Remember how upset pro-abortion types are at the idea that pro-life medical clinics perform ultrasounds without doctors? It didn’t matter to them if they were certified ultrasound technicians.
Well just to prove that their concern was only a tactic.
As states across the country are passing laws to restrict access to abortion, California lawmakers are considering a significant expansion of who would be able to perform the procedure in the state. Under a bill that passed its first committee hearing Tuesday, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants would be able to perform what is known as an “aspiration” abortion, which is the most common abortion procedure and takes place in the first trimester of a pregnancy. [Source]
Of course they were also not upset about abortion telemedicine – abortion via teleconference performed by non-doctors.
121 comments
Sabine? Um… this is weird but those definitions are exactly what I’m saying.
Fetus: : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
See? DEVELOPING. Not human, not yet.
Let’s say you’re waking by a fertility clinic, in one wing you have new born babies in the other wing you have fertilized eggs that will be implanted into sterile women the next day for gestation and eventual birth.
A fire breaks out in the center of the building, you only can save one wing with the fire extinguisher. Do you save the wing with the embryos or do you save the wing with the babies?
>I started studying medicine back in the early 80′s, what about you?
So, you’re a doctor then?
how does developing make it not human? and the definition of child includes the unborn.
Doctors are not the only humans capable of studying medicine. Is the point here about RU486 being contraindicated in tubal pregnancies? Are you suggesting it is not or are you, Salvage, saying you can not possibly know because you are not a doctor?
You have no idea if a fetus had the potential to reason. So… do you believe that the fetus is a potential person?
>No, I’m saying a fetus is a fetus and a person is a person.
I understand this is what you’ve been saying. I guess my question to you would be: why is a fetus not a person? Explain the reason for your belief, please.
btw – developing as used in the definition was an adjective. An adjective is used to describe a noun.
>how does developing make it not human?
Because it is developing. Things that are not human are not human even things that can become human. Sperm are not human, eggs are not human, 8 dividing cells are not human and a human fetus is not human.
>and the definition of child includes the unborn.
As in a colloquialism, like a pregnant woman saying “It’s our first child” but that “child” is still a fetus and not a person. We would know it to be a person if it weren’t inside a womb. People cannot live in wombs and fetuses cannot live without one (natural or artificial).
>why is a fetus not a person? Explain the reason for your belief, please.
It’s not a belief it is a fact, you can only find a fetus inside a womb, you will never find a person.
Are sperm people? Are eggs people? Are 8 dividing cells people? Are 16? 32 and so on.
>btw – developing as used in the definition was an adjective. An adjective is used to describe a noun.
That’s nice. You can use it anyway you like but something that is growing into something isn’t that thing until it has grown to it.
Okay, salvage, you really ought to be more consistent. So, you agree to the definition of a person that Sabine provided.
>>Definition of PERSON
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
>Sabine? Um… this is weird but those definitions are exactly what I’m saying.
There is nothing about that definition that says a person cannot live in the womb. But you go on to say that the reason a fetus is not a person is that it is in the womb.
>you can only find a fetus inside a womb, you will never find a person.
Could you clarify?
No, Salvage, developing human is a way of describing a human. Developing, in this case, by the proper use of English grammar, is an adjective (which I have already pointed out) An adjective is used to describe a noun, the noun being “human.” A noun is a person, place or thing. Remember? Sperm and eggs are things. The only clear demarcations in human development are conception, birth and death. Birth merely changes the location of the developing human entity. You suggested earlier that the demarcation for baby, child, adolescence and so on where clear. Could you please define when a child becomes and adolescent? Or an adolescent becomes and adult?
What I see with you is a fundamental lack of honesty. If you were arguing that the unborn human should not have legal personhood that would be one thing. However, to continue to attempt to argue that the unborn of the human species are not human is biological flawed.
excuse the typographical errors, if you would:
Could you please define when a child becomes an adolescent? Or an adolescent becomes an adult?
