When is a baby a baby?

[Britney]

After 3 months? After 6 months? After birth?

Is it a baby when it is just a clump of cells, or only when the fetus itself looks like a baby? Is it a baby before it is conceived? Or is it still not a baby even after it has been born?

When (if ever) do you think abortion should be allowed, and when (if ever) should it be disallowed?

Aaaaaaand...

... if a mother was giving a complicated birth, and either the mother or the baby had to die, and you were the doctor, which would you choose? (I think federal law is to keep the mother alive at all costs ... do you agree with that law?)

[Twitchmonkey]

I'm fine with abortion up until the point where the fetus can feel pain, which recent studies have found to be pretty late in development. It isn't a baby though until it's reached it's final stage before birth, we have names for those other stages.

[darkhelmet]

Honestly, I hope I never get to that point (well, my SO and I!), because I don't know if I'd be able to make that decision. I don't really know if it's right or wrong... but I think I'd want to give the baby a chance to live, but ultimately I'd let my SO make the choice, since... well, it's her that's going through childbirth. I'd just try to be as helpful and supportive as I could.

[Cortana]

My reasoning is partially religious. I think that there's a soul attatched to the baby as soon as an egg is fertilized. If there's potential for human life, it shouldn't be taken away. If it's a case of rape, I think adoption is the best choice. However, I do think that if a woman faces death through childbirth, she should have the choice to abort the baby. I don't think I could personally do it, I think that I would rather risk it.

[thaddius]

I'm lifting words from Brian Elroy McKinley, he hit the nail on the head with this. I have left parts out due to the length.
"Is It Alive?
Yes. Pro-Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person.

But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights--including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an ameba--never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

Is It Human?

Yes. Again, Pro-Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.

And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development." And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights--including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.)

Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

Is It a Person?

No. It's merely a potential person.

Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.

Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.) "
Posting that was a combination of laziness and the fact that it is well put.

[mastab]

graveflower said:

After 3 months? After 6 months? After birth?

Is it a baby when it is just a clump of cells, or only when the fetus itself looks like a baby? Is it a baby before it is conceived? Or is it still not a baby even after it has been born?

When (if ever) do you think abortion should be allowed, and when (if ever) should it be disallowed?

Aaaaaaand...

... if a mother was giving a complicated birth, and either the mother or the baby had to die, and you were the doctor, which would you choose? (I think federal law is to keep the mother alive at all costs ... do you agree with that law?)

I consider something alive when it knows its alive, it can feel, think, etc.

For the scenario I go with the mother. The odds are much less for somone who has been alive long enough to reach puberty to die than something that's breathing its first breath of air.

[morty14]

graveflower said:

After 3 months? After 6 months? After birth?

Is it a baby when it is just a clump of cells, or only when the fetus itself looks like a baby? Is it a baby before it is conceived? Or is it still not a baby even after it has been born?

It is at the point when it is separated from the mother.

When (if ever) do you think abortion should be allowed, and when (if ever) should it be disallowed?

It should be disallowed at the point that the baby is disconnected from the mother. Up until that point, it should be considered a part of the mother and it should be her decision on whether it lives or dies.

... if a mother was giving a complicated birth, and either the mother or the baby had to die, and you were the doctor, which would you choose? (I think federal law is to keep the mother alive at all costs ... do you agree with that law?)

The mother, as the fetus is not yet a person. Should the mother wish her fetus be saved instead, I would respect the mother's wishes. And yes, I completely agree with that law.

[Hunessai]

Others have already touched on the issue of abortion, but concerning

... if a mother was giving a complicated birth, and either the mother or the baby had to die, and you were the doctor, which would you choose? (I think federal law is to keep the mother alive at all costs ... do you agree with that law?)

I think the mother should live. She would have a better chance of birthing more children than the child. (chance of having another complicated birth vs chance of fertility, chance of dying before puberty, chance of not wanting children.)

[lulu]

The op is obsolete. A baby is a baby when it has any living material in it (cells). But using that as an excuse for pro-lifers is unacceptable. What if a teenage girl got raped? Is she not allowed an abortion because the living being in her womb could possibly be another member of society? Will you ruin the little girl's life by making her become a teen mom even though she was raped? It's not like she wanted to get pregnant. It's not like she wanted to have a penis forced into her. Should her future career and family plans be ruined by an unexpected child to take care of? Should she have to go through the massivley intense pain of childbirth? Should she be broke and put on welfare just to be able to support her kid? Should she have to drop out of school? She won't get much help from the government or her family. What if the raped girl was from an extremely poor family to begin with? Should her life and the unwanted child's life be miserable? Sure, let the pro-lifers force her to have the kid, that way the kid can grow up in the most poor, most uncomfortable, most miserable, and most unhealthy enviroment as possible... just as so long as a few smug christians (that have enough free time to bother other people's lives) get their way.

