Why does it matter whether a fetus is life or not?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

[tickitytak]

From Page 10 Post 98:A fetus is a life. It meets all criteria, right down to its dna. This is a fact we shouldn't gloss over or disregard when this discussion winds its way to the issue of abortion. Whether cursory or strict, any examination will tell us this is a life - in form, in function, in all observable properties.

this was my point all along. a fetus is life just as bacteria is life. should bacteria and all life on the entire planet get the same rights as a human because they are life?

Are deaf mutes unable to realize their own cognizance?

of course a deaf mute is self-aware (once they learn a language). would someone without any of their 5 senses be able to recognize their own existence? no.

Thought precedes language. Any language used is to describe a thought. Sentient beings are only such if they have thoughts, not the ability to tell others what these thoughts consist of.

without a language, you would not be able to develop and recognize these self-aware thoughts.

Do I not appreciate those humans to which I can't speak in their language? Humans have significance, imo, by being humans.

you've absolutely missed the point. anything of human creation exists because of language. all significance tied to such creations would not exist without language. also, humans are not significant by being humans. significance is subjective.

Most here indicates your personal opinion. I don't interact with the vast majority of the people on this planet, but I still consider them significant.

you subjectively give them significance.

Had those "primitive beasts" not fought tooth and nail for survival, you wouldn't be here. Perspective.

this wasn't an insult to "primitive beasts" nor did i even slightly imply that it was an insult. i was simply stating that you would be exactly like them without language.

Shouldn't we all suffer when pondering the fate of this fetus? It is life, it meets all known criteria, we simply can't squeeze this fact between the couch cushions. If we wish to decide the fate of this fetus bound to the issue of whether it can tell us of its worth, we shouldn't be of such conceit we'd not realize this simple test alone should not be the deciding factor of its value.

i'm under the impression you don't like me and will attempt to disagree with anything i say. of course, this is just my opinion based on all of your responses to me.

i assume you believe human life is more valuable than any other life, which is quite a conceited perspective, but let me describe a scenario for you. during human procreation, only 1 sperm cell gets to fertilize the egg and develop into a human. the rest of the sperm cells die and their potential for human life is essentially robbed from them. much like an aborted fetus, these little potential humans are killed before becoming humans. is it wrong for them to die too? am i murdering potential babies by masturbating? am i murdering potential babies by not attempting to procreate at every given moment with every female in the world? if killing fetuses is wrong, why is killing bacteria right?

aborting a fetus is essentially the same as failing to impregnate, masturbating, or sperm cells simply dying before leaving the body.

Others subjectively, and more importantly objectively are affected.

nobody is objectively affected. they can only be subjectively affected.[/b]

[tickitytak]

You are incorrect on two levels. Firstly, the question was with regard to self-aware consciousness not thinking. Secondly, I can think about things without language. Here is an example. Think of a tune (one without words). I do that without knowing the names of the notes or the names of the intervals. I can change the rhythm, put it into a minor key, make variations etc, all without language.

you are correct, but my focus was self-awareness. a person without language can imagine music (i'm sure an animal could hear a sound in its mind as there is evidence that animals dream), but they wouldn't have a self-aware consciousness.

I do think like an animal. Plants, as far as I know don't think and humans are animals.

i agree for the most part. you would have to admit that we humans do think differently from all other animals.

[Goat]

you are correct, but my focus was self-awareness. a person without language can imagine music (i'm sure an animal could hear a sound in its mind as there is evidence that animals dream), but they wouldn't have a self-aware consciousness.

.

I am not sure this is a correct statement. Can you back that up with a testable and verifiable method?

I mean, how well developed does the language have to be? My cat, for example, can communicate with a fairly large number of different calls that means specific things. He has one when he is hunting mice, he has a specific one when he wants out, or in, and he has a specific one that is used when he just wants to say hello.

My dog has different patterns of barking to convey different information. When she gets tangled outside on the leash, she has a specific call to inform me she needs help. Is that language enough?

What is a language but a method to convey information to others? Certainly cats and dogs do that, and for that matter, even birds.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 11 Post 101:

>I see tickitytak's angle, but disagree as a matter of strict analysis of the issues<

A fetus is a life. It meets all criteria, right down to its dna. This is a fact we shouldn't gloss over or disregard when this discussion winds its way to the issue of abortion. Whether cursory or strict, any examination will tell us this is a life - in form, in function, in all observable properties.

this was my point all along. a fetus is life just as bacteria is life. should bacteria and all life on the entire planet get the same rights as a human because they are life?