>There is nothing about that definition that says a person cannot live in the womb
Wow.
Just wow.
>No, Salvage, developing human is a way of describing a human.
No, a human is the only way to describe a human, a fetus is a way to describe a developing human.
Look. Silly people. You can play all these rhetorical games all you like it doesn’t change the simple fact that a fetus is part of the woman’s body and whatever you want to call it, whatever rights you imagine it possess none of that trumps that LITERAL fact. Nor can those rights superseded the woman’s under any circumstances.
Unless you feel that a woman, once pregnant loses her rights as a person.
>Could you please define when a child becomes an adolescent? Or an adolescent becomes an adult?
Don’t know, don’t care and don’t know why you’re talking about things that are not fetuses. Those are ways to describe people.
Kyian – I am also very curious about the clarification of finding a fetus in the womb but not a person. Salvage left a very glaring hole in his statement (not surprising, is it?). Wouldn’t it depend what kind of womb you are referring to? In a human womb, one would find a ______ fetus.
Does any else have the image of a ranting child with a fistful of his mother’s plants, screaming, “They aren’t plants! They are seedlings!!!”
Salvage, instead of just wowing, could you please tell me, what in your definition of person prohibits a human person from existing in a human womb?
>Wouldn’t it depend what kind of womb you are referring to?
Thanks for pointing that out, Sabine.
To quote you, salvage { 04.25.12 at 9:41 pm }
“… definitions of children I’ve ever read made no mention of the child living inside the mother’s womb wheres you can’t define a fetus without mentioning that rather salient point.” We provided you with definitions that are contrary to what you say since Merriam-Webster describes a child as unborn.
“a human is the only way to describe a human” ??? You must read very little then. You do not “believe” in adjectives, ever?
>Salvage, instead of just wowing, could you please tell me, what in your definition of person prohibits a human person from existing in a human womb?
Try and live in a womb, let me know how that works out for you.
>We provided you with definitions that are contrary to what you say since Merriam-Webster describes a child as unborn.
Do you know what the word “colloquialism” means? I explained to you that part of the definition of child is what an expectant parent would call the fetus. That doesn’t mean that the fetus in her womb suddenly becomes a child.
A fetus is a fetus and a child, as in a born person, is a person.
So this is all you have? Women don’t have absolute right to their body because of what a dictionary says?
Deeply silly people.
>Try and live in a womb, let me know how that works out for you.
Actually, not too many years ago, I was living in my mother’s womb. Worked out great. But that’s beside the point. You still haven’t answered my question. Or are you avoiding it because this is where your argument fails?
>So this is all you have? Women don’t have absolute right to their body because of what a dictionary says?
So far, I’ve not said a word about the rights of the mother. I’m getting to it. If you’d only answer the question, maybe we’d get somewhere.
>Actually, not too many years ago, I was living in my mother’s womb.
Yes and at that time you were not a person and your mother had the only say as to your fate.
Try and move back in now, see what Mom thinks.
Your question is nonsense but I have answered it several times. Fetuses live in wombs, people do not. That’s one of the ways you can tell them apart.
>So far, I’ve not said a word about the rights of the mother
I know, probably because for some weird reason you think she doesn’t have any.
So location, size and age determine humanity?
Oh, and name one human who hasn’t gotten here via his or her mother’s womb?
The youngest of a species live in that species’ womb. In the case of people, that would be a human fetus. Salvage, you still have not explained, using any sort of rational, logical premise, how and why a human fetus is not a human.
>So location, size and age determine humanity?
Look, I’m not sure why you have trouble understanding this, human fetus are found in wombs, they have no rights greater than the mother’s. Human BEINGS live outside the womb, they have the same amount of rights and one of the big ones is the right to their own bodies.
>Oh, and name one human who hasn’t gotten here via his or her mother’s womb?
None. Name one fetus that you would rescue from a fire over an embryo.
