That's my case right there. If the baby can live outside the Mother's body it's a person.
Yes, as long as the Mother could have it delivered and adopt the baby out at the time of viability--whenever that time is.
It isn't dependent on the Mother, the Father can be required by law to care for the infant. If the Mother doesn't want the baby and the Father doesn't want the baby, can we as a culture force them to do the right thing for the child? There would be no way to enforce that kind of a law. Sad as it is, Dr., I think it is far more humane to kill the fetus than to expose the child to the abuse of unwilling parents. Look at the statistics on child abuse and tell me that we need a million more unwanted babies in this country every year.
I really don't think it makes sense to mix these two very different issues together. A person may have put money away or have provided insurance or something to prepare for this contingency--too many variables to equate this with a fetus. If you follow along the way you're headed we could get into the viability of soldiers on battlefields too--let's not.
The reason to go with viability is that we need to find SOME point and viability seems reasonable since that's when the fetus can survive if the Mother is dead. If you have a better point, then I am willing to hear about it, but if you are going to go to conception and declare that the fetus controls the Mother's body from that moment on, then you need to grant that the Father is owned as well. Trust me, Dr., if the laws actually enforced equality in the issue of caring for children there would be a lot less men campaigning to ban abortions.
This is a question of who owns the body. You seem to be saying that the fetus owns the body of the woman--from conception? Pony up here, Dr., how does this work? Is the Father owned as well? How do you enforce it? I asked some very pertinent questions in this post and if you are unwilling to address them, then our discussion will be over.
