[JWinNC]

"I hope I've made sense here, but if not, tell me where I don't make sense and I'll try it again."

I don't believe it makes sense and/or I fail to see the logic.

Regarding the first point, this is what I believe I hear you saying…

According to your personal definition, the “entity” cannot survive outside the womb at <= 2 months gestation and is therefore not a baby.

Okay, I don’t agree, but I understand that.

According to your personal definition, the “entity” can survive outside the womb at => 5 months gestation and is therefore a baby.

I have a problem with that because NO fetus, not even one, can survive outside the womb at => 5 months gestation without care. Left alone they will die in short order… zero survival rate.

According to your personal definition, the entity between 2 months and 5 months gestation may or may not survive outside the womb… whether or not it is a real “baby” or a non-baby “fetus” is dependent on the care that the entity receives. So, under one set of conditions (superior care) a 5-month-gestation entity is a baby and under another set of conditions (inferior care) a 5-month-gestation entity is a non-baby “fetus.”

Again, as with the 5 months or longer gestation, I have a huge problem with this. It makes no sense to define life based on whether of not the fetus is cared for. Obviously, no care equals no survival.

Now to the second point… you try to separate “if” and for “how long” from your “could” survive equation. You really lose me here, big-time. I fail to see that logic at all. Look at it this way…

You would surely agree that a one-week-old baby, post birth, would not survive without care, correct? I’m going to assume that as a given. The same would apply to a one-day-old, post birth, baby. And it would apply to an 8-month gestation entity and it would a apply to a 5-month gestation entity and it would apply to a 3-month gestation entity and so on and so on until you get back to conception. You have a zero survival rate for all fetuses/babies/entities without care.

So, to answer “WHETHER or not a baby COULD live outside the womb…” I can only say that without care the entity CANNOT survive and never will. Therefore, you logically must do one of three things. One, you can move the definition of when a fetus becomes a baby forward to where the entity can survive entirely on its own… in order to take the external care factor out of the equation. Two, you can call the fetus a baby from conception regardless of the level of care thereby also taking the external care factor out of the equation. Or Three, you can define the level of external care that makes the difference between fetus and baby.

I believe your argument relies on the third option… i.e. dependent upon the level of care available… specifically between 2 and 5 months of gestation. That puts you back to a situational definition of a “baby” dependent upon current and changing medical technology and whether or not that level of care is available to that “fetus.” I think that is a horrific definition of life.

One more question (which may lead to an additional follow-up): If a fetus (pick any "fetus" period you like by your own definition) could survive outside the womb with readily available care and that care is denied resulting in its death, has a murder been committed?

Peace,
jw

[BagCamAddict]

Gosh JW, this is really too long to reply to, but I think I can break it down.

1. I was not defining "life" in my definition. You are adding that word to the discussion. I was simply stating what my personal definition is between a "non-viable fetus" and a "baby." BOTH are LIFE.

2. I didn't say "with care" anywhere in my definition. You added those words to the discussion. As you said, it's a given that no baby can survive outside the womb, at any age, without care (for almost any species). My definition is whether it could survive, at all, under any circumstances, whether it be the best of circumstances, with the best of care, with the best medical advancements available of any kind, or the worst of care. Simply, whether it could survive, AT ALL. I didn't qualify it with any type, quality, or amount of subsequent CARE. You added that part.

2a. Because yes, I absolutely agree with you that "with care" changes the entire definition, and that's why "with care" is not in my definition. I know alot of 15-yr olds who couldn't survive without care. And we all know alot of 90-yr olds who can't survive without care. Etc.

3. To answer your question about whether a murder has been committed. As you know, "murder" is a legal term that implies/includes intention and forethought, etc. So your question is not specific enough to answer under the legal definition of murder. If you are asking if a human being has been killed in the process of denying readily available care to a baby, then my answer is yes, a human being (aka baby) has been killed. But many people will have different definitions of "readily available care."

These things are why it is so difficult to have a discussion on abortion, because every time you turn around, someone opens up a completely different can of worms, or another word or set of words needs to be defined by all parties involved, etc. It's not a simple topic, like whether the earth is round or not. :-)