Why Should The Baby Live?

[Psychic Missile]

So Sam is the only one with gonads to at least respond to the OP. What happened to Starlight, JimL, Firstfloor, Tassman, Psychic Missile. I'm curious to see how they respond to the OP. Seer finally created an interesting thread and it gets ignored.

I support abortion rights because I think the potential mother's right to bodily integrity trumps a fetus's right to life. While I don't think fetuses qualify as persons generally, it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. Clearly, once a child a born, my reasoning ceases to be relevant.

[Christianbookworm]

I support abortion rights because I think the potential mother's right to bodily integrity trumps a fetus's right to life. While I don't think fetuses qualify as persons generally, it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. Clearly, once a child a born, my reasoning ceases to be relevant.

What about third trimester abortions? Should the baby/fetus just be removed alive or killed?

[Sam]

Sam, this makes no sense. Ontology has to do with what something is by its very nature. Not by properties that may come and go. That is completely subjective. And personhood is such a subjective criterion. After all Sam, if your definition of personhood is different than the authors in the OP then who is correct? And does your definition of personhood Sam, save the child in the womb?

Ontological properties are not necessarily persistent. The nature of a Honeycrisp is to be reddish when it is ripe but the Honeycrisp does not always have the property of being red.

Likewise, as the argument goes, the nature of humanity is to be a person when sufficiently grown but the human fetus does not always have the property of being a person.

You can argue against the subjectivism or relativism of such definitions but your complaint fails because your opposition can argue (rightly) that your definition is also subjective, despite your efforts to attach objectivity to it. The Real is external to the Self. Best we can argue there is IF/THEN.

[Psychic Missile]

What about third trimester abortions? Should the baby/fetus just be removed alive or killed?

That the baby will survive if birth is induced is an assumption. That seems like something that should be judged on a case-by-case basis, especially where viability and complications are concerned. In the best case scenario, where an abortion would do more harm to the mother than a birth, this isn't a case of obligated futile care for the infant, and the personhood matter is settled (it matters in this case and I am sympathetic to the argument*), I wouldn't be immediately opposed to early birth as an abortion replacement.

*In the latter stages of development.

[seer]

Ontological properties are not necessarily persistent. The nature of a Honeycrisp is to be reddish when it is ripe but the Honeycrisp does not always have the property of being red.

Likewise, as the argument goes, the nature of humanity is to be a person when sufficiently grown but the human fetus does not always have the property of being a person.

Isn't a Honeycrisp always ontologically a Honeycrisp. Isn't a human being always ontologically a human being? Sure, my hair may go gray, but that does not mean I am no longer human.

You can argue against the subjectivism or relativism of such definitions but your complaint fails because your opposition can argue (rightly) that your definition is also subjective, despite your efforts to attach objectivity to it. The Real is external to the Self. Best we can argue there is IF/THEN.

Sam, I don't care what non-believers claim. Of course they would say that - they are godless. We are God's offspring (geno) created in His image. That is certain and objective. What do you have - you can not even show that the authors' definition in the OP is flawed. Hence, the just born are not worthy of protection. Not worthy of life.