I thought we'd been over this already? At 23 weeks and under, a child born prematurely has a very low chance of survival even with medical care. Those 9 in 100 that do are often afflicted with problems because they have not developed sufficiently to become "viable." Also as I stated, if you wish to extend the concept of viability then it goes right up to death at old age because we all need some form of constant care and outside help.
Exactly~! Therefore using the term "viability" in order to destroy a life is a false and immoral position to take.
Medically, viability is clearly defined and this is why there is a 24 week limit on abortion in many countries.
And I'm saying that that is a 'goalpost' that should not even be there.
I admire your stand and attempt to debate this on moral ground however I personally find that morality and definitions of morality can be even more based on foundations of shifting sand which is why the biological argument (rightly) takes precedence.
Not if we genuinely examine the issues.
One argument given that God exists is the fact that human beings have a conscience (CS Lewis). Whatever your belief in a deity might be we still have that conscience and we know, or should know, the difference between right and wrong.
We agree, for the most part I assume, that smoking should be avoided, and we have passed laws restricting the activity. The 'rights' argument for smoking didn't stand up for long. We might also agree that sticking a needle in your veins in order to get a high is equally stupid and self destructive.
My feeling is that abortion should be looked at in the same way. Legal, yes, but also one that might be a seriously flawed decision when there are certainly alternatives available. Some women who have had abortions, when said consciences kick in, later regret that they didn't explore those alternatives.