Live in Indiana? Give the gift of Abortion!

[Comrade Tovya]

Jackson50 said:

A fetus does not have a right to be unharmed because it is a person. We only prohibit harm if the mother decides to carry the fetus full term. If that is the case, then the state has a compelling interest to ensure that the fetus is allowed to develop to the point of personhood.

 

Okay, but like I said, what constitutes "personhood" as you so eloquently put it?  If we are jumping back to the discussion as to when a baby can survive outside of the mother, then once again that has been proven to be more than two months sooner than Roe v Wade stipulated.

And if we'd like to dive back into the "but the 19 week old baby survived on a machine" subject, than what happens when a child is carried to term (a full 9.5 months/40 weeks) and the baby requires "a machine" to survive anyway.  Is it your assertion that it's still not a child because only the hospital staff is keeping such child alive?  I which case, the hospital could technically refuse care* to the child because it is not technically reached "personhood".

 

*As we all know, U.S. law prohibits a hospital from refusing care to an individual for ANY reason, which includes the inability to take care of the fiscal responsibility of the visit.