No. It's not a baby.

He asserted without justification.

Yes.

I am guessing that you are playing some semantic game with that statement. Something like it's a fetus, which would be true, but belonging to one category does not imply the lack of other categories. But let's assume that we all agree that the definition of "baby" includes the requirement of living outside it's mother. It doesn't change OP's argument any. It is still the brutal murder of a human, all we did is remove a word that invokes compassion for it. Is there a particular reason why it doesn't deserve that compassion?

My main issue is using an image of a baby that is very, very far from a fetus, and calling it a barbaric and brutal execution. A fetus does not feel pain, emotions, or the desire to live, nor anything that, in my opinion, characterizes a human being. In my view, removing a fetus from the body of a woman who has chosen to do so, and who often has a difficult history, is not immoral. I admit it’s a really difficult philosophical question.

The baby in the picture is probably about 3months old. I would not call that far from a fetus. You assert that a fetus does not feel pain, emotions, or the desire to live. How do you know that? I don't know either, but I do know a few things as a man who has attended 6 deliveries. When babies are born they do indeed have all three. They cry when poked, they long for human contact, and they will struggle to do survival things, like eat and breathe. We could assume that all those properties somehow switched on at birth, but it is more logical to suppose that is a gradual progression beginning at conception. That is the "no magic required" approach. This bears out since babies born under disperate circumstances all display the same characteristics. For example, a baby born premature via C-Section isn't materially different from one born naturally. Again no magical birth switch. Granted a premature baby might have "less" awareness due to being earlier in progression, but it isn't no awareness. Thus I don't think fetuses feeling no pain or emotion is a logical claim. It seems rather a claim presupposed to fit a predetermined premise that it is ok for a woman to terminate a pregnancy. I can understand that position. It is the life vs liberty debate. If both are human rights great! But the devil is in the details of which is more fundamental when they conflict. One side asserts that the liberty of the mother trumps the life of the child and the other asserts that the life of the child trumps the liberty of the mother. There is plenty of room for debate there without either side adopting illogical or unscientific stances to make it an easier pill to swallow.

It's really not. Unborn babies are also babies. You're overthinking this. We ♥ babies. Don't kill them.

Evictionism > Pro-Life > Pro-Choice

I understand your position. It’s a moral standpoint that is different for everyone and very difficult to justify. I think that in this case, it should be the mother’s choice.

I think the baby would prefer to live ask them later in life

You failed to answer the question "How do you know that?," JdM.

You said "A fetus does not feel pain, emotions, or the desire to live, nor anything that, in my opinion, characterizes a human being" and then opined that it was morally okay to "remove" him or her from life. (A rather convoluted, psychologically revealing way to say "kill.") Precisely the same argument could be made by a murderer who prudently waits for you to be fully anesthetized before killing you.