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

[DogmaticDownSouth]

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?

No offense taken, but I never stated that I wanted to restrict abortion. Infact this thread has nothing to do directly with abortion. On the other thread (I assuem the first one you are referring to) I only stated that if a abortion is take place, then it should be done such that the fetus is not destroyed, which is a viable options, particulary after 20 weeks. I never stated that the woman needs to keep custody of the child. There are many children in this world that are not cared for, but is death a better option, and more importantly do you, I, or anyone else get to decide?
I don't have a necessary solution to who should pay for medical care for medical emergencies, but I can still argue that it is moral to argue for treatment of medical emergencies regardless of ability to pay? One is a question of practicaly the other a question of morality. I started ths to talk about morality
Again I would state, for me atleast I would rather live and experience life with a difficult childhood and try to imrpove and bring my self out of it then not live at all.

But the question at hand is not about termination of rights, but what determines who has those rights.
Do you believe that a fetus has human rights? if so when? At conception, at 20 weeks, at "viability" (a post hoc statement because if you don't try to save it how do you knwo if it's viable), at birth?, at 10 years old? What characteristic define a creature that is entitiled to these rights is my questions. It's a moral and philosophical question that can be the backbone of a lot of different practical questions.