Guys.....isn't this going a bit too far?

[Amarok]

Only bc now a days we have bottles and formula. Someday we may have the technology to keep the unborn alive outside of the womb. That shouldn't be what defines a being's humanity.

And when we have that technology we might be able to revisit this. Right now we do not.

And even if we did it still only moves the dependence not the personhood

As for Tiberius silly argument dependence of a  child that is injured or malformed still wouldn't count because if said child were of the same age and normal well they would be normal and thus they are still a person because if they were normal all the developments would be present

---

Ok, so now my question is why does that make a human a person? What is the reasoning behind that definition?

This is getting down to a semantics battle.

That actually doesn't concern me as much as the reasoning behind abortion. A woman should be able to decide when she doesn't want to care for another life in any form at any time. This is why we have adoption for viable children. If that life is still relying entirely on that person's body and another cannot take over, then that does not mean it owns any right to that person's body.

The fact it's a reasonable definition