So the question still remains when does a fetus become what science acknowledges as a sentient independent person, sentient as in having higher brain functions capable of forming memories, independent as able to process air via its lungs to oxygenate its blood and take in nutrients to fuel its body, and a person. Does DNA make someone a person, then I submit via your premise, that a submissive chimera twin is also a person regardless of its development stage, its brain development or its reliance on another to survive . .therefore any removal of the submissive twin (except where it is life threatening to the dominant) should be illegal, and as such people who have extra limbs removed are committing murder. Notes - Chimera twins were separate at conception, each having unique DNA and according to your premise are therefore required to have rights, at some point the two separate "persons" merge, with one becoming dominant the other submissive, the submissive twin in most cases fails to develop properly, yet the bodily parts that remain still have unique DNA from the dominant twin. Your premise excludes development stage, brain development and reliance on another for survival and as such cannot be used in justification of removing any part of the submissive twin from the dominant twin .. unless of course your premise is purely arbitrary and related only to the unborn, which then means you are classifying the unborn as different from the born, which is not different from what the pro-choice argument is.
So if something has homeostasis it is human, and if it doesnt it is not human? What is your point with all this? In the mean time, why not learn about what incubators do from the people who make them and are in the business of saving babies lives: http://www.frankshospitalworkshop.c...ger AirShield Isolette C400 - User manual.pdf
We dealt with Chimeras before, none are the same human as the mother, and therefore she doesnt get a right to kill them. Sentient people are the only ones who can live now? Not people in comas that will recover? What about later term abortions when the baby resists deadly force? Surely, they are sentient then and are responding to pain. What about when they can kick, are they sentient then? When does the magic occur, please name the day the sentience fairy visits.
Cady, please don't stoop down to the level of democracy and mob rule, general consensus does not make something right nor moral. General consensus of people does not make rights nor takes them, the people and the law are not the source of inalienable rights.
Actually it is the people that are the source of righs, yes just plain rights and those are the only variety available.
As I mentioned, please educate yourself on the topic before debating it. As you have demonstrated a total lack of understanding what homeostasis is your questions are, how put is, just plain stupid.
I appreciate the insults, it shows I am winning. So, do the incubator makers not understand it as well as you? What medical devices do you design in your spare time? Are you a multi billion dollar medical supply company with years of specialized knowledge, or are you wrong?
Well obviously if we have dealt with chimeras before the logic didn't get through. People in comas were sentient at some point in their lives, can you say the same for a fetus? As late-term abortions are almost exclusively done for medical reasons ie life threatening to the woman, or fetal disability incompatible with life I fail to see the relevance here. BTW I don't believe that abortions should be elective after 21 weeks, why because that is the earliest surviving premature birth recorded. which is also pretty much how the law stands at this time. It can be fairly easily found out when sentience occurs, ECG readings can be taken and if there are sustained readings, not just sporadic bursts then it can safely be assumed that the fetus is sentient. Can you name the time when the person fairy comes during fertilization, as that itself can take between 12 and 24 hours.
I'm sorry but you are wrong, majority consensus is what makes the majority of laws, usually in a democratic country via the ballot box, where the majority side with the party or candidate that best follows their own ideals, they expect that party of candidate to represent and push for the ideals of the people who voted from him/her. If the people and the law are not the source of inalienable rights what is?
Because they were unaware of his intent toward the Jews. They did not support the murder of Jews. OTOH, Americans are aware of what abortion is, why it is sometimes necessary, and that women, rather than the government, have a right to control their own reproductive health.
Funny, you make a generalization claiming that YOUR position is held by the majority....somebody else points out an opposing position is held by the majority....and thus you disparage majority opinion. Why doesn't the "concensus abortion is morally wrong" generalization not ALSO fall under the "Germans suipported Hitler too" rationale you make??? Just because you don't want it too???
Read the Declaration of Independence through completely. Then you might know why your kind can and never will stand in this country unless you abolish it completely and all its ever stood for. The United States isn't a democracy and never should be. Majorities are limited for the protection of minorities.
