[thoughtomator]

Children who are sufficiently developed but not yet born may also be supported by others by way of medical technology, yet under the law, such a child, before birth, can legally be assassinated by a doctor.

But I have a problem with even the 'supported by others' statement. Which other? And how? What if there is no other willing to support the child? Would you advocate the government force someone to support the child, or alternatively, force taxpayers to finance the government's support of a child, or alternatively, allow the abandonment of children, so that they might live or die as nature would have it?

I do not speak of forcing any woman to do anything. I do not advocate forced pregnancy. She has freely chosen to undertake the act that created a new human life.

To cut to the chase, at what point do you believe that a human being is invested with his natural and inalienable rights?

[GovernmentShrinker]

But I have a problem with even the 'supported by others' statement. Which other? And how? What if there is no other willing to support the child? Would you advocate the government force someone to support the child, or alternatively, force taxpayers to finance the government's support of a child, or alternatively, allow the abandonment of children, so that they might live or die as nature would have it?

To cut to the chase, at what point do you believe that a human being is invested with his natural and inalienable rights?

When it has taken a breath of air. Philosophical and religious debates can roam around in gray area 'til the cows come home, but we need a bright line for legal purposes, and this is as bright as it gets. But even at that point, it's interests do not outweigh the rights of others not to be forced to support it. If you can't support yourself, and nobody else is able and willing to support you, you die. Life isn't a fairy tale.