Alright
@KennyAtom, I'm back with my line of questioning I had for you - I almost forgot to revisit this point:
That makes sense. Does this also apply to the rape victims?
I'd say yes, since rape is a traumatic thing to go through, and you shouldn't be forced to hold a reminder of it at all, especially in cases of 12 - 17 year olds who shouldn't be a mother yet.
So, this is interesting, and in one aspect makes you more pro choice than me, which I didn't see coming (I would only support a late term abortion in the event that the mother could be killed for giving birth). Not trying to throw you shade, just continuing the line of logic we've established to pick your brain and help me understand.
If you feel a late term abortion due to rape should be legal, then when should it become illegal to have that child killed, and why?
To summarize, we've established together for sake of argument, that according to your views and my definition of the word 'baby':
1. A baby doesn't exist until there is a heartbeat for the fetus.
2. Aborting a baby is not morally permissible, can be considered a killing, and therefore should be illegal, with exceptions (rape victim; mother could die).
3. These exceptions, while still in conflict with your moral views, should be legal, despite them being killings, because it is preferable to the alternative outcome of the mother dying or being reminded of her rape.
By this logic, it would seem you would find legal grounds to kill the baby, moral incompatibility aside, so that would apply to
postpartum without adding more specifics or drawing a new line. If that's not the case, then what about birth changes the morality/legality of it for number 3?