Replies

But the poster imposed no such condition, only survivability outside the womb. Even a "clump of cells" can do that, for a time. My point is that if you're going to make ex-vitro survivability your ethical lodestar of personhood, you'd better join the pro-life movement, because you've moved the timeline back to the point of conception (whether you realize it or not). Otherwise, you're going to have to walk the logical plank of defining (and defending) another arbitrary point in time, i.e., how long is long enough in terms of survival ex-vitro and why? That's hopeless, because we can logically argument that point into non-existence.

In my own life, I am 100% against abortion. I abhor it, and no doctor who's ever performed an abortion will come near my children.

However, as it relates to the law of the land, I am in favor of restricting "a woman's right to choose" down to the first 7-12 weeks, depending on scientific evidence as to when the baby can think for itself and is fully formed in the womb. In my mind, clearly before this point, a baby is not yet "alive".

So you pin individuality --and thus worthy of protection-- to the functioning of the organ called brain or the mere presence of the organ called brain?

Did you know that the ORGANISM must be already alive in order to build its own organs? The embryo is completely viable as an individual human ORGANISM in the environment in which it exists ... in vitro, it survives on the 'nutrient' provided; in utero it survives on the nutrients it can commandeer from the woman's body ... but it is the individual already existing ORGANISM who triggers the woman's body to provide life support in the 'water-world, it is the already alive individual ORGANISM who builds the organs for later survival when leaving the water-world to survive in the air-world.

Like freeper Luke Skyfreeper, it seems you've used some pretty fuzzy definitions. Think for itself? How do you define that, and how do you establish that? Surely at 7-12 weeks you can't administer an IQ test. You can't establish Apgar scores, at least not in any meaningful way that is accepted in the field. So what is it? And, more important, why should an individual's score on some kind of test be the determinor of personhood? Talk about a slippery slope! I mean, if we take that as an operable principle, almost anything goes. IQ score not up to par? Do them in! (The Nazis did just this with their "useless person" paradigm.) Didn't do very well on the SAT? Sorry, kid, you're outta here. Come in kinda low on the TOEFL? Bummer. But, sorry, the law's the law...(BANG!)

In my mind, clearly before this point, a baby is not yet "alive".

So what is it, then? Is it dead? Is it in kind of quasi-alive state of being that is new to science? I guess there are cases where science can't really define if something is "alive"; viruses, for example. There you go, ladies, at 7-12 weeks, you thought you were carrying a child, but all you had was a virus (sort of)...

Hey, believe it or not, I'm not trying to be flippant here. Maybe its more a case of being sardonic to illustrate the kinds of problems that come up when we try to dodge the real issue (how you define when a person is a person and what the basis is for that) and cover it up with word games and other assorted mental gymnastics.