 more explicitly threatened by McCain despite the pressing need of a sagging economy, is this really that confusing?
Do you really believe that, this time around, you're going to be able to convince people that abortion and teh gays are America's top political priorities while Americans are losing their jobs and their homes? Or that the most important item for American tax dollars to be spent on is some seemingly endless war against a country that never attacked us, while the terrorists who did attack us have nearly completed their take-over of a country that has nukes, Pakistan?

Sorry, I have more faith in the American people than that.

And since I am getting ready to sleep and can't wait for another moveon.org prescribed opinion....

I have absolutely nothing against gays or "teh gays" as you so jovially call them or hope to push that shit on me. Your attempt to label me is stupid, weak, and just shows your frustration.

You are a broken moveon.org type record that can only repeat the simple things they have planted in your in your mind like "Iraq wasn't behind 9/11" or whatever it takes to distract the attention of simple minded folks and make you send them money, lol.

I am not a fan of McCain but, as is true with most American elections, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Obama is just stupid and ridiculous... more and more people are figuring this out daily. McCain is not my choice as President but compared to Obama... jeez, Barack is not worthy of comment. Even Jesse Jackson wants to cut his nuts off.

And I want a president that cares about this country and I gotta say... at least McCain really cares about this country. Obama... who knows what that elitist idiot wants or cares about other than being emperor of the world?

 

[Moonbeam]

"I am not a fan of McCain but, as is true with most American elections, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Obama is just stupid and ridiculous... more and more people are figuring this out daily. McCain is not my choice as President but compared to Obama... jeez, Barack is not worthy of comment. Even Jesse Jackson wants to cut his nuts off."

And I want a president that cares about this country and I gotta say... at least McCain really cares about this country. Obama... who knows what that elitist idiot wants or cares about other than being emperor of the world?"

This is truly deep and profound reasoning. I am sure now that 9 out of ten doctors agree. McCain cares and Obama does not and so obviously so based on your evidence. Who knows what Obama cares about. So damn true. Who can say? Exactly, who can say. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thank you for showing me how to really think.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
It was YOU who made the analogy between abortion and murder, stating that there's a moral equivalence between allowing people to decide for themselves when to obtain abortions and allowing people to decide for themselves when to commit murder. In other words, you claimed that because "freedom to murder" is rejected by society, "freedom to abort" should also be rejected.

I refuted your nonsensical analogy by showing that society's moral views toward abortion and murder are quite different. Thus, any attitudes about "freedom to murder" are irrelevant to "freedom to abort."

Nice try, attempting to evade responsibility for your typically faulty reasoning.

The only thing you "refuted" is the notion that you understand what an analogy is. If I said that blue:sky:ink:little girls, does that mean I'm stating an equivalence principle between little girls and the sky? This is the logic of your argument.

My statements about murder have absolutely bupkiss to do with abortion. They are the classical philosophical obviation of the fallacy of moral relativism. Since I stated my bit about murder in response to someone's support of moral relativism (as was clearly, clearly indicated in my post), only a complete idiot could take it as anything else. Thankfully, as this is P&N, we have a virtual line out the door to distort my statements.

 

[KIRBYEE]

Why would anyone give their right to abortion away? Why would you let the state take it from you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

My statements about murder have absolutely bupkiss to do with abortion. They are the classical philosophical obviation of the fallacy of moral relativism. Since I stated my bit about murder in response to someone's support of moral relativism (as was clearly, clearly indicated in my post), only a complete idiot could take it as anything else. Thankfully, as this is P&N, we have a virtual line out the door to distort my statements.

But you did not accurately characterize moral relativism. It's ok. Most people don't. I'd be happy to show you the errors of your ways in another thread, if you'd like to start one. OT might be a better venue than P&N, though.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Again, stop putting words in others mouth. Why don't we just read the actual statute and come to our own conclusions. It's pretty short, and here it is:

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

So lets analyze:

This bill defines any living fetus outside the womb, at any stage of development, a person.