I can’t help but notice that you strolled past that question. Gosh. Wonder why?
>, how and why a human fetus is not a human.
I have, I think you just can’t understand stuff.
A human fetus is a human fetus, that is it is not a human being / person.
Once again, fire, you can save a new born baby OR you can save a developing fetus, which would you pick?
You would pick the baby, I would pick the baby, the Pope would pick the baby, the baby would pick the baby, if the fetus could pick things it would pick the baby.
See? Different things are DIFFERENT! Weird huh?
>Salvage, you still have not explained, using any sort of rational, logical premise, how and why a human fetus is not a human.
Thank you, Sabine.
Salvage, to quote your { 04.28.12 at 10:36 am } post:
>>Where a person is does not affect his personhood.
>Absolutely.
So saying that a fetus is not person simply because it is inside the womb doesn’t get it. Please keep trying.
As a side note, I may not be able to post again until Monday, so all you pro-lifers, thanks and keep up the good work.
“Do you know what the word “colloquialism” means? I explained to you that part of the definition of child is what an expectant parent would call the fetus.” I actually *do* know what colloquial means but don’t believe you, Salvage, do. Pregnant women commonly refer to their unborn as many things but usually not just “child” which means it is not colloquialism.
Have a great weekend, KYian. I enjoyed reading your comments.
“….they have no rights greater than the mother’s. ” No-one is assertaining that they should. However, equal rights would be dandy.
Let’s say you’re waking by a fertility clinic, in one wing you have new born babies in the other wing you have fertilized eggs that will be implanted into sterile women the next day for gestation and eventual birth.
A fire breaks out in the center of the building, you only can save one wing with the fire extinguisher. Do you save the wing with the embryos or do you save the wing with the babies?
Salvage, your fire scenario is a typical hypothetical no win scenario. I’d save a pregnant woman and a infant if possible. You might set up this scenario: would you save a bilateral amputee or someone recovering from an appendicitis? What if the amputee only lost one limb and the appendicitis guy isn’t recovering very well? I We can set up all sorts of pretend scenarios that do n0t in any way contribute to the discussion.
“Once again, fire, you can save a new born baby OR you can save a developing fetus, which would you pick?”
Yes, I’d save the baby while the mother of the developing fetus/baby would walk out on her own and thereby saving her baby. The fact remains, just as 2+2=4, a human fetus is a human baby even if you continue to state otherwise.
You would pick the baby, I would pick the baby, the Pope would pick the baby, the baby would pick the baby, if the fetus could pick things it would pick the baby.
The fetus would pick it’s mother walking out.
>Salvage, your fire scenario is a typical hypothetical no win scenario. I’d save a pregnant woman and a infant if possible.
>Yes, I’d save the baby while the mother of the developing fetus/baby would walk out on her own and thereby saving her baby.
You really have trouble reading and understanding stuff. There is no pregnant woman, just new born and embryos waiting to be implanted.
But you’ve proven my point, you ignored the question because you know what the obvious and only answer is. A fetus is not a baby, I know, I know someone people call the fetus a child but that doesn’t change the literal fact that only fetuses can live in wombs.
>a human fetus is a human baby
No, a human fetus is a human fetus and a human baby is a human baby, see that’s why we have different words for them. If they were the same thing it’d be the same word.
>“….they have no rights greater than the mother’s. ” No-one is assertaining that they should. However, equal rights would be dandy.
So you would give full legal rights to 16 dividing cells? Why?
Here’s another question for your to ignore / not understand / twist around so you can answer comfortably:
Abortion is illegal, of course like anything illegal people keep on doing it. What should be the penalty for the woman and doctor who aborts her fetus?
>So you would give full legal rights to 16 dividing cells? Why?
From the time the egg is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither the life of the father nor the life of the mother. It is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. This human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and therefore from that moment his rights as a person must be recognized.
>I have, I think you just can’t understand stuff.