I contend the mother's rights to her body supersede those of a developing fetus, up to and until birth. Bacteria that pose an immediate threat to human life should be dealt with while considering potential problems with bacteria's general "usefulness" to a well functioning planet.

Are deaf mutes unable to realize their own cognizance?

of course a deaf mute is self-aware (once they learn a language). would someone without any of their 5 senses be able to recognize their own existence? no.

I think your test is an insufficient measure of the validity of human life. The lack of a recognizable cognizance doesn't negate one's life, or one's value as a human being, if only in my opinion.

Thought precedes language. Any language used is to describe a thought. Sentient beings are only such if they have thoughts, not the ability to tell others what these thoughts consist of.

without a language, you would not be able to develop and recognize these self-aware thoughts.

My previous example of pain negates your statement. Just because someone can't speak of their thoughts doesn't mean they don't have them, and that they can indicate self-awareness.

Do I not appreciate those humans to which I can't speak in their language? Humans have significance, imo, by being humans.

you've absolutely missed the point. anything of human creation exists because of language. all significance tied to such creations would not exist without language. also, humans are not significant by being humans. significance is subjective.

What of the deaf mute who paints? Can they not produce a "telling" picture, full of information, meaning, and significance?

I agree significance is subjective. It is my subjective opinion humans are significant if only due to the impact we are having on this planet - some are proposing a new geologic age called the Anthropocence for this very reason.

As we seek to determine whether a fetus is significant, the fact we debate its fate indicates it is significant. I remember consoling a friend who had an abortion, so the fetus could be considered significant in this regard as well.

Most here indicates your personal opinion. I don't interact with the vast majority of the people on this planet, but I still consider them significant.

you subjectively give them significance.

And don't understand why others don't.

Had those "primitive beasts" not fought tooth and nail for survival, you wouldn't be here. Perspective.

this wasn't an insult to "primitive beasts" nor did i even slightly imply that it was an insult. i was simply stating that you would be exactly like them without language.

Oh no, no insult at all, neither expressed nor implied. My point was those animals were significant because they eventually led to me.

Shouldn't we all suffer when pondering the fate of this fetus? It is life, it meets all known criteria, we simply can't squeeze this fact between the couch cushions. If we wish to decide the fate of this fetus bound to the issue of whether it can tell us of its worth, we shouldn't be of such conceit we'd not realize this simple test alone should not be the deciding factor of its value.

i'm under the impression you don't like me and will attempt to disagree with anything i say. of course, this is just my opinion based on all of your responses to me.

Your impression is wrong, I find your argument quite compelling if only on its face. I disagree with you but that doesn't change my respect for you or your position. Please don't read disagreement of an opinion as dislike for the messenger. You have your perspective, I have mine.

I'm seeing you arguing the position solely on my perception of you wanting to keep abortion legal. If this is the case, I agree with the sentiment, but disagree on the particulars.

i assume you believe human life is more valuable than any other life, which is quite a conceited perspective, but let me describe a scenario for you.

Only whan such life threatens a human life. I am a lifetime lover of all things nature. Well maybe not mosquitoes, but I think you catch my drift.

during human procreation, only 1 sperm cell gets to fertilize the egg and develop into a human. the rest of the sperm cells die and their potential for human life is essentially robbed from them. much like an aborted fetus, these little potential humans are killed before becoming humans. is it wrong for them to die too?

Those sperm that don't cross the goal are losers in the game of life, I give them little regard. The issue for me is this fetus, which so represents the future of humanity.

am i murdering potential babies by masturbating?

In the strictest sense I'd say yes. My point is there is more to a fetus than just sperm.

if killing fetuses is wrong, why is killing bacteria right?

I don't consider abortion overtly wrong, but consider other violent acts against a woman that result in miscarriages wrong. I have little qualm with killing those bacteria known to be harmful to humans, but caution against unforeseen damages that may result.

aborting a fetus is essentially the same as failing to impregnate, masturbating, or sperm cells simply dying before leaving the body.

Essentially, yes. As a practical matter of the value we as a society place on the fetus I disagree.

Others subjectively, and more importantly objectively are affected.

nobody is objectively affected. they can only be subjectively affected.

Tell that to the mother grieving the loss of her aborted fetus. I contend it matters not whether subjective or objective, folks are concerned for the fetus, sometimes to a seeming loss of concern for the mother and the circumstances that fetus may be born into.

[scourge99]

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

So? Instead of forcing the burden on the mother you are forcing it upon someone else otherwise the same result happens: the child/fetus dies.

