I had to go pretty far back since the new one is locked. We should have some sort of rule that a repeat topic is okay if the original is more than a month back as there is no forum search feature anymore.
@ the debate over whether a fetus is a person in the new version-
Let's look at this from a philosophical point of view.
Aretaic Theorists/ Virtue Ethicists could argue that the fetus has no character as of yet and as such has no intrinsic moral value; conversely they could say that abortion violates the fetus' teleological purpose.
Utilitarians would argue that the unborn incapable of feeling pleasure and displeasure. The consequence of the abortion does not result in unhappiness for the fetus, so the act has no moral value regarding the fetus, only the mother's happiness should be part of the decision calculus.
Deontologists talk about duties to other members of society, such as never, ever kill/lie/steal etc. but the problem here is whether or not unborn fetuses are members of society. It seems though that most arguing against abortion are arguing under the related standard of Divine Command Theory, however others would argue that the fetus is part of the woman's body and she has an absolute right to her body, therefore the fetus does not matter until it becomes a separate entity.
You could also look at moral anti-realism like Nietzsche and J.L. Mackie, who would say that the baby has no moral value.
There are many other ways to view this like feminist ethics and aesthetics. In the end, I would have to say that whether or not the baby is considered alive is irrelevant, because the mother's choice outweighs this, seeing as the fetus is completely dependent on its mother it wouldn't live otherwise.