That statement alone makes it clear why this bill is totally unacceptable to anyone who is pro-choice: If a fetus (even a one-week-old fetus) happens to survive extraction from the womb, then killing the fetus thereafter is murder. And if the fetus cannot be killed absent fear of prosecution for murder, that means it's the abortion clinic's responsibility to fight to keep the fetus alive. regardless of cost.

Thank God Obama opposes this bill. It has nothing to do with protecting babies. It has everything to do with outlawing abortion.

Oh yeah? How many 1 week old fetuses can even been recognized much less survive outside the womb in that description? Breath, heart beat? Maybe you need to reread when the heart starts to pump. It isnt in the 1st week.

It is clear this is in regards to partial birth abortions. Where babies are born in the 3rd trimester and have a real chance to live outside the womb if delivered. Now how does one survive partial birth abortion? I'd say sloppy workmanship by the doctor where the baby is fully delivered instead of just partially with the head still in the birth canal where its brains are sucked out. And it sounds like a nurse witnessed such a delivery only to let the baby die on its own. Simply ridiculous.

If a baby survives an abortion you better damn well give it basic human rights. It was born under some of the most disgusting circumstances one can think.

In-vitro-fertilized zygotes can live for days. What makes you think that an extracted early-term fetus couldn't be kept alive for hours or even days, given the right laboratory conditions? And therein lies the rub: If the fetus is alive, for however short a time, it's a "person" under the terms of this bill. Thus, the physician who performs the abortion is guilty of killing that "person" - aka "murder" - when the fetus dies a few minutes after extraction unless that physician and the facility in which the physician practices make every possible effort to keep the fetus alive. This bill would require that the entire current post-abortion protocol change on the off-chance that the fetus was living: instead of just discarding the tissue, there would have to be all sorts of required procedures, tests, and documentation to make sure there wasn't a "person" to be protected and/or to PROVE that the best possible efforts were made to keep the "person" alive.

This bill is a slimy attempt to criminalize abortion and/or make it so burdensome on practitioners and facilities that they can't afford to perform abortions. Why else define a fetus "at any stage of development" to be a "person" if it's alive outside the womb, and link that status of person-hood to "the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State"? This is clearly a set-up to make performing abortions so risky for doctors and clinics that they're forced to stop.

You can't possibly be so stupid that you don't recognize why this bill has been drafted.

Edit: Note the amazingly dishonest wording Santorum used in the attack on Obama: "Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born?" And then there was, "The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive." Santorum should be shouted down from the tops of mountains: "Liar! Liar! Liar! Liar!"

Lets not toss rocks within a glass house. IE insult people. Your own quote in part B states the fetus must breath, have a heart beat, move voluntary muscles.

So again I ask, how many 1 week old Fetus's can perform this? If you cant find me any evidence of this then you are being a rabidly stupid hack. One who apparently doesnt even read his own evidence.

Secondly to take that description and try to apply it to 1 week old fetus's is amazingly dishonest. Like I said previous. This bill is obviously meant to protect viable babies who survive late term abortions for whatever reason.

If the baby survives are you telling me they dont deserve the most basic of human rights?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
The premise of the question is flawed.

You are wanting a quantified scientific answer for a philosophical question.

You might as well ask "When was God born" and shout down anyone that is unable to give you a date.

No, it's actually a very simple question.

Go ask a farmer when his cow is pregnant if he expects another cow to be born. He won't argue that it isn't another cow. And if it didn't get born... he will say it was stillborn(died). He won't deny that the cow wasn't ever pregnant to begin with.

It's that effin basic. It's intellectual dishonesty to say that abortion isn't about killing babies.

What is remarkable is that modern minorities have a higher percentage of abortions... I can not for the life of me figure out why this is not a civil rights issue.

Black babies get snuffed and it's not any fairer because Obama wants it. I find the entire issue to be very sad. Pam Anderson cares about PETA and I care about unborn kids regardless of their race.
My cause is not nearly as sexy although I believe that a couple generations from now people will consider us barbarians for our casual attitude towards exterminating the tiniest and least powerful people of our time. We are the modern Nazis.

I know that farming has made great advancements in the last century or so...but forgive me for not taking their OPINION about when life begins as the end-all, be-all authoritative answer.

