In my view, the frightening thing about this view is that it is fundamentally based on the changing state of science. It does not sit well with me that our definition of "humanity," or at least of "humanity worth protection," should include the phrase "if current technology is good enough." But that is really what we're doing here. Years ago, doctors were not every remotely able to deliver and care for a child conceived 5 months ago. In the future, you can bet that they'll be able to sustain the child from an even earlier point. It's not that technology is irrelvant to morality, but I still pause at including available technology in the definition of a person.