>A human fetus is a human fetus, that is it is not a human being / person.
Perhaps you would like to help us understand this. Why can’t a human fetus be a human person?
>…that doesn’t change the literal fact that only fetuses can live in wombs.
WHY? Tell us what it is about a person that prohibits it from living in the womb? Also, bacteria, for example, can live in the womb. Better rethink your statement. Perhaps what you’re trying to say is “fetuses can only live in wombs” since by definition a fetus is unborn.
>Abortion is illegal, and of course like anything illegal people keep on doing it. What should be the penalty for the woman and doctor who aborts her fetus?
The penalty would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But bear in mind that abortion is murder and so the penalty should be along the lines of the penalty for any murder.
But what if the mother’s life is in serious danger, as in an ectopic pregnancy? If anything could possibly be done to save the mother while also saving the baby, it should be done. But because it is better to save one life than to lose two, if there is no other means of doing this, then removing the child to save the mother could be morally justified.
The difference between this and other abortions is that here, the intent is to save the mother’s life. The death of the child is a secondary effect, but not an intentional murder. If this, the effort to save a life, is illegal, then what should be the penalty? Honestly, I don’t know.
To clarify:
>But because it is better to save one life than to lose two, if there is no other means of doing this,…
“By “no means of doing this” I meant no other means of saving both the baby and the mother.
>From the time the egg is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither the life of the father nor the life of the mother.
Yet you would let it burn up in a fire!
No, it has no more rights than the sperm and egg and came together to make it. Dividing cells are not people.
>Perhaps you would like to help us understand this. Why can’t a human fetus be a human person?
For the same reason sperm and eggs can’t be people, they simple are not. The only thing that is people are people.
>…that doesn’t change the literal fact that only fetuses can live in wombs.
>WHY? Tell us what it is about a person that prohibits it from living in the womb?
Do you really not understand the physical impossibility of that? People breath air, fetus breath liquid, people eat food via the mouth, fetuses eat via an umbilical cord… good gravy are you really this confused?
>Also, bacteria, for example, can live in the womb.
…
Bacteria aren’t people either.
>Better rethink your statement. Perhaps what you’re trying to say is “fetuses can only live in wombs” since by definition a fetus is unborn.
Okay, okay, you got me, bacteria “live” in wombs and I don’t think they should be given the same rights as a mother either.
>The penalty would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis
A woman is gang raped, she gets an abortion when she finds out she’s pregnant, what would be the penalty in that case?
>But bear in mind that abortion is murder and so the penalty should be along the lines of the penalty for any murder.
Along the lines but not inline? See how mushy your opinion gets when reality is applied?
So since abortion is murder killing abortion doctors is justifiable then?
> then removing the child to save the mother could be morally justified.
Let’s say the baby would be fine, the woman however could die, is it okay to “murder” the baby then? By your logic no, absolutely not, you can’t trade on life for another. It would all be left in the hands of your god.
> Honestly, I don’t know.
That is the most sensible thing you have said in this whole thread.
You don’t know but you don’t let that get in the way of deciding what others should do.
Salvage,
I’m relatively sure you know that the fire scenario isn’t original and really has no bearing on the topic. I’m not sure how on earth I’d end up in a lab that stores frozen embryo’s with someone else’s infant? I’m also relatively sure that you know that Catholics are opposed to creating people in test tubes and petri dishes and then storing them for later use. However, I could find myself at some point in a home with a wheelchair bound person, an infant, a toddler, and you – let’s say there’s a fire and you are knocked out. Now what am I supposed to do? To be honest, my human inclination would be to stack the kids on the wheelchair guy and head on out – I’m not really all that strong and have a bit of arthritis. However, I do know that the babies would go straight to heaven, and the wheel chair guy is at peace with God. You still have a journey to go on. Now what? Seriously, I pray I’m never in that sort of situation, but if I am, I hope the Holy Spirit tells me what to do.