[Hunessai]

A zygote is no more human than my fingernail. The only difference between the two is that the zygote has the potential to grow into a human, whereas my fingernail can be nothing more than a fingernail.

[Britney]

I have another question... its kinda dumb but...

If someone killed a pregnant mother, at what point would you consider it to be a double homicide? Would your answer be the same as your answer for the original post?

[Osama Bin Laden]

In my opinion, a baby is a baby after its born. And abortion should be allowed for up to a month before birth!

Killing a pregnant mother should be double homicide just to spite the murderer! In all seriousness, I only consider murder, murder, when the murderer murders something that can think and feel pain. Fetus' can feel pain, but you cant remember being in your mothers womb now can you? Thought so, so in my opinion, it would only be homicide and not double killing a pregnant mother.

[Hunessai]

If all murderers were killed, that wouldn't be an issue. Can't be killed twice. (Alternatively, sent to prison for life.)

[Osama Bin Laden]

Hunessai said:

If all murderers were killed, that wouldn't be an issue. Can't be killed twice. (Alternatively, sent to prison for life.)

I disagree with that, mainly becuase I think if you have a good reason to kill someone, you shouldnt be convicted.

[morty14]

graveflower said:

I have another question... its kinda dumb but...

If someone killed a pregnant mother, at what point would you consider it to be a double homicide? Would your answer be the same as your answer for the original post?

I would never consider killing just a pregnant mother a double homocide.
Yes.

In my opinion, a baby is a baby after its born. And abortion should be allowed for up to a month before birth!

If the baby isn't a baby until birth, why wouldn't you allow abortion up until the baby comes out of the womb?

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

In my opinion, a baby is a baby after its born. And abortion should be allowed for up to a month before birth!

If the baby isn't a baby until birth, why wouldn't you allow abortion up until the baby comes out of the womb?

Perhaps it is because after 8 months, there is a good chance the baby can be born and survive...

[Osama Bin Laden]

ratwar said:

morty14 said:

If the baby isn't a baby until birth, why wouldn't you allow abortion up until the baby comes out of the womb?

Perhaps it is because after 8 months, there is a good chance the baby can be born and survive...

Exactly. And also, if you havent had an abortion after 8 months, then your probably not going to get one.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

Perhaps it is because after 8 months, there is a good chance the baby can be born and survive...

Perhaps. But in the developed world, doesn't every zygote have a pretty good chance to survive?

thedevil696 said:

Exactly. And also, if you havent had an abortion after 8 months, then your probably not going to get one.

But should it be forbidden just because it is unlikely? I mean, we don't make walking from the Canadian border to the Mexican border and back twenty times illegal just because it is unlikely to be done.

[Osama Bin Laden]

morty14 said:

Perhaps. But in the developed world, doesn't every zygote have a pretty good chance to survive?

But should it be forbidden just because it is unlikely? I mean, we don't make walking from the Canadian border to the Mexican border and back twenty times illegal just because it is unlikely to be done.

Even in the developed world fetus' less than 7 or 8 months old dont have a decent chance to survive.

And no it shouldnt be forbidden, but at the 8 month stage you cant get an abortion, unless you get a c-section, but then the baby would be alive, just as if it had been born, and then I would consider it a human life.

[morty14]

thedevil696 said:

Even in the developed world fetus' less than 7 or 8 months old dont have a decent chance to survive.

Are there really *that* many miscarriages these days? I doubt it highly. I'd bet that a zygote, from conception, has at least a 50% chance of survival, barring an abortion of course.

And no it shouldnt be forbidden, but at the 8 month stage you cant get an abortion, unless you get a c-section, but then the baby would be alive, just as if it had been born, and then I would consider it a human life.

This is a good point, so at the point where an abortion can no longer take place, ie the fetus is too large to remove as a normal aborted fetus would, it could now be considered a birth by the way it is removed and therefore is a human life that cannot be legally taken away.

[mastab]

thaddius said:

I'm lifting words from Brian Elroy McKinley, he hit the nail on the head with this. I have left parts out due to the length.
"Is It Alive?
Yes. Pro-Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

And what's wrong with killing living things? It is impossible not to kill a living thing(by that definition single celled organisms are living)

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

thedevil696 said:

Even in the developed world fetus' less than 7 or 8 months old dont have a decent chance to survive.

Are there really *that* many miscarriages these days? I doubt it highly. I'd bet that a zygote, from conception, has at least a 50% chance of survival, barring an abortion of course.

You two are talking about different types of survival. Devil is talking about chances of survival if they were born in their current under-developed state. Morty is talking about if the babys were carried to full term. Two very different things.