No insults just merely pointing out facts, in this case that you are arguing about something you have no knowledge of and had to look up on your iphone. I can, however imagine that being shown incompetent is some respects is unpleasant and taken as an insult. Please do not delude yourself. Lacking knowledge and understanding does not make for a winner under any circumstances. I am sure you can use your iphone well. Perhaps you should debate that topic instead. The incubator makers have no role and bringing them into discussion does not diminish your lack of knowledge of the matter. What I do in my spare time or what I am is not relevant to the topic. Some knowledge and understanding of homeostasis in this case is and you would better serve yourself if you educated yourself on it instead of going of on irrelevant tangents like incubators and their makers.
Do you understand they are not the same person as their mother now? Is it the past or the future that decides if they stay on life support? So you believe it happens at viability. 20 weeks is the new standard. Well that is even earlier then viability isn't it? So now, what are we looking at, 14 weeks or so? At the time a new DNA is formed, distinct from the mother AND that cell reproduces. Before it reproduces it is human, just not proven itself living. After that, it is a live human. I am not interested in subjective "person" arguments, they have been used throughout time to excuse the worst of human behavior.
Look at Poland's abortion rates, before and after criminalization. From 1992 to 1993, we see a nearly 90% drop. Here we can clearly see that the abortion rate did dramatically increase after abortion became legalized: (this is from a pro-choice organization, by the way ... It's also kind of interesting how they used a similarly proportioned scale to display alleged abortion deaths to the abortion rate in the comparison) Seems like this whole thing is just a straw man from pro-choicers.
Well if you want to be precise the USA is a democratic republic, and the D of I in no way changes the fact that majority consensus shape laws of which there is ample evidence.
You're right, the discussion is like two locomotives heading in the same direction but on different tracks. It will reach two different destinations.
As has been pointed out before using these comparisons is a red-herring, abortion figures prior to Roe vs Wade were unknown, they were not reported . .so explain how you can compare abortion rates when no records were kept to abortion rates when records were kept. However if you want to have a real comparison look at maternal death rates prior and after Roe vs Wade.
Never said they were nor have I ever stated or even thought that a fetus was the same "person" as they women .. but how does this have any relevance to chimera twins? Neither, Its usually the doctor and nearest kin who decide .. just as it is with abortion, the doctor and nearest kin (the pregnant woman) Is it, care to point me in the direction of the evidence that a 20 week old fetus has survived premature birth - http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=13397 Nope, you got it wrong, brain wave activity is not found in a fetus prior to 20 weeks and is not continuous until at least 24 weeks. So because "person" doesn't adhere to your opinion you dismiss it, umm ok
Explain why you think this birth deformity is the holy grail of abortion arguments? I it isn't the mother, she can't kill it. I am fine with her committing suicide, just not abortion. She is free to do with her body what she wants, just not another human's body. That isn't how it works with high recovery cases. You would have a cause of action assuming standing in that situation. You are wrong in that case. At least in this state. Sure I will google later. Answer my questions first. If I am wrong, my apologies. In any event, I support banning it earlier then the 21 weeks originally quoted. Would you be ok with banning it after the 21 week viability you mentioned? Brain waves detectable at 6 weeks according to universities and the like. Are you getting your info from planned parenthood? Name a single time In history the use of the term "person" to distinguish humans from one another has lead to something positive. Your whole "person" agenda is based on superstition and a foggy rationalization for what is essentially a violent and selfish act in the majority of cases. A convenience kill. Unless life of the mother is at stake,(less then .00008% if baby is healthy), or the child is result of rape. What is the main motive behind an abortion when no rape, and no serious threat to life of the mother is at stake? (More then the super low statistical treat) Just answer, what is the main motive behind the mother in that situation? What is the motive of the doctor performing the abortion? This goes right to the analogy of the super high likelihood of recovery coma patient we are talking about. Lets take it a bit at a time. But please don't dodge those two questions.