Abortion is not always about killing babies. That is where you are getting confused. Late term abortions are doing just that. However, to even insinuate that the morning after pill or a early first term abortion is killing a baby shows just how disconnected from reality your "every cell is a living human being" mindset is. Once again, an acorn is not an oak tree despite the ability to develop/evolve/morph into one. A zygote has the potential to develop into a human, but it isn't a human being any more than the acorn is an oak tree.

Now, I am in 100% agreement with Barack on this issue. I would never advocate for an abortion at any stage of the development process of any child of mine. I do not however, have the authority to dictate that no other person has the right to make that decision when it is their body, not mine, being subjected to pregnancy or the vast other health issues that might result from it.

I would like to see abortion rates at zero. Unlike you, McCain, Bush and the other idiots that share your zealotry on this issue, Barack and I are smart enough to realize that the best way of achieving that isn't through mandating it via law. It is through education and providing people with the resources (birth control pill, IUDs, condoms, etc) to prevent it (pregnancy) from occurring in the first place.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
But you did not accurately characterize moral relativism. It's ok. Most people don't. I'd be happy to show you the errors of your ways in another thread, if you'd like to start one. OT might be a better venue than P&N, though.

Yes, please show me the error of your ways. I'll be more than happy to bow to your vastly superior intellect. :roll: Condescending knuckle draggers like yourself who have no clue wtf they're talking about are what P&N are all about these days. Why are you trying to take this to another forum?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
But you did not accurately characterize moral relativism. It's ok. Most people don't. I'd be happy to show you the errors of your ways in another thread, if you'd like to start one. OT might be a better venue than P&N, though.

Yes, please show me the error of your ways. I'll be more than happy to bow to your vastly superior intellect. :roll: Condescending knuckle draggers like yourself...

I'm a "condescending knuckle dragger"? Did you read what you wrote the sentence before that accusation?

Physician, heal thyself!

...who have no clue wtf they're talking about are what P&N are all about these days.

I assure you, I know thoroughly what I am talking about.

Why are you trying to take this to another forum?

Because the issue of moral relativism is neither politics nor news.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
I'm a "condescending knuckle dragger"? Did you read what you wrote the sentence before that accusation?

Apparently, your sarcasm meter is broken. You obviously also missed the :roll:.

I assure you, I know thoroughly what I am talking about.

Yes, so does everyone else here. Everyone on this forum understand everything perfectly and I should just trust them, even after they have demonstrated their ignorance.

Because the issue of moral relativism is neither politics nor news.

It obviously plays a role in the formation of some political viewpoints on this forum, as is obviated by the first post I replied to in this very thread. *punt*

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Despite Warren's nonsense, I will say one thing of McCain - he sure does blink a lot.

"Does life begin at conception?"

Blink blink "I think" blink-blink blink blink "it does." blink blink blink blink blink blink-blink blinkity-blink.

I was thinking it odd that despite the apparent set-up of Obama at this event, in front of a generally friendly audience, being lobbed a softball question for a Republican, McCain was still not fully at ease with most of the questions. I thought it was far more interesting to hear McCain say he believes life begins at the moment of conception. How does he then justify his support of stem-cell research? Once again, McCain talks the talk but can't justify the walk. As for his Cross-in-the-sand tale, anyone read any Russian writers lately?

"If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted."

How many times have I heard this tired old saw from insufferable lifers? assuming 40 million is an accurate figure on the number of abortions since Roe, it actually greatly underestimates the "missing" Americans since these unwanted children would in turn have had millions of their own unwanted offspring since that time.

Except that there is the countervailing fact that many of these abortions would have happened anyway, except unsafely, killing the mother along with the fetus. So maybe it's a wash.

Every time I have to picture the overcrowded, overpopulated, crime-ridden America of today, with another 40 million on top of our 305 million. And not just 40 million of the present demographics, but 40 million unwanted children with parents who cannot or will not support them, who are abusive or criminal, or who are grossly disabled.

