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

Thank you!

 

Why....especially if no law is involved?

 

Stephen Hawking was not viable outside the womb. Millions of people are not "viable outside the womb". Can they all just be "aborted"?

What about babies that are viable but still in the womb?

Viability is a terrible metric, and that's why its not used anymore. Even Blackmun struggled with viability, and Roe v Wade does permit regulation of abortion in the 3rd trimester (and the 2nd trimester but to a lesser degree - maybe you should actually read Roe) because of viability.

Totally irrelevant.

 

Of course he was. He lived outside the womb didn't he? The fetuses that are aborted would never live outside the womb no matter what: we don't have the science to sustain the life of a 12 week old fetus. Viable means that it can survive: he survived. Learn how to think. In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade, viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the woman's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

 

So he was still in the womb?!!!! What?

If they are people and outside the womb then they are viable outside the womb.

What about them? It's against the law to kill a viable fetus unless the health/life of woman and/or fetus is at stake.

Yup, it's still used. A fetus that isn't viable can be aborted, a fetus that is viable can't be aborted unless it concerns the life/health of the woman and/or the fetus..

RvW gave the states rights to limit abortion....and the states limit it to pre-viability.

No, it explains viability...

 

"Viability" does not mean "birth". A baby with a fatal defect which will cause its death almost immediately after birth can be born, that's not considered viable. Viability means it can continue to live and develop.

Hawking was not viable. He could not feed himself, could not eat or drink or breathe on his own, could not do anything without other peoples help. He was totally incapable of living on his own. He required a large infrastructure of people and equipment.

We do have the ability to sustain a baby at 21 weeks, its been done. So abortion after 20 weeks should be illegal by your reasoning.

Read Blackmuns opinion. Viability is a real problem because while it is a practical threshold it is not a good legal or philosophical or ethical threshold. Viability changes not only over time as medical science improves, but also varies with the skill and equipment available within a specific hospital. In the 1970's, when Roe was decided, babies born before 26 weeks would not survive. Today that's been pushed to 21 weeks. One day it will be 12 weeks.

Viability varies with hospital (and ability to pay). Today, in hospitals with a neonatal ICU viability is considered to be 21 weeks, in a hospital without a neonatal ICU its considered 24 weeks. And then there is fetal surgery, a fetus with a fatal condition can in some cases be operated upon and saved - nonviable turned into viable.

Viability is a bad choice for you to stake your position upon.

 

According to Roe vs Wade viability means "potentially able to live outside the woman's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Obviously, Hawkings was viable because he lived. Most abortions are done well before 20 weeks.

 

...outside the woman...

.

Hawking was NOT a fetus.
Viability of fetuses is about .....FETUSES...

So there should be no limits....women should be free to abort at any time...

NO, it does not ....fetuses don't grow any faster than they ever have...

OMGAWD!
IF you think that has anything to do with when a fetus becomes viable then you have NO idea what viability refers to.


HOW, explain HOW, a fetus grows faster or more slowly depending on what hospital a woman will go to or if she can pay ???

Please , here's your chance to explain that extraordinary claim ....

Hilarious, again thinking fetal viability changes with the hospital it may be in some day !!! WHAT!!!!
And then there is fetal surgery, a fetus with a fatal condition can in some cases be operated upon and saved - nonviable turned into viable.

Yup, women should be free to abort when ever they choose....but viability was a compromise to states who thought they owned pregnant women

 

The way I see it: The government has no business telling people what to do with their uteri. While I do feel that abortion is wrong, my feelings should never be forced on another person. If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against others having abortions, offer to adopt the child. If you are not willing to accept the responsibility of raising a child, you shouldn't expect others to do so.

 

Ihttp://www.2think.org/abortion.shtm

I HIGHLY recommend this article and Data as it will give great understanding with very little law.

 

"potentially able to live outside the womb" includes a fertilized egg.

 

How?

 

I tried your link and couldn't get anything....??

 

Link doesn't work...

 

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

Fixed...my apologies.

 

LOL No it doesn't. That's ridiculous.

 

Thanks I read most of it, even though I noticed an ad link for Best Baby Products on the first page


I also noticed they didn't explain how hypocritical it is of Anti-Choicers to make exceptions for rape...guess nobody wants to point that out or explain why..

 

Really? Look up in vitro fertilization, its done all the time. The womans egg is fertilized in a laboratory dish, the fertilized egg lives for a time outside the womb, then is implanted back into the mother.

And then there is this
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-eggs-to-full-maturity-in-a-lab-idUSKBN1FT00P
It's possible - or soon will be - to grow a human in a lab.

If you are going to argue abortion, you better get up to speed on the science.

 

Why is it put back in the woman? If it's viable it doesn't need that.

Get up to speed, it only says "or soon will be"....hasn't happened yet.

And those eggs won't grow without extraordinary measures.....they are not viable by themselves.

 

I would also add that an embryo can be frozen and stored for a very long time.

 

Didn't read the article, did you? Ignorant and lazy. Back on ignore you go.

 

If I listen to those on the left, personhood doesn't start till you're 27.....

 

At this time, a fetus cannot grow into a human in a lab. We don't have the science. When we do, then maybe you have a point. For now, you are not making any valid point.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why is it put back in the woman? If it's viable it doesn't need that.



Get up to speed, it only says "or soon will be"....hasn't happened yet.

And those eggs won't grow without extraordinary measures.....they are not viable by themselves.

Couldn't address the post...again...

 

I haven't heard anyone say that......are you sure you "heard" it ?....what kind of voice was it?? Was there music?