[BagCamAddict]

Your first question:

I don't know, because I don't follow the current medical abilities.

Obviously a "pre-birth human"** can't live outside the womb when it's 2 months old (7-months pre-birth).... But a 7.5-month "pre-birth human" can often live outside the womb. I believe I've heard of babies being born 4 months premature and surviving. So that means they can survive at 5-months gestation.

But at what point, between 2-months and 5-months of gestation, babies can live outside the womb, I don't know.

(** I'm calling it a "pre-birth human" because later posts responding to mine challenged my use of the word "fetus" -- even though I had CLEARLY used quotations around the word, and even though I had CLEARLY stated what definition I was using in MY sentence.)

Your second question:

Well, I disagree with your premise that you can jump from my statement to your statement. But like you said, you're not looking to pick a fight. Neither am I. So let me try to be as clear as I can without confusing things even more:

I made a statement about one specific thing: my PERSONAL definition of the difference between a "fetus" and a "baby". My definition has nothing to do with the subsequent death, at any point in time, of that baby. We all die at some point, and that doesn't mean we were never babies. Right?

My definition -- I reiterate, MY definition -- was WHETHER or not a baby COULD live outside the womb, not IF it lives, or for how long. So if a baby dies 5 minutes after being born, then a baby died, not a "fetus." It may have died of a heart defect, but that doesn't make it any less of a baby. That same baby might just as well have lived for 2 years before that heart defect killed it. Or 20 years. Or 80 years. The point is it could have lived outside the womb (if it had been healthy in the first place).

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

[beezdotcom]

Obviously a "pre-birth human"** can't live outside the womb when it's 2 months old (7-months pre-birth)..

Not yet. Certainly not with current technology. Do you predict science will never make this possible? If you think it might someday be possible, will your definition of baby have to change, in order to exclude these extreme cases?

[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