Historically, people used to abort outside the womb all the time. Used to be that personhood wasn't even conferred upon infants during times of high infant mortality and little to no access to contraception of any kind. Modern abortion is downright civilized by comparison, and it is generally restricted to cases of early pregnancy and medical necessity.
Ok, hypothetically suppose there was a gargantuan woman with a giant uterus that stretched all the way from here to Timbuktu. Would you be ok with her running a Borg-style collective in there assuming all the human beings originated from inside her body? (This could make for an interesting Star Trek episode)
Life does not actually have a beginning (relative to the context of the conversation). Life is a continuum. Animate does not come from inanimate. Life begets life. This is a fact. If we get a bit more technical (and getting anywhere in this debate requires specific technical language) "Human life" does not begin at conception either. Again it was a human that begat that zyogote .. or rather the things that came together to form the zygote (sperm and egg) both of which are "human life". One needs be careful with terminology. Not that in the term "human life" the word human is a descriptive adjective. Now all things beginning with the descriptive adjective "human" are Humans Not the noun form at the end. Desc Ad ( human heart, human cell, human feces and so on) none of the things listed are humans. Two of them are "human life". Noun ( a human, a living human) Compound Phrase (Human Being) Not that the term human is a descriptive adjective (a being that is human). Not all beings that are human are "Humans" however .. the phrase "Human Being" when taken as a phrase is taken to mean a human. Understanding proper terminology is important when discussing when human life begins. The 5 main scientific perspectives on when human life begins (as per one of the subject matter domains - developmental biology) can be found here: http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf
That wouldn't necessarily be the case if the umbilical cord was still attached and hadn't been cut yet, assuming the placenta was still adhering to the uterine wall.
Okay, lets get past this and go to the part where we have millions of extra babies to care for. Now what? How many can I put you down for?
Does that mean you're ok aborting outside the womb? Why not? I thought all these babies were unwanted, you said.
Are you ok with aborting outside the womb? Sure why not as long as the mother and doctor agrees they can abort the child untill it turns 18. .
I already answered that question and not one person is arguing in support of killing babies. I dont support abortion either, but I am not stupid, so I would never support ineffective laws that force my beliefs onto others. Instead, I have moved a few children from the unwanted list to the wanted, cherished, loved, and you are the best thing to ever happen to me, list. Of course, you can always sent these unwanted children a little note saying that you care and will continue entering text on forums on their behalf. That should make a difference!
Do you think laws that criminalize a mother killing her baby soon after it's been born would be "ineffective" too? Should we scrap those laws?
Again, no one is arguing that. Are you willing to be part of the solution or are you just being sanctimonious.
So -- after the baby takes it's first breath it can go back in time? I am having trouble believing that.
Who said it took a breath yet? It might have just come out and then got pushed back in. I think as long as it's hooked up through the umbilical cord it doesn't need to breathe. Hmm, I looked it up. Apparently it usually takes about 10 seconds after the baby comes out before it takes its first breath. (Plenty of time to stuff it back in) Apparently the sudden temperature change of being exposed to the outside air is a shock to the baby's nervous system and triggers it to breath. It used to be a common practice for delivery doctors to hold them upside down by the feet and spank the newborn to make completely sure it started breathing.
Yah. See http://americanpregnancy.org/while-pregnant/fetal-life-support-system/ Once the baby is born, it's extremely unlikely that it can be pushed back in. & it's a moot point, once the amniotic sac has ruptured, & the child is delivered, the placenta will shortly follow. @ that point, the baby needs to be breathing, or it dies. (In water deliveries, if the water is warm, the baby will take longer to begin breathing.) The baby cannot be returned to the womb. The amniotic sac is ruptured, the amniotic fluid has drained, the placenta has begun detaching, which means no blood nor food nor oxygen to baby, nor waste products transported away from baby. The uterus is no longer antiseptic, it's exposed to the air & any bacteria, virus or any other contaminant.
But if it could, I suspect there'd be many here who'd say it would be a woman's right. How else to explain why pro-choicers are going so far out of the way to avoid answering the question?
I was just trying to point out how absurd it is that people are claiming babies don't have rights because they are inside a womb. And that at the most fundamental level, saying that babies don't have rights because they're inside a woman, and saying personhood is conferred onto a baby at birth, those two things are not quite the same argument, which the hypothetical of stuffing a baby back in makes clear. Otherwise, according to the pro-choice logic I've been reading in this thread, theoretically it would be possible to have a being who possesses personhood inside of a woman's body. (Unless pro-choicers believe that personhood would be reversed if the fetus went back in, but then that brings up a whole host of other problematic ethical implications, like whether it is potentially possible for anyone to lose their personhood, under certain circumstances involving their surroundings) If I can throw out another, perhaps slightly more plausible hypothetical, maybe the fetus might be temporarily removed outside of the woman's body during neonatal surgery, thus constituting a "birth". I've never actually heard of them moving a baby outside the woman during this sort of surgery but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Especially if they needed more access to the fetus for some reason. (I know during some modern heart surgery procedures they need to enter from both opposite sides of the body)
It's not people claiming that, it's Roe v. Wade that holds that. (The same ruling maintains that it's a fetus until it's born or otherwise delivered, then it's a baby.) That ruling is what you need to attack or change, if you want to change the law.
No one says a fetus doesn't have rights because it's inside the womb....who said that? I don't know any pro-Choice people who have said that... It doesn't have rights because it's part of the woman it's in, part of her body, dependent on her for sustenance to live. . It gains rights when it is detached from the woman and no longer attached and dependent on her.....as you've ben told several times. Your obsession with weird circumstances that will never happen is ...well, weird.
So, if they did a C-section on the woman and held the fetus up in the air, it would still be "a part of the woman" so long as that umbilical cord hadn't been cut? I'm sorry, you've really made multiple arguments. First you're saying it doesn't have rights because it's a part of the woman. Then you're saying it's dependent on her to live, therefore it doesn't have rights. Let's address these arguments one at a time. First, does being connected take away rights? Does that argument standing by itself justify abortion? Or does it have to be both connected and inside of her body to be considered a part of her body?
""""First you're saying it doesn't have rights because it's a part of the woman. Then you're saying it's dependent on her to live, therefore it doesn't have rights""" Duh, that's the same thing........ Are you only good at making up weird sick scenarios? Or could you actually present an intelligent argument about why you think fetuses should have more rights than the women they're in? (Hint: There aren't any)
So - you've never actually seen a C-section performed? Even though the surgical tools & skill levels have improved greatly since Roman times, it's still a surgical extraction of the fetus/baby from the mother's womb. The procedure is sometimes medically indicated; in the US, it seems to be tending to be more a scheduling convenience for the woman. Again, once the fetus is delivered (however that happens), the placenta will shortly follow. & once the baby begins breathing, the oxygen being carried by the umbilical is surplus to the baby's needs.
You are splitting hairs but it is of no moment. Assume I accept your proposition as realistic, what is the point you are trying to make
