The government Should not bother with abortion

"First what is your definition of Viable." This is precisely my point, it does not have an absolute definition as it depends upon biological factors and is a function of technology. The time of viability cannot be determined precisely, and this fact would create great practical problems for those who hold this opinion. Example "An early horror story from New York about nurses who were expected to alternate between caring for six-month premature infants and disposing of viable 24-week aborted fetuses is just that"a horror story." This is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion whether a foetus can survive outside the womb depends on: the state of medical science the medical facilities available at a particular location the competence or willingness of the mother (or some other care-giver) the gender of the foetus the race of the fetus There is something unsatisfactory about a being's rights being determined by its sex or race, the state of medical science, the state of medical facilities at a particular location, or the type of mother it has A common definition of the age of viability "By 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, the lungs gain some ability to breathe air. This is considered the age of viability because survival outside the womb becomes possible for some fetuses." The age of viability is indeed a slippery, arbitrary definition used to justify murder. The burden of proof lies upon you to justify why a fetus before the age of viability is NOT a human. According to you "womens right to choose before 24 weeks into the pregnancy," which is a positive statement. "A quadriplegic war veteran does not need an iron lung to breath or tubes to feed and give it milk or an incubator to keep it them warm so that analogy is incorrect." Are you saying the quadriplegic war veteran is independent? Clearly not. Like the baby he must rely upon someone else to keep him/her alive. This argument concerns the principle of independence. A sick, elderly, or disabled person who reaches a level of dependency roughly analogous to that of a pre-viability fetus would cease to be a person under this schema. "Where did your sources come from there is no citation there fore it is not valid" The first quote comes from the Wall Street Journal as i stated. The second quote is rhetorical and self evident. It is a fact that US medical technology is superior to what is found in Rwanda. The gestational age at which a prematurely born baby has a shot at long-term survival has been steadily regressing for decades as medical technology has advanced. "Your argument for ontological independence is completely irrelevant ontological independence relates to countries and nations" Definition of ontological: 'of or relating to ontology, the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such; metaphysical' The baby has a mind and spirit, an essence, which is separate from the mother. How does viability transform the intrinsic nature of the fetus so that the non-human being then turns into a human being? You are simply imposing an extrinsic criteria to declare when it is human and when it is not. Person hood is of an intrinsic nature. This criterion only tells us when certain members of our society want to accept the humanity of the unborn. By voting against the motion and for me, your are reinforcing the value of human life and the unborn child's right to life. Stop discrimination upon age and prevent the slippery moral slope from worsening