Regarding third-trimester abortions

Alright, as proposed by you, we will assume that a third-trimester fetus is the equivalent of a baby. Rebuttal #1A: National policy should focus on that of which is of more value to society. Understandably, good national policy should also take into consideration the economy, personal liberties, quality of life, etc. HOWEVER, the real question here is which holds more inherent value to our collective society. I will not use the term "sanctity" of human life, necessarily, but instead talk about the value in which life is placed in society at the current time. As mentioned, a good national policy should deal with what our collective society in the United States can deduce is more important, and therefore values more. I am arguing that the fundamental value that is holding our society together is the essential respect to sentient life. Given that a baby (developed within normal parameters) is a sentient life, a third-trimester fetus is therefore too. What good would economic values and personal liberties be if our society lost its fundamental value holding it together? The fundamental respect to sentient life must always be intact in order to preserve all of the other values our society holds today. I am postulating that the fundamental respect to sentient life is the overall most imperative value our society has today. On an overall basis, it outweighs the other values you had mentioned. As well, assuming you agree with me about it being a sentient life, permitting third-trimester abortions outside the boundaries I set in my opening argument could lead to a slippery slope regarding the killing of other sentient life. I am arguing that killing sentient life is unethical on a universal basis throughout our society today. "If our government wanted to protect life, then it should ban the use of automobiles. Automobiles are one of the leading causes of death nationwide. But if I told everyone we should ban automobiles to preserve the lives of innocent pedestrians, you'd call me insane. So what tens of thousands of people die in automobile crashes? We still allow people to drive because of the economic benefits which makes life worth living. " There is a great difference, making this analogy somewhat flawed. All third-trimester abortions kill the fetus. Not all automobiles kill pedestrians. They do, however, have the capability to kill pedestrians. Because of this capability, I am in support of limiting the use of automobiles in regards to reckless drivers, increasing such fines, etc. Rebuttal #1B: Again, I have postulated that the greatest overall value that is held by our society as a whole today is the fundamental respect to sentient life. This outweighs other values, on an overall basis. I am not necessarily saying that third-trimester abortions would be either good or bad in regards to the economy, personal liberties, or the quality of life. What I am saying is that the most important value should be maintained. By keeping this value intact, our collective society can function normally. While women may, of course, have greater personal liberties, it is unethical at the expense of a sentient life. If women strive for greater personal liberties, adoption is also available. The same is true for the quality of life. Logically, it is unethical to kill a fetus if it holds the same characteristics of a baby. Most importantly is the attribute of sentience. I also pose to you a set of two questions: First of all, are you arguing that the killing of a baby (i. e. after birth) is acceptable, given your arguments presented? Second of all, if you claim that the killing of a baby is unacceptable, at what point does it become unacceptable in the process of development?