Is a fetus a seperate person? Court says: No...

[Scraplet]

You can't draw a line in any of natures processes where X becomes Y and say where the change happened. We wouldn't have this argument about a butterfly. Its a catterpillar, then its a pupa, then it a butterfly. We don't say, halfway through the pupal stage that it should now be considered a butterfly, to all intents and purposes.

We humans have a real problem with this concept as soon as we apply it to ourselves. Its like ethics and morality leave us outside the contex of nature, or something.

If you must draw a line you can only logically do it either side of the process from where it starts (conseption - a viable foetus is formed), and the point where you have an independent being, who at the very least can survive with modern medical treatment (20-ish weeks gestation?), IMO.

My opinion; between those times 'status' of the foetus is what ever the lady who carries it says it is. If its her baby, then its her baby. If its a parasite to be aborted, then so be it, because it cannot survive without her say-so. However, it logically remains nothing more than a potentail human being during this stage.

So by my logic, deliberatly causing the death of a foetus could be murder if the lady intended to carry it to term... Makes sense to me!

Maybe we could have a new offence of deliberatly or accidently causing the termination of a wanted foetus? Leave murder to apply to willful killing of fully-independent human beings.

I'll shut up now

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Human life begins with consciousness.

You dont gain consciousness the moment you are born. It takes time.

Actually thats not true - a baby at birth is aware of ppl around it and makes demands, it uses comunication.
It can be argued which of and how much of these functions are largely automatic...

[Obfleur]

I was half dead when I was born. My only demand was "For the love of Midgar, give me a healing potion!"

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Phoenix Down?

[Metal Vendetta]

Actually thats not true - a baby at birth is aware of ppl around it and makes demands, it uses comunication.
It can be argued which of and how much of these functions are largely automatic...

Yeah, babies smile and stuff, even newborns. I think birth is a good point to define when we become "human", though it's fairly arbitary. And while our countries are bombing the crap out of other countries (the Americans killed 18 people, including 6 children, in Pakistan this weekend, trying to get some al-Qaeda bloke) I think it's a tiny bit hypocritical to make a fuss over a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy. If "human" life is sacred then when we stop killing actual human beings I might be prepared to listen to someone who wants to extend those rights to a bunch of cells that may or may not become a human being later.

Oh, and I'm in favour of euthanasia as well.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I feel sorry for Americans some time, Pakistan is a classic example.

When New Orleans flooded loads of ppl in Pakistan were happy. then an earth quake a few days later kills thousands, the only country capable of helping due to its massive military was the USA.

When they (Pakistan) asked for help with some Terroist on the weekend the Yanks dropped the bombo on target, its just the target was wrong, now its like, go home yanks, but whilst your on your way out do u mind helping to build tents and housing for the harsh winter that follows using your nasty military mights.

You can live with or without them, they are to blame for all and sve thousands every day. the price of life?

[Best First]

I think it's a tiny bit hypocritical to make a fuss over a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy. If "human" life is sacred then when we stop killing actual human beings I might be prepared to listen to someone who wants to extend those rights to a bunch of cells that may or may not become a human being later.

word.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Human life begins with consciousness.

You dont gain consciousness the moment you are born. It takes time.

Actually thats not true - a baby at birth is aware of ppl around it and makes demands, it uses comunication.
It can be argued which of and how much of these functions are largely automatic...

Jessica is around 20 weeks pregnant now and the baby very much makes demands of her. If jessy disturbs her while sleeping she begins kicking. Jessy eats spicy foods, the baby gets the hiccups and starts moving around alot. Its not all action/reaction. Its the baby's way of communicating to her mother that she doesnt like a particular action.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Is that not just a reaction tho? if I cover a babys mouth and nose (not that I ever would of course) it will I presume strugle for air, im not sure if I belive its worrying about its own iminent death like you or me, more its a natrual reaction.

When Jessie eats somthing hot, and the baby gets indigestion I presume, is that not just a normal bodily function?

[Optimus Prime Rib]

ok I realize I contradicted myself. What I was meaning was that at this point she knows what causes her to be upset.

[Best First]

ok I realize I contradicted myself. What I was meaning was that at this point she knows what causes her to be upset.

upset in an emotional concious sense, or in a phsyiological reaction sense though?