Honestly, I’ve had this conversation countless times throughout the years starting with college prof’s – they may have had a bit of a better grasp on presenting a logical argument that prevented some of the word games. I’m not sure what you judge your purpose on this forum to be – maybe to have a bit of fun as you try to needle people? We know that you were created to know God, so you are searching, whether you will admit it or not, and you are in our prayers.
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” ~ G.K. Chesterton
>I’m relatively sure you know that the fire scenario isn’t original and really has no bearing on the topic.
Of course it’s not original and it has everything to do with the topic. It proves that on every level and embryo is not a person and given the choice anyone would rescue the babies without hesitation. If they were the same thing the choice would be impossible.
>I’m also relatively sure that you know that Catholics are opposed to creating people in test tubes and petri dishes and then storing them for later use.
Yes, I know, Catholics can be silly about all kinds of things. Regardless the point of the hypothetical was made.
>To be honest, my human inclination would be to stack the kids on the wheelchair guy and head on out –
Of course you would, you’re a decent human being, and if there was an embryo it would be your last concern. Thank you, no need to belabor it my point has been made.
>I pray I’m never in that sort of situation, but if I am, I hope the Holy Spirit tells me what to do.
Yeah, depend on the supernatural in a crisis, good plan. Hint: 911 will work much better it having the advantage of being real.
> I’m not sure what you judge your purpose on this forum to be – maybe to have a bit of fun as you try to needle people?
Nope, I find theism and religion fascinating and like to test my beliefs against those who think otherwise so that I can learn and hopefully be found wrong. I love it when I’m wrong about something, first step to being right.
In the case of abortion and choice I doubt that will ever happen as the whole “Women have absolute rights to their own bodies” makes a pretty stubborn obstacle to get around. One of those “do unto others” deals I suppose.
>We know that you were created to know God,
Really? How do you know this? And I know your god, I’ve studied its history all the way from the Neolithic to the Reformation.
> so you are searching, whether you will admit it or not, and you are in our prayers.
Again, what is the point of prayer? Are you telling your god to do something? Asking it? If it’s the right thing to do would it already be doing it?
>“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” ~ G.K. Chesterton
Quite true and that applied to theism in so many ways. A good example would be limbo, How did that work? It was real until the Pope said it wasn’t?
>Yet you would let it burn up in a fire!
Actually, I hadn’t answered this question. The choice of which wing to try to save cannot be determined by how old the people to be saved are.
>For the same reason sperm and eggs can’t be people, they simple are not.
I agree that sperm and eggs are not people. Likewise, an atom of hydrogen is not water and two atoms of oxygen are not water. But unite them and you have water. So no, it cannot be for the same reason.
>People breath air, fetus breath liquid,…
Adults walk, young children crawl. Still, what they do does not affect their personhood.
>…people eat food via the mouth, fetuses eat via an umbilical cord…
So a man who is being fed by a feeding tube directly to the stomach is not a person?
>Bacteria aren’t people either.
Lol! I agree. I didn’t say that living in the womb makes something a person.
>A woman is gang raped, she gets an abortion when she finds out she’s pregnant, what would be the penalty in that case?
I’m only the child of a lawyer; I’m not a judge. And even if I were a judge, it’s a little hard to come to a verdict with just the two facts you present. I would only say that it doesn’t matter why she feels like killing her child, the abortion is still a murder.
>Along the lines but not inline?
Excuse me, what I meant to say is that the killing of a baby in the womb is just as much murder is is the killing of an innocent adult, and needs to be judged with the same guidelines.
>So since abortion is murder killing abortion doctors is justifiable then?
It is believed that Lee Harvey Ozwald killed JFK. Jack Ruby shot and killed Ozwald. No, this was not just. It is the same with the doctor in your senario. The fact that he commits murder does not make murdering him okay. However, if you’re talking about bringing him to trial, finding him guilty and passing a death sentence, yes, this is justifiable.