I'm not suggesting anything happen to the fetus. I simply said that until viability any action taken on the fetus is the mother's prerogative. After viability, if she decides to abort the state has a right to prevent it. If the mother wishes to make arrangements for someone to take it after viability but before natural birth, that's fine by me.

So what you are saying is that if anyone's life is contingent upon the freedom or happiness of another then their life can be forfeited to regain that liberty. Even if the encroachment of that liberty was not willful, intentional, or permanent. Moreover, even if that encroachment was caused by the person whose rights are being encroached upon.

This is like arguing that its OK to remove the child from a mother's womb because some other mother MAY choose to put it within her's. You are just forgoing the consequences of death that inevitably results without SOMEONE filling the responsibility the mother has left.

You made up the option of allowing a mother to do something with a viable fetus before natural birth. I don't think I ever suggested it.

The point isn't that someone else can care for the child, the point is that someone is killed merely because of an inconvenience to another. Doesn't that seem disproportionate to you? If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous?

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

And you CONTINUE to ignore my rebuttal about this.

A baby or a small child also has a DEPENDENCE or "encumbrance" upon their mother. Simply because its not a direct physiological dependence does to mean it is any less significant.

Yes, it is. It is less significant because after viability the state or other interested party can elect to accept that responsibility. That's something that takes place every day, quite routinely.

If you leave a child or baby in the woods they will die just like a fetus would if it was removed from its mother. Are you advocating that it is OK to abandon children and babies because they too are an encumbrance upon the mother or parents? Yes, the encumbrance is fundamentally different but its nonetheless an encumbrance. Why is one acceptable and one unacceptable specifically? How can you precisely justify one over the other?

Before viability there may be decisions to protect the life of the fetus that would have a negative impact on the mother's life. That makes it impossible to fully protect the rights of both in some circumstances. Because the fetus's life is unsustainable without the life of the mother, its life is subordinate. The fetus cannot be granted rights because to do so would necessarily lessen the rights of the mother.

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus. Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term?

I will grant you that a mother should be able to abort if her own life is in danger. But that isn't what you are saying. You are saying that a mother can abort her child out of mere inconvenience to her because it is solely dependent upon her.

If anything that would make a stronger argument for pro-lifers. Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

Thousands have died just today, and with no detrimental affect to me or the society in which I live. People around the world today have arbitrarily decided to kill people around them. Even that arbitrary killing has had no effect on me. I could walk through my own city and point to fifty people at random and remove their entire existence, and there would be no consequence to me. Homeless people die in the streets every day. Convicts are sentenced to death and killed. Their deaths may have more value than their lives.

That makes it impossible for human life to be intrinsically valuable. Lives may be valuable in the aggregate. They may be valuable in relation to one's self. But every single instance of human life is not necessarily valuable, from any but each individual's perspective.

This doesn't mean that I don't prefer that everyone out there live a long and productive and happy life. Indeed I do. But it's of little consequence to me whether that happens for any but a few particular individuals or not.

There's one thing you're overlooking here too. A fetus before it is born is not a living person. The best that could be said is that some day it might be a living person. There is certainly no intrinsic value in potential.

I believe the overall point is that you seem to put life on equal footing with some set of personal rights. You seem to think its acceptable to kill others for any intrusion upon those rights even if that intrusion was unintentional or even the cause of person's whose rights were violated. Specifically, your argument for abortion is that simply because a child had the unlucky chance to be conceived in a person who felt inconvenienced by the temporary pregnancy then its OK to kill the child because personal rights outweigh human life.

[realthinker]

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

So? Instead of forcing the burden on the mother you are forcing it upon someone else otherwise the same result happens: the child/fetus dies.

I'm not suggesting anything happen to the fetus. I simply said that until viability any action taken on the fetus is the mother's prerogative. After viability, if she decides to abort the state has a right to prevent it. If the mother wishes to make arrangements for someone to take it after viability but before natural birth, that's fine by me.

So what you are saying is that if anyone's life is contingent upon the freedom or happiness of another then their life can be forfeited to regain that liberty. Even if the encroachment of that liberty was not willful, intentional, or permanent. Moreover, even if that encroachment was caused by the person whose rights are being encroached upon.

Yes, I am saying that. Given two legal equals, one individual cannot be made to give up what another is to gain.

This is like arguing that its OK to remove the child from a mother's womb because some other mother MAY choose to put it within her's. You are just forgoing the consequences of death that inevitably results without SOMEONE filling the responsibility the mother has left.

You made up the option of allowing a mother to do something with a viable fetus before natural birth. I don't think I ever suggested it.