[Optimus Prime Rib]

ok I realize I contradicted myself. What I was meaning was that at this point she knows what causes her to be upset.

upset in an emotional concious sense, or in a phsyiological reaction sense though?

Upset in either way is stil a demonstration of life. The cessation of life by unnatural cause would be murder, would it not?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

ok I realize I contradicted myself. What I was meaning was that at this point she knows what causes her to be upset.

upset in an emotional concious sense, or in a phsyiological reaction sense though?

Upset in either way is stil a demonstration of life. The cessation of life by unnatural cause would be murder, would it not?

But its a major deffinition of what we judge life by, the emotional response is what seperates us out from say crab or somthing that will by response fight for its life, but doesnt get un-happy about being bait, or at least by our deffinaition it doesnt.

If somthing isnt aware, is it really alive?

[Optimus Prime Rib]

We know a plant is alive though it doesnt do anything other than grow. We know that though it doesnt complain about being cut when youre moving the yard, it is still alive. A fetus can at least react to its environment.

And ive yet to see any animal used as bait that didnt complain.

[Best First]

ok I realize I contradicted myself. What I was meaning was that at this point she knows what causes her to be upset.

upset in an emotional concious sense, or in a phsyiological reaction sense though?

Upset in either way is stil a demonstration of life. The cessation of life by unnatural cause would be murder, would it not?

no one's questioning that its technically alive, the debate is about whether you are terminating something or someone.

up to a certain point i fall into the latter camp.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I feel somthing is alive when it reacts to its enviroment not just by instinct but due to feelings and emotions. when that is with a featus im unsure?

[Optimus Prime Rib]

As much as I hate the thought, I agree with abortions up to a certain point. Incest or rape, most definitely. If you are carrying a fatal communicable disease, then its not fair to the fetus to come to term.

However, once you reach the point where the fetus can and will react to stimuli I feel its time for you to put up or shut up. If you didnt want the child you had time to take care of that. Late term abortion is terrible. If youre going to wait so long that they have to go in and kill the baby then suck it out of you, youre selfish and wrong. You could damn well give birth to the baby and let a loving family adopt the child. Im sick of people who use abortion as a form of birth control, or as a means to keep their significant other and when it doesnt work out they dont want thier child anymore.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I agree that using abortion as a form of contraception is wrong but im not sure if it changes the goal posts here.

When is somthing truly alive, when it reacts to stimuly, or when its 'aware' ??

Untill the moment somthing becomes aware, isnt it just a parasite? I know that sounds horrible, but?

[Metal Vendetta]

Untill the moment somthing becomes aware, isnt it just a parasite? I know that sounds horrible, but?

I actually used the word "parasite" on p1 of this discussion after my friend Jen was told by her doctor that her son (my no-Godson) was, in his words "a very tough little parasite".

[Optimus Prime Rib]

By definition I suppose a fetus could be called a parasite. I used to call children an STD lol. Anyway. You could aslo define a fetus/mother relationship as a symbiosis. Both parties benefit. Yes the fetus pulls the nutrients and leeches off the mother for survival, but in many cases (Id say most but I dont want to contradict myself again) the mother benefits from the maternal bond she shares with the child. Every mother Ive met says that they complain about thier body and aches and pains when they are pregnant, but the bond they share with the child while in the womb is euphoric. Thats the leading cause of "Baby Blues" is the feeling of loss after the child is born. The mother almost resents the child for leaving her.

[Professor Smooth]

As much as I hate the thought, I agree with abortions up to a certain point. Incest or rape, most definitely.

So a fetus is a living creature unless it's created by a rape? If every fetus is a living creature, why would this make even a shred of difference?

As for incest, well, the baby could be born mentally retarded or physically deformed. In cases like that, I'm not even sure that I'm not even sure abortion should be an option.

[Bouncelot]

By definition I suppose a fetus could be called a parasite. I used to call children an STD lol. Anyway. You could aslo define a fetus/mother relationship as a symbiosis. Both parties benefit. Yes the fetus pulls the nutrients and leeches off the mother for survival, but in many cases (Id say most but I dont want to contradict myself again) the mother benefits from the maternal bond she shares with the child. Every mother Ive met says that they complain about thier body and aches and pains when they are pregnant, but the bond they share with the child while in the womb is euphoric. Thats the leading cause of "Baby Blues" is the feeling of loss after the child is born. The mother almost resents the child for leaving her.

