The embryo/fetus/unborn whatsit should always have the same status at any point in development.
Its position in the body of the woman gives the woman sovereignty until it is no longer inside her. No one else has any sovereignty over the whatsit. The woman’s rights to her body trump anyone else’s rights to her body.
Taking the whatsit from her body without her permission is assault (against the woman and against the whatsit) and kidnapping (if the whatsit is taken away without permission).
If the whatsit was obviously too young to survive the procedure, attempting it is some form of murder. If the whatsit might have survived but didn’t, attempting it might be a different class of crime (I don’t know the definitions, but if the intent was not to kill it but to kidnap it, it just happened to die, that is a different crime). If the whatsit should have survived but didn’t, possibly a third type of crime. If the whatsit survives and is taken, it’s always kidnapping.
That’s about as clear as I can make my position on the issue. Rather mudlike, huh?
I don’t understand this - how does mere location change the character of the “baby” (or whatever you want to term it)? Are you discussing the essence here or just some willy-nilly phrase you want to attach based on location?
Also - is “being out of the womb” connected to being “alive” in your statement? How is that connection made? I really, honestly, do not understand.
If the doctor recommends it and the woman wants it, certainly.
A woman has the right to get rid of someone living inside her at any time for any reason whatsoever. I think you’d be extraordinarily hard-pressed to find an example of this potentially happening since birth is probably less dangerous and traumatic for the woman at that point, and I would expect a doctor to find the safest way of achieving what the woman wants, which would probably mean induced labor.
No, it isn’t a pointless statement. It just makes no claims about a fetus/baby that is not “out of the womb and alive”.
For example, I agree with the statement, but I would also say that it was just as much a baby 5 minutes before it was cut out of the womb as it was 5 minutes after.
My what logic can you hold a position like that one? That “someone living inside her body” - is just that - “someone living.” Are you telling us that this individual has no rights to be balanced against the rights of the mother? That seems to be your position. Is it?
Viability, the ability to remain alive outside of the body, occurs long before actual birth. To hold a position, that a child has no rights prior to birth - and the mother is free to do what she will with the unborn baby is really contrary to common sense – and a person holding such a position - I hope - really hasn’t thought about this issue much IMO. And a mother, who without reason except that she takes it as her sole right, harms an unborn child, who is viable, should expect to serve time in prison -
If she wants to end the pregancy and the doctor recommends abortion, that’s all I need. If the doctor recommends inducing labor, that’s all I need. If the whatsit is viable and both abortion and labor have the same risks, I think she should go for the one that offers an opportunity for survival for the whatsit.
None of this is particularly relevant to the OP, and I’d prefer not to continue to hijack this thread.