"My" body, my choice

When a baby can survive their first three months after birth on their own, let me know. Some people think killing babies isn't murder if it's done when they're in the womb.

What counts as personhood to you anyway? Does a lack of limbs disqualify personhood? That's not fair to amputees or those with deformities. Is it mental faculties; what about mentally challenged adults?

Define viable; a baby three months after birth is still 100% dependent on another body for their survival. They can't walk, can't talk, can't eat/digest solid food, can't climb, can't understand what to grab and not to grab thus can't their own food and drink and would starve to death without someone else. Babies in the womb also have their own functioning heart and lungs before the third trimester.

In conclusion, that "viability" argument falls flat.

Timespan does not work as a definition of viable here and looks like trying to move the goalposts. Your original argument is that they not be 100% dependent on another body for survival, and I demonstrated that both are.

A newborn may not be physically attached to another person's body, but they still 100% rely on them and 100% will die without another person even if it takes a bit longer. Leave both alone for four days and you've got two dead babies because neither can survive without another body. Is viability so flimsy that a few extra days of life (especially within an average lifespan of several decades) makes a difference?

Comatose adults are dependent on other people 24/7 while in a coma, as are people with severe medical conditions such as quadriplegia, motor neuron disease or muscular dystrophy, so are they not "viable"? Are they disqualified from personhood?.

What difference does being born make if their capabilities are the same? Especially since you conceded that life begins at conception; quite the mental gymnastics you're using here. Why do you think being fully developed determines personhood? Does a person born with a deformity where they're missing a body part (such as model Rebekah Marine https://www.rebekahmarine.com/ , a woman with a deformity where one of her arms never fully developed, leaving her with only part of one arm throughout her whole life so she had a robotic prosthetic to replace it) get denied personhood because of that? Of course not.

The only differences are age size and how many body parts they have depending on the unborn baby's stage of development. That difference is purely time-based and irrelevant since both get the same results; dying immediately and dying in a few days is irrelevant since either way a baby dies.

P.S Not every person in a coma signs that paperwork or support assisted suicide/euthanasia, so that analogy doesn't work for humanity as a whole.

How long would a baby in a crib survive without parents tending, without mother's milk?

How long would a child alone?

For that matter, how long would a sole adult survive if left naked in the woods even at this time of the year?

Just because a person at whatever age/stage wouldn't last long on their own does not make them not a person, it makes them a mammal, part of a social species, a heavily dependent one, one that in fact undergoes the longest child rearing period of any animal to have ever existed.

People's selfish behavior and the lack of responsibility that goes with it defines their stunted morals, not whether another person qualifies as a person.

Vagabond, it almost sounds like you're agreeing with me.

haha, it happens.

Don't get used to it, I still owe you a reply from weeks ago.