When does a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) become a person? WHY?

Social care in physiological support not direct physiological support.

By your definition anyone requiring mechanical ventilation would be deemed no longer a separate legal entity

 

I have not given any definition of anything. I made a comment on "birth".

I don't think so. I'm trying to avoid getting lost in the thicket of semantics. Which word we use is unimportant, as long as we agree on its meaning. I'm not challenging your definition for "viable". I'm simply saying that, as you use it, it means very little more than "capable of breathing"... and therefore I wonder why you find it to be determinant.

 

What if a machine could sustain the life of the fetus at a certain point (let's say 12 weeks, as an example) outside the woman? Would that change the way you would think about this?

Why is the viability issue so important? Being able to survive physiologically separate doesn't change what its nature is.

The way I see it, the most important aspect here is the BRAIN. Not even whether it's functioning yet but what it's functional capacity is. (Because it's theoretically possibly to turn on and off a human brain with a pharmaceutical cornucopia of drugs, putting them into a medically induced coma, but that doesn't change the value of what their inherent worth as a human being is at that moment)

 

If you are looking at determining legal independence as opposed to social, physiological and or biological independence then it has to be the ability to be self determining which does not occur until adulthood and sometimes not even then

 

Really? That is not exactly how science sees it

 

Does brain depth change things? Yes it does

Does organ death change things and again yes it does - for fully functioning entities it is about how much society is willing to invest

 

So you DO believe the zygote looks like and is shaped exactly like the Gerber baby from conception ! Wow, that is sooooo strange...

 

You ignored this from a post of mine you quoted:






"""IF a fetus is considered a person from conception with all it's rights comes restrictions and ,( YES, the law enters here,) and one of those restrictions is that no one can use another's body to sustain their life...so women can kill the fetus even if it's a person.

Every person has a right to self defense so women may kill the fetus even if it's a person ......

It has to be a legal decision or women's rights would be trashed under the boots of Anti-Choice misogynists...""""









.........so did you really want to discuss things or just want to give a speech?

 

OH! That is good!!! I LIKE IT!

 

Yes that is how science sees it.

 

That sounds intuitive on the surface, but if we take closer look at it, is that actually logically true?

Do you have any logic to back up the contention that "no one can use another's body to sustain their life" ?
Or is your argument an entirely legal one?

It depends, defense from what ?
And it depends whether they put themselves in that situation or not. For example, a bank robber doesn't get the legal right to shoot a security guard because the security guard is aiming a gun at him, even though it may be self-defense within the confines of that smaller frame of the situation. The wider situation, however, is that the robber put themselves in that situation. Just like the woman.

 

Do have any way or proof to refute that or do you just have ""Panda Gestation Periods "" to make a point ?

Uh, duh, harm...WTF else?

No, it does not.


.

That's the most garbled Non-analogy I've seen even in your posts...


I can help straighten it out but you really don't want "self defense" explained ... you , like all Anti-Choicers, just want women punished for having sex...period.



The security guard shoots the robber because the robber presents a dangerous of situation of harm and possibly death to the guard and bank employees...














BTW, please don't refer to yourself as "we"....it does nothing to strengthen what ever stance you have and hey, there is only one of you....

 

No. I said nothing of the kind. If you're want to invent my side of the conversation as well as your own, that's your privilege. But "talking to oneself" is um... er... often a symptom of mental instability...

 

The problems been clarified, women have the same rights to their bodies as everyone else and abortion is legal...

You just said it, the ZEF is not a person....there is no problem..................


.............................IF nosy do-gooders mind their own business and leave women ' rights alone.

Becoming pregnant shouldn't mean having rights taken away.....women have as much right to "do as she pleases" as everyone else.

If the ZEF is ever deemed a person the "rights" of a ZEF infringe on the rights of the woman she has every right to kill it...

IF the ZEF is ever deemed a person it may have rights but it also would have the same RESTRICTIONS we all have...it can NOT use another's body to sustain it's life without consent.