The point isn't that someone else can care for the child, the point is that someone is killed merely because of an inconvenience to another. Doesn't that seem disproportionate to you? If someone walks on my lawn or steals my property am I justified in killing them in today's society where law and order is ubiquitous?

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

And you CONTINUE to ignore my rebuttal about this.

A baby or a small child also has a DEPENDENCE or "encumbrance" upon their mother. Simply because its not a direct physiological dependence does to mean it is any less significant.

Yes, it is. It is less significant because after viability the state or other interested party can elect to accept that responsibility. That's something that takes place every day, quite routinely.

If you leave a child or baby in the woods they will die just like a fetus would if it was removed from its mother. Are you advocating that it is OK to abandon children and babies because they too are an encumbrance upon the mother or parents? Yes, the encumbrance is fundamentally different but its nonetheless an encumbrance. Why is one acceptable and one unacceptable specifically? How can you precisely justify one over the other?

Before viability there may be decisions to protect the life of the fetus that would have a negative impact on the mother's life. That makes it impossible to fully protect the rights of both in some circumstances. Because the fetus's life is unsustainable without the life of the mother, its life is subordinate. The fetus cannot be granted rights because to do so would necessarily lessen the rights of the mother.

Before you argued that its OK for the mother to kill the child because its an encumbrance and inconvenience that she shouldn't be forced to tolerate despite the rights of the fetus. Now you've changed gears and are arguing that its because there doesn't exist any reasonable options for a fetus if the mother doesn't want to carry to term?

Which is it? Can a mother kill her child because there are no other reasonable options or because its an inconvenience to carry to term?

I will grant you that a mother should be able to abort if her own life is in danger. But that isn't what you are saying. You are saying that a mother can abort her child out of mere inconvenience to her because it is solely dependent upon her.

If anything that would make a stronger argument for pro-lifers. Because a fetus is solely dependent on her mother for life then the mother should have to accept the temporary reduction of her rights until after the child is born because a person's life is more valuable then a temporary suspension of rights.

Thousands have died just today, and with no detrimental affect to me or the society in which I live. People around the world today have arbitrarily decided to kill people around them. Even that arbitrary killing has had no effect on me. I could walk through my own city and point to fifty people at random and remove their entire existence, and there would be no consequence to me. Homeless people die in the streets every day. Convicts are sentenced to death and killed. Their deaths may have more value than their lives.

That makes it impossible for human life to be intrinsically valuable. Lives may be valuable in the aggregate. They may be valuable in relation to one's self. But every single instance of human life is not necessarily valuable, from any but each individual's perspective.

This doesn't mean that I don't prefer that everyone out there live a long and productive and happy life. Indeed I do. But it's of little consequence to me whether that happens for any but a few particular individuals or not.

There's one thing you're overlooking here too. A fetus before it is born is not a living person. The best that could be said is that some day it might be a living person. There is certainly no intrinsic value in potential.

I believe the overall point is that you seem to put life on equal footing with some set of personal rights.

Please point to where there is some legal hierarchy of rights. What makes you suggest that one right is more significant than another?

You seem to think its acceptable to kill others for any intrusion upon those rights even if that intrusion was unintentional or even the cause of person's whose rights were violated.

No, you're trying to extend my position to support your generalities. There is no generality to this. I feel it's acceptable to end a pregnancy before the fetus reaches viability.

Specifically, your argument for abortion is that simply because a child had the unlucky chance to be conceived in a person who felt inconvenienced by the temporary pregnancy then its OK to kill the child because personal rights outweigh human life.

Before viability there is no child so there are no rights but the mother's. That is my specific argument. I believe I've made it clearly.

[tickitytak]

My previous example of pain negates your statement. Just because someone can't speak of their thoughts doesn't mean they don't have them, and that they can indicate self-awareness.

if one can't indicate to another or even themself that they are self-aware, how could they possibly recognize that they are aware of the self?

What of the deaf mute who paints? Can they not produce a "telling" picture, full of information, meaning, and significance?

what's with the deaf mutes? they can still taste, see, and smell. they can still learn a language (i would consider "painting a picture" a language of symbols).

Oh no, no insult at all, neither expressed nor implied. My point was those animals were significant because they eventually led to me.

i didn't imply these animals were not significant in regards to my being here, so i fail to see why you wanted to make this point.

I'm seeing you arguing the position solely on my perception of you wanting to keep abortion legal. If this is the case, I agree with the sentiment, but disagree on the particulars.

my agenda is to show you the nature of significance and where we should logically draw the line in regards to human significance.

