I know a girl, who is now about 9, who was born with underdeveloped eyes, ears, and brain. Now at 9 she is legally blind (though can see some things), deaf, and is severely disabled because of underdeveloped organs and systems. That's what I was talking about.

And I wasn't speaking of euthanasia for the tortured (critically ill), but for those who were unable to breathe on their own (your criteria).

I was just curious how you define life, and under what criteria you are comfortable taking life.

They are out of the womb and are disabled because of disabilities, not because they are underdeveloped. And euthanization is fine if the person dying is being tortured extremely and approves of it.

So then I take it you approve of euthanizing (killing) people who are on ventilators (can't breathe on their own), and of people with physical handicaps because they were born with some parts not fully developed?

I am defining life as some of those criteria, yes.

So tell me: How are you defining "life"? It sounds as if you're saying (1) he or she is not alive if he can't breathe on his own, or (2) he or she is not alive if he is not fully developed. Or maybe both: he has to be fully developed and be breathing on his own. Is that how you are defining life?

No, because they are out of the womb, breathing without the support of a mother. They are alive with most of the time, brain activity like consciousness and thought. They also can still live while a fetus in early stages of development are so undeveloped it's not life.

You're fully entitled to your opinion. I was responding because you asked "Why are you against abortion?"

You stand on dangerous ground, however. At what point is someone "fully human" or not? Is a mentally or physically incapacitated person "fully human"? How about a newborn with congenital defects? What about an elderly person with Alzheimer's? Depending how you define it, you've taken a hazardous stand on a shaky position.

It is okay to have an abortion because it's not human fully by how I define it

Are you defining "life" as "fully developed" or as "having brain activity"? I'm not convinced that's a very scientific approach. Cells don't have brains but they are sophisticated machines that are distinctly alive. Some babies when they're born as premies aren't even fully developed, but no one would argue, "Then they aren't alive."

Within the first week cells in the zygote are reproducing. The organism is a separate organism from his/her mother or father, with a distinct and unique genetic code. It's alive (growth, reproduction, use of energy, organized, adapting, etc.).

In the 3rd week after conception, the primitive groove forms on the ectodermal surface of the embryonic disk. The spinal cord and brain will develop from this structure. By week 4 the heart is beating—it's alive. Blood is flowing.

By five weeks, the neural tube is enlarging. By 6 weeks the brain has developed into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible. Brain waves can first be measured by week 8. It's alive.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Help me understand.

It is not alive as it is not fully developed or have brain activity. In that moment, it is not Alive.