re: #671 Genosaurer

If you don’t belive that a fetus in utero is a person (or even a “potential person”), what reason(s) do you have for being opposed to abortions performed after the point where it is currently viable, since at that point it’s still legal to perform them? I’m honestly curious how you could reach those two views because they seem to me to be inherently in conflict with one another.

After viability, the fetus is not dependent upon the body of a particular woman for its survival; it can be separated, cared for by others, and survive. That fact justifies granting viable fetuses greater consideration, although still not as much consideration as the life or the physical health of the woman carrying them.

And you also kind of sidestepped the question about the premature baby. Was she a person when she was born after 21 months of pregnancy?

Legally, yes. Development is gradual, and not all fetuses develop at the same rate, just as not all teens hit puberty at the same time. But still, general threshholds must be legally established. Thus, fetal viability is one (where greater considertation is given a fetus), birth is another (where personhood is assigned, and this birth can be either natural or via c section), and there are still other threshholds for informed sexual consent, issuance of a driver’s license, permission to smoke and drink, permission to enter into legal contracts, voting, and joining the military (just as pre-viability fetuses aren’t granted the same consideration that post-viability fetuses are, and they aren’t granted the same consideration that born infants are, minors aren’t granted the same rights as are adults).