What is really being asked is at what stage of human development do we assign FSM (Full Moral Standing). The OP attempt to define this strictly in terms of viability. I agree with viability being a key element, but alone it is too simplistic (a theme I may take up later). Let's stick with viability. The other problem with using viability without a precise meaning immediately causes problems. Take for instance the OP's attempt to define viability strictly in terms of gestation length and establishing the lower bound by any one instance of survival. Based on this table, I don't think 20 or 21 weeks is a good measure of viability.

(July 3, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Cato Wrote: What is really being asked is at what stage of human development do we assign FSM (Full Moral Standing)

Freudian slip?

(July 3, 2015 at 4:55 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: Let me begin by stating that I am not a theist (the most common as-homin attack I get when opposing abortion on secular grounds is that I am secretly a theist again I am not).
Most people oppose abortion based in the right to bodily autonomy. Regardless of your beliefs on that, once the fetus is out of the maternal womb, bodily autonomy no longer applies. 20 weeks has arbitrairly been considered the limit of viability, however infants born at 21 weeks have clearly survived and case reports of younger (less developed) infants surviving are also available. Additionally not all abortions occur before 20 weeks.
Therefore my moral question is why is resuscitation and medical support with held from an aborted fetus if there is a chance of survival?  We do not allow this in any other situations. certainly we would not allow a parent to stop feeding or withhold medical care from a child because they simply do not want the child. It is actually considered child abuse even if they want the child and are following their misguided religious convictions
this is not a financial question so I would ask that cost not be an arguement. We use more expensive therapies for similar success rates all the time. This is a moral and philosophical question

I have no problem with doctors reviving an aborted fetus, as long as they accept legal and financial responsibility. The mother (and usually both parents) have, for whatever reasons, decided that they cannot or are unwilling to assume these responsibilities. It would be unethical to force them to accept those responsibilities after taking proper, legal action.

You sir or madam do not know what you are talking about. Between the 2 of us, one of us has an MD. It's not you. Additionally I agree that neuronal development accelerates at 28 weeks, but that does NOT mean that it hasn't already stated. Premature infants are born at < 28 weeks and survive. Some are developmentally delayed, but that is irrelevant to the moral discussion. You are now going into the territory of determining a worthwhile life and that is a different slippery slope. My question was primarily of survival. By the way, I have personally cared for an infant born at 24 weeks due to medical complication /emergency (ecclampsia) she had a Rough initial road but is a very happy 9 year old now.
Again, stick to what you know (it ain't biology) and talk about the morality of allowing a living fetus to die outside the body of another without medical support that isnknown and available. You still haven't given a good Moral arguement for this.

(July 3, 2015 at 6:17 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: You sir or madam do not know what you are talking about. Between the 2 of us, one of us has an MD. It's not you.  Additionally I agree that neuronal development accelerates at 28 weeks, but that does NOT mean that it hasn't already stated. Premature infants are born at < 28 weeks and survive. Some are developmentally delayed, but that is irrelevant to the moral discussion. You are now going into the territory of determining a worthwhile life and that is a different slippery slope. My question was primarily of survival.  By the way, I have personally cared for an infant born at 24 weeks due to medical complication /emergency (ecclampsia) she had a Rough initial road but is a very happy 9 year old now.
Again, stick to what you know (it ain't biology) and talk about the morality of allowing a living fetus to die outside the body of another without medical support that isnknown and available. You still haven't given a good Moral arguement for this.

(emphasis is mine)

If you believe that development disability isn't part of the moral discussion then please spare me from too many people with your morals.

What's your degree in?  Xtian science?

(July 3, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What's your degree in?  Xtian science?

He/she claimed a MD, my guess is proctology.

@snakeoilwarrior
First of all does that mean if a man has a heart attack and

(July 3, 2015 at 6:36 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: @snakeoilwarrior
First of all does that mean if a man has a heart attack and

That's an abrupt stop. Hope he/she didn't have a heart attack mid sentence.