So let me understand...your definition of life, unlike the scientific definition, is based upon the current state of medical technology. So, according to your definition, would an unborn child at 26 months of development be considered a human life in America where sufficient medical technology is available to allow him or her to survive but not so much a human life in a third world country where such technology is not available? Would your legal definition of human life have to change every time younger and younger preemies survived outside of the womb?
Not life...viability.
So, according to your definition, would an unborn child at 26 months of development be considered a human life in America where sufficient medical technology is available to allow him or her to survive but not so much a human life in a third world country where such technology is not available?
A human life? Yes. Viable outside the womb? No.
Would your legal definition of human life have to change every time younger and younger preemies survived outside of the womb?
Not the legal definition of "human life", but rather the legal definition of "viability", which gives "personhood" to that human life, along with all the associated legal rights.
Viability = Personhood = Rights
Non-viability = Not a person = No rights
Unless of course you believe humans have souls. I do not subscribe to that belief. It has no scientific basis and is nothing more than magical thinking.
I know where you stand now, td--I actually want to thank you for admitting that you're a social liberal. I can get back to my life now.