>Let’s say the baby would be fine, the woman however could die, is it okay to “murder” the baby then? By your logic no, absolutely not, you can’t trade on life for another. It would all be left in the hands of your god.
There are many sad truths. But, I’d like to point something out. Say the baby in her is too young to live without her. Then the baby dies when she dies. Now say the baby is not to young. So, you remove the baby, and save both.
>You don’t know but you don’t let that get in the way of deciding what others should do.
No, no, you misunderstand. I brought up the case of an ectopic pregnancy as an exception. I made no statement about “what others should do” in this case.
>…you are in our prayers.
Yes, you can be assured of this. I will never forget you.
>Actually, I hadn’t answered this question. The choice of which wing to try to save cannot be determined by how old the people to be saved are.
Sure it can, the embryos are 0 old, haven’t had their birthday yet you see.
>I agree that sperm and eggs are not people.
And neither are dividing cells or a fetus.
> Adults walk, young children crawl. Still, what they do does not affect their personhood.
Adults and children do not live in wombs.
>So a man who is being fed by a feeding tube directly to the stomach is not a person?
Are they in a womb? See that’s the important bit.
>Lol! I agree. I didn’t say that living in the womb makes something a person.
Ah good, then you understand that a fetus is not a person.
> I would only say that it doesn’t matter why she feels like killing her child, the abortion is still a murder.
And that’s it in a nutshell, “doesn’t matter why she feels”. As far as you are concerned a woman has no say over her body. That would put you in the same category as the rapists by the way; you do not respect the woman’s rights to have complete say over her body. Here “feelings” don’t matter.
Finally, one of you admits it!
>Excuse me, what I meant to say is that the killing of a baby in the womb is just as much murder is is the killing of an innocent adult, and needs to be judged with the same guidelines.
Look at you! Flip flopping like a Romeny! Adorable.
>So since abortion is murder killing abortion doctors is justifiable then?
> The fact that he commits murder does not make murdering him okay.
But you’d be saving all the babies the doctor is going to kill! That justifies it doesn’t it?
> However, if you’re talking about bringing him to trial, finding him guilty and passing a death sentence, yes, this is justifiable.
AHAHAHHAHA! SO PRO-LIFE! SO LIKE JESUS! This is what I love about talking to theists, their hypocrisy and ill-logic is so easy to lay bare.
>Let’s say the baby would be fine, the woman however could die, is it okay to “murder” the baby then? By your logic no, absolutely not, you can’t trade on life for another. It would all be left in the hands of your god.
>. Say the baby in her is too young to live without her. Then the baby dies when she dies. Now say the baby is not to young. So, you remove the baby, and save both.
And say the baby will live but the mother will die, would you let her get an abortion? Let her trade her life for that of an innocent?
>You don’t know but you don’t let that get in the way of deciding what others should do.
> I brought up the case of an ectopic pregnancy as an exception
Whoa, hold on a second, exceptions? We are talking murder right? How can there be exceptions?
Salvage, you aren’t going to convince us. Move on.
I have no interest in convincing you of anything, I’m looking to find out why I am wrong and so far no one had been able to mount any sort of coherent argument. As far as I can tell you think children live in wombs and that once a woman is pregnant she ceases to have full control of her body.
>Adults and children do not live in wombs.
>Are they in a womb? See that’s the important bit.
So, we’re back to the old reason of location.
>>I didn’t say that living in the womb makes something a person.
>Ah good, then you understand that a fetus is not a person.
Oh, did I hear someone mention twisting words? I didn’t say that living in the womb makes something not a person, either.
>As far as you are concerned a woman has no say over her body.
No, the problem is there is more than one body involved. The baby also has rights, not the least of which is the right to life.
>But you’d be saving all the babies the doctor is going to kill! That justifies it doesn’t it?
A good end never justifies the evil means of getting there.
