The moment the baby detaches from the body is when the baby is their own person, as long as the baby is attached to the person, that person decides what happens because it is THEIR BODY.

Can you provide evidence to support this assertion? Why is the separation the "moment of life"? You can take a child out of the body far earlier than the normal birth and it will likely survive. In fact you can take the fertilized egg, before it has ever even divided once, and let it grow into a complete human in an artificial womb without ever touching a woman's body. Is that person less of a person than one who was birthed "normally"? At what point would killing that artificial womb child be "murder" or "not murder"? It could be taken out of that womb at probably five months and put into an open incubator (like other premee's) and it would survive just fine. Would it be not murder the second before being taken out of the artificial womb, but murder the second after?

Why are you determining the child's moment of "right to live?"

I agree that it is not clear when a person becomes a person, i.e. if or when it gain's "a soul." I think it is a topic worthy of exploration. Perhaps one of the greatest explorations imaginable. It is at conception? Is it when there's a heartbeat? Does it take a certain level of neural development? What is that level of development? So many questions, and a lot of confusion. But in the confusion, you can justify anything. Just because the answer isn't clear doesn't mean the question isn't relevant.

By every possible measure a child is a person. The biggest question is, when does the child become a person? And when does killing the child become murder. Is it one of the stages above? Is it perhaps when the child could live on its own? A child can't survive on it's own, even theoretically (Tarzan e.g.) before at least... I don't know, maybe 8? Is a child not a person until they are 8? Should destroying a child up to age 8 be legal because they can't survive on their own?

Most people will die in a few days if transplanted into the wilderness, so it's safe to say they can't survive on their own either. Would killing one of those people, regardless of their age, not be murder?

You are conflating a "woman's life' with a "child's life". They are not the same life. If you think they are, provide evidence to support it.

The moment the baby detaches from the body is when the baby is their own person, as long as the baby is attached to the person, that person decides what happens because it is THEIR BODY.

Can you provide evidence to support this assertion? Why is the separation the "moment of life"? You can take a child out of the body far earlier than the normal birth and it will likely survive. In fact you can take the fertilized egg, before it has ever even divided once, and let it grow into a complete human in an artificial womb without ever touching a woman's body. Is that person less of a person than one who was birthed "normally"? At what point would killing that artificial womb child be "murder" or "not murder"? It could be taken out of that womb at probably five months and put into an open incubator (like other premee's) and it would survive just fine. Would it be not murder the second before being taken out of the artificial womb, but murder the second after?

Why are you determining the child's moment of "right to live?"

I agree that it is not clear when a person becomes a person, i.e. if or when it gain's "a soul." I think it is a topic worthy of exploration. Perhaps one of the greatest explorations imaginable. It is at conception? Is it when there's a heartbeat? Does it take a certain level of neural development? What is that level of development? So many questions, and a lot of confusion. But in the confusion, you can justify anything. Just because the answer isn't clear doesn't mean the question isn't relevant.

By every possible measure a child is a person. The biggest question is, when does the child become a person? And when does killing the child become murder. Is it one of the stages above? Is it perhaps when the child could live on its own? A child can't survive on it's own, even theoretically (Tarzan e.g.) before at least... I don't know, maybe 8? Is a child not a person until they are 8? Should destroying a child up to age 8 be legal because they can't survive on their own?

Most people who die in a few days if transplanted into the wilderness, so it's safe to say they can't survive on their own either. Would killing one of those people, regardless of their age, not be murder?

You are conflating a "woman's life' with a "child's life". They are not the same life. If you think they are, provide evidence to support it.

The moment the baby detaches from the body is when the baby is their own person, as long as the baby is attached to the person, that person decides what happens because it is THEIR BODY.

Can you provide evidence to support this assertion? Why is the separation the "moment of life"? You can take a child out of the body far earlier than the normal birth and it will likely survive. In fact you can take the fertilized egg, before it has ever even divided once, and let it grow into a complete human in an artificial womb without ever touching a woman's body. Is that person less of a person than one who was birthed "normally"? At what point would killing that artificial womb child be "murder" or "not murder"? It could be taken out of that womb at probably five months and put into an open incubator (like other premee's) and it would survive just fine. Would it be not murder the second before being taken out of the artificial womb, but murder the second after?

Why are you determining the child's moment of "right to live?"

I agree that it is not clear when a person becomes a person, i.e. if or when it has "a soul." I think it is a topic worthy of exploration. Perhaps one of the greatest explorations imaginable. It is at conception? Is it when there's a heartbeat? Does it take a certain level of neural development? What is that level of development? So many questions, and a lot of confusion. But in the confusion, you can justify anything. Just because the answer isn't clear doesn't mean the question isn't relevant.

By every possible measure a child is a person. The biggest question is, when does the child become a person? And when does killing the child become murder. Is it one of the stages above? Is it perhaps when the child could live on its own? A child can't survive on it's own, even theoretically (Tarzan e.g.) before at least... I don't know, maybe 8? Is a child not a person until they are 8? Should destroying a child up to age 8 be legal because they can't survive on their own?

Most people who die in a few days if transplanted into the wilderness, so it's safe to say they can't survive on their own either. Would killing one of those people, regardless of their age, not be murder?

You are conflating a "woman's life' with a "child's life". They are not the same life. If you think they are, provide evidence to support it.