Quote:
Quote by: CoffeeSaint  The logic is straightforward: the situation has not changed, and so the permissible responses to the situation have not changed. The child is still dependent on the mother for its survival two minutes before birth; if, somehow, the child were separated from the umbilical cord, it would die if not removed from the mother. It is still, therefore, not a person, as it is not independent and its continued survival requires an infringement of the rights of its mother. Thus it has no right to life, thus it can be killed. QED.
Reasonably/rationally speaking, it is pretty danged stupid to opt for an abortion rather than a birth at that point. Which is why it makes sense for this to be seen as a gray area, rather than a purely logical black/white situation. |
We have arrived at this situation: The baby can survive on its own at this point. In what way is the baby still dependent on the mother? It is dependent in the way that the baby would die if it remains in the womb? I do not see this as equating dependence. You are not dependent on something or someone because it/he/she does not kill you. If this was the case we are all dependent and the train of thought ends here.
And if you have found a way around all that we now encounter an earlier snag reborn. The developed baby has now reached the point where it is the equal of the
individuals who are on life support or in assisted living. This is the same point brought up earlier in which the counter was that the fetus could not perform life process such as taking in oxygen among other things. At this point the baby is now capable of achomplishing all these feats.
If anything the mother is infringing on the babies right to get out at this point to breathe and live a normal life? I dont know.
BTW im in Georgetown in D.C. right now in the JSA program. Its kind of a debate'ish, government thing for highschool students. I still suck though.