YES, it is a legal matter since people's opinions don't rule over rights.....and Anti-Choicers attacking women and their rights makes it imperative to onvolve the law..

;



Hasn't in 50 years and if it is that means Americans would be deprived of basic rights.

Is that what you really want

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you DO believe the zygote looks like and is shaped exactly like the Gerber baby from conception ! Wow, that is sooooo strange...

...uh, already sliding into the "I have no answers or defense so I'll start with the insults" frame of mind.

YES, If you think the fetus isn't using the woman's body to grow and develop then you must think it isn't growing or developing.....and that means fully formed at conception... OR, very science-denying the woman just "houses " the fetus for 9 months for no reason while it miraculously grows on it's own


...with a little tube out the woman's navel so it can breathe ??? LOL!..

 

In my OP, I specifically asked that people not evoke the law, which is a different topic that can be reasonably engage only after we have a common understanding of the societal, personal, genetic, etc aspects of the larger topic of personhood.
So you should not be surprised that I not Reply to a post that addresses a topic that I specifically asked everyone to avoid.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
You ignored this from a post of mine you quoted:
"""IF a fetus is considered a person from conception with all it's rights comes restrictions and ,( YES, the law enters here,) ..
.........so did you really want to discuss things or just want to give a speech?

Well, you answered my question. You just want people to make speeches without opposition. ...which doesn't prove anything.

You mention "societal"...well, society has said abortion is OK (legal) . Personal opinions should never have the power to infringe on other's rights.

 

..." EXCEPT for the sustenance and incubation she provides" ! ! ? That "sustenance and incubation" means the fetus IS part of the woman it's in.

(BTW, women are not mothers until they give birth)

 

The fetus is a separate person dependent on food and environmental conditions for life. The fetus even has its own blood supply separate from the mother. This concept is no different from a newborn.

If you read any scientific research regarding fetal development the woman carrying her developing offspring is referred to as "mother". Because she is the mother of her offspring. A woman and a man become mother and father when the sperm and egg meet and develop into the offspring.

 

Chimps suck their thumbs.

The difference can be found in Genesis with "original sin" when man ate from the tree of knowledge. It's that knowledge, mankind's intelligence, that makes a human being a person. When the ZEF grows to the point it can think is when it becomes a person. The common stage of development for this is 24 weeks.

 

No, a fetus hasn't "offsprung".... a mother has offspring But that's a minor pint.

IF the fetus is a separate person then it has NO right to infringe on the rights of the woman it's in.

IF the fetus is a person it has the same restrictions all persons with rights have, it cannot use another person's body to sustain it's life.

IF a fetus is a person then the woman it's in has every right to self defense and can kill the "person" who is harming her.

Becoming pregnant does NOT erase a woman's rights...



You: ""This concept is no different from a newborn."""

Fine then the ZEF can be taken out of the woman and someone else can watch it grow in an incubator with no help but to be fed like a newborn...(and have it's diapers changed ? )

 

You have now invented ideas/words several times successively, and ascribed them to me. The first time, I corrected your error. There will be no second time. If you wish to discuss what I say, then please provide a direct quote. I will ignore all "paraphrases".
Thank you.

 

You: """You have now invented ideas/words several times successively, and ascribed them to me"""


No, I asked you questions, most of which you didn't answer.


Can you give a clear answer to:
OK, do you believe a ZEF develops in the woman?


From some of your comments, including the one in Post # 19, you seemed confused about what "viable" meant...I assumed you thought the fetus was fully formed and didn't need the woman to nourish it and grow it...

 

I'm not looking for anything in particular. I'm hoping to encounter novel ideas that will enrich my own thinking on the topic.

I agree that a human being's development never stops, so we can never find "the" moment when the journey is accomplished. It never ends.

So, IMHO, we must fall back to "sufficient development to be considered a person"... and that requires us to first define "person".