Those sperm that don't cross the goal are losers in the game of life, I give them little regard. The issue for me is this fetus, which so represents the future of humanity.

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well. why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"? if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

am i murdering potential babies by masturbating?

In the strictest sense I'd say yes. My point is there is more to a fetus than just sperm.

so is it morally wrong for me not to be procreating at every given chance with every female i can possibly find? if i continued to not "plant my seed", i would be murdering potential humans.

Tell that to the mother grieving the loss of her aborted fetus. I contend it matters not whether subjective or objective, folks are concerned for the fetus, sometimes to a seeming loss of concern for the mother and the circumstances that fetus may be born into.

i'll say it again, the fetus is only significant if you make it significant. she has created her own pain and perpetuates it by failing to recognize her emotional attachment to a thought and not an actual human.

[tickitytak]

I am not sure this is a correct statement. Can you back that up with a testable and verifiable method?

I mean, how well developed does the language have to be? My cat, for example, can communicate with a fairly large number of different calls that means specific things. He has one when he is hunting mice, he has a specific one when he wants out, or in, and he has a specific one that is used when he just wants to say hello.

My dog has different patterns of barking to convey different information. When she gets tangled outside on the leash, she has a specific call to inform me she needs help. Is that language enough?

What is a language but a method to convey information to others? Certainly cats and dogs do that, and for that matter, even birds.[/quote]

yeah it's quite a complicated issue and i don't really have a solid answer for it. i'm still thinking it all through.

before we can know for sure if one is self-aware, we have to answer the question "at what point does self-awareness become evident?" if reacting to one's environment is an indication of self-awareness, everything in the universe would be self-aware. but self-awareness is also considered to be tied with choice, and we know not everything in the universe can make a choice... so with that in mind, it is easy to assume that those without choice are not self-aware. this would mean a fetus is not self-aware.

now for animal like a dog or cat, it's a bit more complex. does the dog choose to walk around and sniff for food, or is it simply reacting on a chemical level?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 11 Post 107:

if one can't indicate to another or even themself that they are self-aware, how could they possibly recognize that they are aware of the self?

My issue is with requiring an animal to tell me when it is self aware. That a fetus can't tell me it hurts or fears doesn't matter when I see it recoil from objects entering the womb.

what's with the deaf mutes? they can still taste, see, and smell. they can still learn a language (i would consider "painting a picture" a language of symbols).

My point is that one's inability to profess or quantify their own existence should not be a deciding factor in the abortion of human beings.

>on insults<

I wasn't insulted, by any means. May we chalk any perceived insults up to misunderstanding? You've comported yourself in an honorable, and likable fashion from my perspective.

my agenda is to show you the nature of significance and where we should logically draw the line in regards to human significance.

Human
-------------------------------------

My line is drawn. Surely it's just a semantic point, but I just don't see how we can consider another of our own species as insignificant.

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well. why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"? if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

Sperm are potential humans, fetuses arehuman.

so is it morally wrong for me not to be procreating at every given chance with every female i can possibly find?

Ain't it? Still, procreation, or practicing procreation, is not the issue.

if i continued to not "plant my seed", i would be murdering potential humans.

Not murder, but you could rightly be considered, in the strictest definition, as comitting - no insults now - "spermicide" .

i'll say it again, the fetus is only significant if you make it significant.

And only we can make this fetus insignificant. It is my contention a fetus is significant because it is one of our own species.

she has created her own pain and perpetuates it by failing to recognize her emotional attachment to a thought and not an actual human.

A fetus meets all known criteria to be human, within its stage of development. Your protestations are noted, but the fact remains. The most accurate test for being a human is dna, not someone's opinion of what constitutes significance.

I would dare say these mothers had/have more than just a passing thought at the prospect of killing one of their own.

[tickitytak]

From Page 11 Post 107:

i would like a response to this part, especially since you've drawn the line at "human":

the sperm represent the future of humanity as well. why is medicine essential if those that die from diseases are just the "losers in the game of life"? if all human life is intrinsically more valuable than other life, should we preserve all sperm cells and eggs in every person and attempt to develop all of them into human life with future technology?

if a fetus is same as a human being, a sperm cell and egg are the same as a fetus. both are "potential humans" when you think about it. why do you give sperm cells no regard, but put emphasis on fetuses? do they not both feel pain or some sense of fear?

also, if one doesn't remember such experiences.. did they really happen to that "person"? for example, i may have experienced pain or fear as a fetus. i don't know for sure because i don't remember, nor do i care. what is the memory span of a fetus?