That's why we have to use logic. And instead of relying upon our various different religions to teach moral standards, we must demand that our constitutional 'morality' be taught as a required course for full citizenship, imo.
What do you mean by that, exactly, when it comes to this issue?
As I said at #194:
--- the moral 'logic' that must be used is that of our constitutional due process; --- under this cold logic an unviable baby is not yet a legal person, as it is an inseparable part of its mother.
Thus, abortion cannot be prosecuted as murder until the viablity of the baby is established in a court, before a jury..
- Granted, these are cold hard legal facts, but until someone comes up with a better solution to this moral dilemma, we will have to learn to live with it.
194 -tpaine-
Far too many people in the US of A simply have no clue on what our constitution is all about, morally, or legally..
Naturalized citizens have to pass a simple test on the subject. I think the test should be greatly enlarged and be required in order to vote.
Your whole argument relies on two very weak presumptions, first the argument that the baby is not "viable". The basis if "viable" is basically that a human must be able to breathe and have a hearbeat on their own. The logical extension of that argument is that as soon as a person is unable to feed and care for him/herself (such as a serious brain injury) or temporarily needs a ventilator in the case of an illness or injury then they are no longer "viable" and therefore have no rights under the Constitution.
The second weakness is the screwy definition of "personhood". Only by twisting the definition to say that a an unborn baby is not a person though it is undeniably both human and alive is insane.