A beautiful world these Christianists seek, isn't it? Of course, since they don't believe in any social supports, they would be happy to welcome these 40 million into their own homes.

Plus it's a completely self-defeating argument, that particular one, the "potential" tack. You can take it step by step back to anything, by that logic: If every time two people decide not to have sex when they might have, my god, through history that's billions of people we've murdered!

Anything that starts with "If you believe that..." well, yeah, if I believed that every dust mite was ridden by a tiny Jesus then I'd think that vacuuming was Diecide.

What they just can't accept is the basic axiom, which I swear we need written down somewhere: Just beceause you believe something doesn't mean I have to. I know the constitution says it in so many words but maybe they're the wrong words, these people aren't that patient with long passages.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
I assure you, I know thoroughly what I am talking about.

Yes, so does everyone else here. Everyone on this forum understand everything perfectly and I should just trust them, even after they have demonstrated their ignorance.

Well, the fact remains that you did not properly characterize moral relativism. I offered to discuss it with you directly. If you'd like to take me up on the offer, it continues to stand.

Because the issue of moral relativism is neither politics nor news.

It obviously plays a role in the formation of some political viewpoints on this forum...

I don't doubt that, but that doesn't contradict the fact that moral relativism is neither politics nor news.

...as is obviated by the first post I replied to in this very thread.

You like that word "obviated," don't you? It is an uncommon one. It is unfortunate that you use it so frequently when it seems you do not even understand what it means.

Hint: "obviate" does not mean "to make obvious."

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Conky
I am not a fan of McCain but, as is true with most American elections, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Obama is just stupid and ridiculous... more and more people are figuring this out daily. McCain is not my choice as President but compared to Obama... jeez, Barack is not worthy of comment. Even Jesse Jackson wants to cut his nuts off.

Wow! What a compelling argument! And to think, I was about to vote for the wrong guy!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Conky
I am not a fan of McCain but, as is true with most American elections, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Obama is just stupid and ridiculous... more and more people are figuring this out daily. McCain is not my choice as President but compared to Obama... jeez, Barack is not worthy of comment. Even Jesse Jackson wants to cut his nuts off.

Wow! What a compelling argument! And to think, I was about to vote for the wrong guy!

Hold on one sec, I thought you couldn't run for more than two terms?

 

[child of wonder]

So if we agree that human life begins at conception and that all human life is to be protected are we also going to outlaw birth control? Birth control often works by not allowing a fertilized embryo to attach to the uterus and it gets flushed away during the woman's period. Should sexually active women on the pill be tried for murder?

What about women who drink, smoke, don't wear their seatbelts, etc. during the pregnancy? Since all human life is to be protected we must also put laws on the books to protect the life of the unborn person, no matter at what stage of fetal development they're in. In fact, we should ban alcohol and cigarettes completely for women since they COULD be pregnant and not know it.

If you're going to be anti-abortion then at least be logically consistent.

 

[Genx87]

Eggs and sperm are not DNA matches to a human being. On they are but half a human. There is no logic failure in supporting the idea that at conception a human is formed while not protecting eggs and sperm. If you need to provide such an outlandish scenario, the argument probably isnt that good.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Eggs and sperm are not DNA matches to a human being. On they are but half a human. There is no logic failure in supporting the idea that at conception a human is formed while not protecting eggs and sperm. If you need to provide such an outlandish scenario, the argument probably isnt that good.

Are you referring to me?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
So if we agree that human life begins at conception and that all human life is to be protected are we also going to outlaw birth control? Birth control often works by not allowing a fertilized embryo to attach to the uterus and it gets flushed away during the woman's period. Should sexually active women on the pill be tried for murder?

I believe that Bush is working on exactly that. Or at least, that's what the accusations are suggesting:

The furor kicked off by the Bush administration's draft of a new regulation that could restrict access to abortion and birth control is growing into a bitter debate pitting religious freedom against patients' rights.

