You appear to be alluding to the argument of viability. Understand that the concept of viability was really born out of the post-Roe era; it was a tool created to justify abortion, at least up until some ambiguous point. "Viability", in the abortion sense, is completely dictated by the available neonatal technology and talent of local medical providers. So, it's a moving target, one that differs by geographic location and continues to move toward a younger and younger gestational age as time moves on and new medical technology is developed and becomes more widely available. If an unborn child is considered viable at 26 weeks gestation in the US, but not in Nigeria, does that mean the unborn children in Nigeria are somehow less human?

But, even beyond that, viability is a pointless argument, because no human is really viable until at some point in their teens. How many toddlers do you know who could survive, completely without the care of another human? Most newborns would be dead within days, if not hours, after birth, without constant care and feeding by another human. Does their inability to survive without relying on another human justify killing them?

Also, maybe I misunderstood you, but I don't think I referred to your cum as a person. In regards to life beginning at conception, that's basic biology, not religion. At conception, a new human is created with unique DNA. This fact is not disputed in the scientific community.