What is required for a human organism to be considered a rights bearer?

[Ravenshire]

If there's any time before birth, I would have to say at the point that it can survive, without heroic measures, outside the womb.

Bodily autonomy trumps any rights before that point. Unless you want to argue that compulsory blood/tissue donations are also a good thing.

I would direct you to my other post : A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
Please give me feed back on that thread about the argument. Would like very much to hear your opinion.,

The question that I feel this begs, however if then if at anytime an organism cannot surive without assistance does it no longer bear human rights? If you are on a ventilator or having srugery and on a cardiopulmonary bypass machine you are no longer able to survive independently. Do you no longer bear human rights if you cannot survive independently?

Hope tone is not attacking, asking questions to further logical argument and get both of us to think about the implications of our thoughts and rationals. thanks for the honest reply

No offense, but I'm really not interested enough in the topic to argue it in three different threads concurrently. I read your argument in that thread and I feel that you, like so many who want to restrict abortion who came before you, are very short sighted. If a woman truly doesn't want child, and there are as many reasons to not want one as there are to want one, no number of laws limiting abortion will ever make her want that child. They will likely make her a mother of an unwanted child though. As if that's any way to go through life.

Do you have a ready solution to caring for the kids once they're born if the mother can't or just plain won't care for them? Or, do you, like the Repugnicunts, not give a shit once they're born?