That is the finding of the Washington Post in a look at what has occurred in the two weeks since Countdown to Crawford and others reported that the administration was considering a regulation that would allow any healthcare provider to refuse to deliver medical services that violate the worker's moral beliefs.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...7/abortion-pill-r.html

It seems to me that the effort was really focused on drafting rules to allow pharmacists and other health care workers to refuse to dispense medication or perform medical procedures that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Either way, it's outrageous that Bush's administration would even try such a thing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: child of wonder

Originally posted by: Genx87
Eggs and sperm are not DNA matches to a human being. On they are but half a human. There is no logic failure in supporting the idea that at conception a human is formed while not protecting eggs and sperm. If you need to provide such an outlandish scenario, the argument probably isnt that good.

Are you referring to me?

yes

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: child of wonder

Originally posted by: Genx87
Eggs and sperm are not DNA matches to a human being. On they are but half a human. There is no logic failure in supporting the idea that at conception a human is formed while not protecting eggs and sperm. If you need to provide such an outlandish scenario, the argument probably isnt that good.

Are you referring to me?

yes

I never made any mention of protecting sperm or eggs.

I pointed out that birth control works by not allowing a fertilized egg (the point after the sperm has joined with the egg) to attach to the uterus. Since conception has occurred (the egg has been fertilized) then birth control would be a form of murder, wouldn't it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Eggs and sperm are not DNA matches to a human being.

That doesn't mean that they aren't human, and alive. They are in fact simply the haploid phase of human reproduction and development.

Moreover, there are plenty of examples of diploid human cells that do not enjoy the rights of personhood. I've given HeLa cell cultures as an example already.

So, what's your point?

On they are but half a human.

No, I assure you. They are as human as a zygote. Neither a gamete nor a zygote is a human, however, since "a human" is another way of saying "a person." Please be very careful interchanging "human" the adjective, and "human" the noun.

There is no logic failure in supporting the idea that at conception a human is formed while not protecting eggs and sperm.

It is inconsistent to support the endowment of personal rights to some human cells on the basis of their diploidy but not to support the same rights for other such cells which also meet the criteria.

If you need to provide such an outlandish scenario, the argument probably isnt that good.

It isn't outlandish to point out inconsistencies in anti-choice arguments.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: Conky
All quotes are taking from the rather liberal LA Times, with the link furnished here: http://www.latimes.com/news/pr...8aug17,0,3145888.story

Obama said: "I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He added that he supports the landmark decision Roe vs. Wade but said the issue has "moral and ethical content" and stressed his commitment to reducing the number of abortions.

McCain, however, immediately responded that a baby's rights begin at conception. Perhaps seeking to tamp down alarm among conservatives over his recent comment that he's open to a running mate who favors abortion rights, he continued: "I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies."

-------------------------

Here's the part I find simply hilarious... Obama, being the highly educated Harvard graduate, doesn't know what the average highschool student knows about human reproduction.

Human life begins at conception, and this is strictly speaking from a scientific point of view.

Barack, despite making far more money than the average highschool science teacher, claims this is "above my pay grade".

The beautiful part is that McCain doesn't flinch on this question and answers it like a highschool freshman would.

Hi! I'm back!

What I find funny is you are attacking a straw man. The actual question that was asked was "At what point does a baby get human rights?"

The question asked to the candidates was not a high school level biology question. It was a high school level civics question.

The question has a simple answer, rights begin when the fetus can live unsupported out side the mothers womb. Take a high school level civics class.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest
The question has a simple answer, rights begin when the fetus can live unsupported out side the mothers womb. Take a high school level civics class.

Define unsupported.

Both of my kids were born prematurely and needed assistance. I saw babies born as early as 20-21 weeks in the NICU that grew up to be relatively healthy kids. They needed alot of support for many weeks.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest
The question has a simple answer, rights begin when the fetus can live unsupported out side the mothers womb. Take a high school level civics class.

What do you mean by unsupported?

Both of my kids were born prematurely and needed assistance. I saw babies born as early as 20-21 weeks in the NICU that grew up to be relatively healthy kids. They needed alot of support for many weeks.

If they needed support to survive out side of the womb then they did not have rights has humans. This was decided in Roe V. Wade.

If they baby can not suckle or breath on its own it needs support, if it needs support it does not have rights as a human.