Comment: um

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It's not the same. (see in situ)

um

'Life' is not in question; nobody argues that the growing organism inside the mother with its own unique DNA is not alive. It has it's own living tissue. Personhood is the thing that some people fudge with, not life. The problem is that the criteria used to dehumanize the unborn needs to be consistent. Consistency is the foundation of any logical argument. You can't say viability determines personhood with the unborn but not with the born. You'd be begging the question, presupposing that the unborn is less of a person before you even address the question, a logical fallacy, completely unreasonable approach. With breath, what if the baby is fully born at a water birthing center, and is swimming around still attached by the umbilical cord; you are saying it would be ok to kill the swimming baby (which is already born and is outside of the mother, looking around) because it hasn't had it's cord cut yet and isn't breathing air yet? If breathing is a requirement for personhood, then iron lungs shouldn't be made, and CPR would be an unnecessary practice. People would be allowed to kill you when you're holding your breath while swimming underwater. Size and location are other failed criteria which don't negate personhood from other stages of human life. If there is any doubt about if the unborn baby is a person or not, we should act on the side of caution. We don't demolish buildings if there are some doubts about all of the people having vacated it.