>We are talking murder right? How can there be exceptions?
No, we’re not talking murder in this instance. Here’s the deal: a woman conceives and the embryo implants in the fallopian tube. If left alone, the baby will continue to grow, the tube will rupture, and the mother and child will die. So, doctors do all they can to prevent these two deaths. They come up with nothing that will work, so they focus on saving one life.
The baby will most likely *not* live without the mother; but the mother will live if the child is removed. So, they remove the child. This is not to say they kill the child. They do not tear off limbs or suck out brains. The child is given a chance to live outside the womb, even though it will likely die. The intent is not to kill, but rather to save a life that could otherwise not be saved.
This is the exception I was referring to. I am not saying “this murder is acceptable.” I’m saying that this abortion is not murder.
While you’re thinking about my first question, here’s another that might help later on. When does the fetus become a person? At birth? Is it when the head is visible? Or completely exposed? Or when the entire body is exposed? Is it when the cord is cut? Or when the lungs are cleared and the infant begins breathing air? You said before that fetuses breathe liquid and people breathe air. My youngest sister was turning blue before she began to breathe. Was she not a person then?
>So, we’re back to the old reason of location.
Um never left it.
>Oh, did I hear someone mention twisting words?
You are here.
> I didn’t say that living in the womb makes something not a person, either.
No it doesn’t make anything anything, the fact is the only things that live in wombs are fetuses, fetuses are not people.
>No, the problem is there is more than one body involved. The baby also has rights, not the least of which is the right to life.
Nope. Just one body and the fetus can have as many rights as you like but those rights in no way trump or supersede the woman’s.
>A good end never justifies the evil means of getting there.
Oh dear, don’t read any Vatican history for instance you do know that Christianity became the official religion of the Empire after a bloody war right?
>We are talking murder right? How can there be exceptions?
>I’m saying that this abortion is not murder.
It’s neat how you can set exceptions to your absolutes.
Abortion isn’t murder in any circumstance, you can’t murder a fetus.
Let’s say a pregnant women gets drunk and falls down the stairs and miscarries. Should she be charged with a crime?
Let’s say a mother gets drunk and falls down the stairs killing her new born child that she was holding. Should she be charged with a crime?
.>When does the fetus become a person?
When it no longer lives in a womb, I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this once or twice.
Do you really not understand that a fetus needs a womb to live? And that womb is part of the woman’s body? Like it’s right inside her! Yet you seem to think that it’s yours to do with. How is that different from a rapist I wonder?
We need water to live also. Would it be just to deny us water because the water is located on property not belonging to us? Moreover, babies do not live independently of their mothers’ bodies for a long time. They need breastmilk to survive, so the body of the mother continues to be vital to the baby’s survival. Breasts, like wombs are also part of the woman’s body.
>We need water to live also.
Yes.
>Would it be just to deny us water because the water is located on property not belonging to us?
It doesn’t sound like it would be… is this going someplace?
>Moreover, babies do not live independently of their mothers’ bodies for a long time.
Sure?
>They need breastmilk to survive, so the body of the mother continues to be vital to the baby’s survival.
Weird, I was never breastfed and yet I lived! It’s a miracle! So if the mother dies after birth the baby won’t survive? Or are there other things you can feed a baby that will save it from starvation?
A fetus is unique, a womb is unique, you’re scrambling around trying to find an parallel and I’m telling you there is none to be found.
>Breasts, like wombs are also part of the woman’s body.
Oh indeed they are and like every other bit of the woman’s body the woman has the final say as to what is done with them. No not only means no it means her choice, her decision in every way and every day.
And babies don’t live in breast and nor do fetuses so there is that too.
Gee – I thought anthropology was your field of study. Surely you know that anthropologically it is a fact that human babies need human milk to survive? Just because we’ve manipulated that doesn’t change human history. However, I’ll go along. If artificial wombs become available, will it then be illegal to kill human fetuses?