At what point do you think the fetus becomes a baby? - Page 2

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-27-08, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intransigent Atheist

Upon birth, technically, before that it is a fetus dependent on the mother for life support.

Ah "technically", why would you say that unless you know that answer is balderdash!

Is it a life if the baby can be viable outside the womb or only when it pops out at full term?

Cephus · 02-27-08, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by americanwoman

Legally yes, but I am looking more for people's personal opinion on when it happens.

Personal opinions mean exactly jack and squat on this issue. I don't care if someone wants to think that a fetus becomes a baby at age 32, it doesn't really make a damn bit of difference.

Ikari · 02-27-08, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intransigent Atheist

Upon birth, technically, before that it is a fetus dependent on the mother for life support.

Isn't after birth, for quite some time, a child dependent upon its parents or adults for life support?

talloulou · 02-27-08, 01:07 PM

I think implantation is "big" in that prior to implantation the fertilized egg can be frozen and maintained in a somewhat "dormant" stage however after implantation it can't be removed without killing the living human.

galenrox · 02-27-08, 01:30 PM

I think the question is personage, at what point does it become a person. I say conception, but I say with with the acknowledgment that I take my opinion on this matter for very little. I think it's safe to say I have no idea, but conception is the only answer that makes sense to me, unless someone thinks God has a ray gun he fires into a woman's belly at some specified point in the pregnancy which inserts a soul into the baby.

talloulou · 02-27-08, 02:16 PM

Conception definitely seems like the logically point and arguing anything other than that seems odd, but I'm willing to move my stance to implantation just because birth control probably flushes out fertilized eggs often enough to make conception an impossible point for women to adhere to without giving up birth control pills, the MAP, ect. Plus there's the whole frozen embryo thing that's kind of weird. It's hard to believe a "person" could be frozen for an extended period of time with no ill effect. However if a fertilized egg is allowed to mature to a certain point outside the uterus it will live only up to a period of time where it must be implanted or it succumbs to death all on it's own. Once implantation occurs one has to take greater actions and actively molest it to kill it.

Korimyr the Rat · 02-27-08, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightOfCenter

I agreed with you up to here. If the parents decide that they are going to keep the child after conception it should be given the same protections under the law as any other member of society.

I'll concede extra legal protection for a woman carrying a wanted child. Seems reasonable enough to me, and a society lives or dies on its ability to protect young women and children.

The reason I don't think you can claim a child before birth is because, until the child is born, there's only one person capable of supporting it-- and that person really has little choice in supporting the child, unless she resorts to surgery to remove it. Once the child is born, the matter of who shall parent it becomes truly voluntary.

Korimyr the Rat · 02-27-08, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

I think it's safe to say I have no idea, but conception is the only answer that makes sense to me, unless someone thinks God has a ray gun he fires into a woman's belly at some specified point in the pregnancy which inserts a soul into the baby.

Have you considered the possibility that the soul is something that develops naturally within the human being?

Cephus · 02-27-08, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

Isn't after birth, for quite some time, a child dependent upon its parents or adults for life support?

Not for every breath they take, no. Further, a child can be cared for by just about anyone who wishes to, they are not biologically needy of a specific person, whether that person wants to take care of the child or not.

tecoyah · 02-27-08, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox

I think the question is personage, at what point does it become a person. I say conception, but I say with with the acknowledgment that I take my opinion on this matter for very little. I think it's safe to say I have no idea, but conception is the only answer that makes sense to me, unless someone thinks God has a ray gun he fires into a woman's belly at some specified point in the pregnancy which inserts a soul into the baby.

By this I take it the soul is what makes the person. As there is no actual recognized criteria for soul definition, let alone anything remotely provable about the concept scientifically...it follows there can be no persons in an agreed upon form. We also go back to the "conception makes the baby" problem, which is many fold in its issues.

Personally, I go by the brain for my baby labeling. If indeed there is a soul, I find it likely it needs consciousness to be. I also doubt anything can be conscious without a brain. As I am unsure when the brain begins to function at a level that creates conscious thought...I prefer to err on the safe side.