If there's a mutual benefit then you cannot use the word parasite (unless you want to be just plain wrong).

So a fetus is a living creature unless it's created by a rape? If every fetus is a living creature, why would this make even a shred of difference?

Minor point - the question is whether it's a human being rather than whether it's a living creature (we don't extend the same rights to animals or plants as we do to other humans).

More important point, the reason many are prepared to make rape an exceptional case is because to do otherwise would be seen as harsh, uncaring, and without compassion. Mind you, it may be worth noting that the majority of rape victims who become pregnant as a result don't want an abortion as they feel that it would be just a further act of violence against them.

[The Last Autobot]

Human life begins with consciousness.

You dont gain consciousness the moment you are born. It takes time.

Actually thats not true - a baby at birth is aware of ppl around it and makes demands, it uses comunication.
It can be argued which of and how much of these functions are largely automatic...

Action and reaction are not the same as consciousness or awareness.

And a baby doesnt really differentiates and "I" from a "You" in a time.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

By definition I suppose a fetus could be called a parasite. I used to call children an STD lol. Anyway. You could aslo define a fetus/mother relationship as a symbiosis. Both parties benefit. Yes the fetus pulls the nutrients and leeches off the mother for survival, but in many cases (Id say most but I dont want to contradict myself again) the mother benefits from the maternal bond she shares with the child. Every mother Ive met says that they complain about thier body and aches and pains when they are pregnant, but the bond they share with the child while in the womb is euphoric. Thats the leading cause of "Baby Blues" is the feeling of loss after the child is born. The mother almost resents the child for leaving her.

If there's a mutual benefit then you cannot use the word parasite (unless you want to be just plain wrong).

I was saying that I can see that being used as a point. Not saying I really agree with it. Read all of my posts on this topic and not just the last one before making a judgement please.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

You dont gain consciousness the moment you are born. It takes time.

Actually thats not true - a baby at birth is aware of ppl around it and makes demands, it uses comunication.
It can be argued which of and how much of these functions are largely automatic...

Action and reaction are not the same as consciousness or awareness.

And a baby doesnt really differentiates and "I" from a "You" in a time.

Which is what the last 20 posts have been talking about... read on

[The Last Autobot]

Actually thats not true - a baby at birth is aware of ppl around it and makes demands, it uses comunication.
It can be argued which of and how much of these functions are largely automatic...

Action and reaction are not the same as consciousness or awareness.

And a baby doesnt really differentiates and "I" from a "You" in a time.

Which is what the last 20 posts have been talking about... read on

Ive already done it.

And consciousness wouldnt be a valid criteria to define a human being. New borns are not conscious from the get go its a process that takes time.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Conciousness isnt valid why exactly?

Of course it is, if somthing isnt 'aware' thats its alive, then how can it possibly fear death? and thus killing it makes no odds except to the morals of my own life.

Babys display a level of conciousness when they leave the womb and at some points in the womb. thats how doctors defined the cut off point for abortion in the first place.

Physical development isnt important, its just makes removing the child morally more distressing to us/doctor.

[The Last Autobot]

Conciousness isnt valid why exactly?

Of course it is, if somthing isnt 'aware' thats its alive, then how can it possibly fear death? and thus killing it makes no odds except to the morals of my own life.

Babys display a level of conciousness when they leave the womb and at some points in the womb. thats how doctors defined the cut off point for abortion in the first place.

Physical development isnt important, its just makes removing the child morally more distressing to us/doctor.

A baby=human being. right?

A baby is not conscious of himself/his surroundings there is not "me" "not me" yet its a process that takes time.

Then ======

baby is not human being?

[Best First]

Conciousness isnt valid why exactly?

Of course it is, if somthing isnt 'aware' thats its alive, then how can it possibly fear death? and thus killing it makes no odds except to the morals of my own life.

Babys display a level of conciousness when they leave the womb and at some points in the womb. thats how doctors defined the cut off point for abortion in the first place.

Physical development isnt important, its just makes removing the child morally more distressing to us/doctor.

A baby=human being. right?

A baby is not conscious of himself/his surroundings there is not "me" "not me" yet its a process that takes time.

Then ======

baby is not human being?

i think what he means is aware. whether he has the terms to define that awareness is not particularly relevant.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

A born baby is concious/aware of its surroundings.
There have been many tests to determin this, this was how doctors determined the cut-off point for abortion.