Replies

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. :-)

If you believe that the fetus and the baby are both “life” and “human beings” then does that not immediately go against your original post #48? You are trying to make a personal definition and distinction between a “fetus” and a “baby” but your on words blur the lines between the two.

Why would it be okay (or at least more conscionable) to abort a 6.5 month “live” fetus than it would a 7.5 month “live” baby? You're walking an arbitrary, artificial and unnecessary line between fetus and baby.. you say they are BOTH LIFE. I agree.

I think you may be getting really close to seeing the point, I wish I had more time.

Okay, change every where I said "life" and insert baby. The points would still be same. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

#2. You have still avoided the issue. How do you take care out your definition? We've clearly established that care is required to meet your standard of definition for a "baby." That is... that a fetus has to have the potential to live ("could live") outside the womb. If none (zip, zero, nada) can live outside the womb without care then you must by logic deal with it or remove it.

Simply saying “... whether it could survive, AT ALL” does not answer the question because none, not one, can survive with out care. What does “AT ALL” mean? Are you implying a time factor, a quality factor or something else? Does it's heart have to beat outside the womb? Once or twice? Does it have to take a breath? How many?

#3. Now we're getting really warm. Forget about the legal term “murder.” You agree that “ a human being has been killed in the process of denying readily available care to a baby....” Okay! ... getting really close to heart of the matter. What is the definition of readily available care that will give the “entity” a chance to survive “AT ALL?”

If that is not clear, let me phrase it another way. You belief the difference between a fetus and a baby occurs somewhere between 2 and 5 months gestation. What care does, say, a 4.9-month-gestation fetus need to have a chance “AT ALL” to survive?

If what a 4.9-month-gestation fetus needs to have a chance “AT ALL” to survive is not provided, does that end the life of a human being? I realize you have already answered that, but I don't think you see the full implication of that statement. I am hoping by this point you will see that there is one particular type of care that is almost 100% of the time readily available that will more often than not give the 4.9-month-gestation fetus a chance for life beyond the womb. It also applies from conception to birth.

Peace, jw