mrhhome: It is a little unfair to insist that raven give you a clear answer on a marginal case, when you are unwilling to take a position yourself.
I did several times. For the ectopic pregnancy, the viable, living, breathing mother's life takes precedence over the non-viable fetus.
Ravens asked me about the twenty-four year old college student who is overwhelmed and is unprepared for the responsibility. A potential abortion of convenience.
I say that is between the mother and the doctor. Essentially the "blue" legislation that we live under now. I say life begins with breath, so the fetus is not fully alive yet. It's the mother's decision, with the ethical guidance from the doctor.
Why do you think that it is none of your business. Do you think that society has no interest in (a) when a life begins or (b) when we are justified in ending a life? Isn't that the most basic point of law? To protect life.
I say the state has no business. I say I have no business in my neighbour's bedroom, or in their doctor's office. My definition of when life begins makes abortion a moot point.
Let's follow your first breath standard. What if a baby is born premature and put on a ventilator? Are we justified in killing it? Your standard presents as many problems as the "life begins at concept[ion]."
The lungs are viable.
