“Will your unscientific definition of human life change when medical technology changes and the unborn child can survive outside of the womb at 20 weeks? Then 16 weeks? Etc.? The fact of the matter is that the scientific definition of human life demonstrates that an unborn child is a human life shortly after conception. You’re the one who claimed to use the scientific definition - now use it.”
I already addressed this in the second part of my post, which you conveniently left out of your reply. Please go back and read it again and you’ll have my answer.
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?