Abortion and the whole 'breathing' thing

[His Name Is John]

I remember several members saying that until the child breaths, they are not 'alive', and thus can be aborted.

I just wondered what they made of this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142512.htm

I could mean potentially that people could go through life without ever taking a breath. They could live to be 70. Come up with several important philosophical ideas. They could get married and have kids.

To those people who say you are only alive if they breath, would the potential person I described be alive?

If so, then why not a foetus?

If not, then would it be morally ok to kill such a person?

[Haven]

You've all made logical and legal arguments. If I were arguing logically and legally, I would completely agree with you. I see abortion as both legally and logically justifiable. I don't dispute this.

I agree.

But I'm making an ethical argument. I'm arguing out of compassion and empathy. Abortion is ethically wrong. You're depriving a human of a potential life. It isn't wrong because of the Bible. It's wrong because it's robbing something of life. Just like killing anyone who isn't furthering society is wrong.

I also agree with this. Personally speaking, I hate abortion, and I feel it is unethical because all human beings -- including the unborn -- possess intrinsic value. However, I still think abortion should remain safe and legal, because women have rights over their own bodies and banning it would do little to actually stop abortions, it would simply make women obtain unsafe abortions in the "back alleys." I support other measures to reduce abortions, such as free and easily available contraception, the promotion of adoption, tax breaks for new parents, etc.