jesus christ. I am going to go talk to a brick wall now.If viability conveys personhood, there are hospitals full of non-person humans, dependent on machines for their next breath. Yet, anyone who kills any of them faces a murder trial. Thus, viability does not really convey personhood. That fact complicates Roe, which used viability to draw the line at third trimester abortions.When talking about pregnancy- viability is defined by whether or not the fetus can sustain life outside the womb. Including persons or children who have already been born is irrelevant, circular, and misleading.That's a good point. Chris Reeves didn't lose his personhood when he hit his head on the rock, but he would have quickly died without artificial life support. He was, for all intents and purposes, unviable, yet anyone who cut his body apart with a saw or burned his skin off with chemicals would have been tried for murder.I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.
Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.
WHEN TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- viability is defined on whether or not a fetus can live outside the womb.