Arken

This question always bothers me. In my mind, there is no question as to whether or not a zygote or a fetus is alive... the question is whether or not it is a human life. I mean, if it is alive, but not human, it still doesn't have the same rights as the rest of us.

In my opinion (which I realize is not a popular one), a human-like being is not human until it is self-aware which generally happens between 8 and 14 months after birth.

Bob Stewart

Actually they didn't declare the fetus a non-person. They prevented Texas from declaring it a person.

from the Roe v Wade decision--

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at
conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the
State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after
conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.
When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy,
and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this
point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to
speculate as to the answer." [410 U.S. 113, 160]

One could say that the SCOTUS shares your concern about declaring things "persons" or "non-persons".

Bob Stewart

yguy

Semantical sophistry. Human beings have the inherent right to life. SCOTUS effectively declared that fetuses under three months have no such inherent right. If they can do that to fetuses, why can't they do it to blacks or "gays"?

Cojana

Life has integrity, a fetus are a living organism, berth are the continuim of Living, for Life to be recognized, the individual must be aware of its living, and have re-call,memory,, about 3 to 4 years old, any younger and it are a protege, if death occurs during pregnancy and 1 and 2 years living, the individuals will die without knowing they were ever alive, ...no loss to them,....

Bob Stewart

yguy,

False!

What entities are you talking about when you say 'human beings' and what do you think "the inherent right to life" gives such entities? It isn't clear that the SCOTUS disagrees with you here.

Clarification, please! Does allowing that capital punishment is constitutional mean that the SCOTUS thinks that certain criminals have no inherent right to life.

Once again, they didn't do what you said they did and they can't do it with respect to blacks and gays either. Perhaps your semantic confusion prevents you from seeing this.

Bob Stewart

ZiprHead

IMHO, life doesn't begin at all. It's simply the continuation or extension of the life of the parents in a new form. The legal issue of when that life is due protection by the state is another issue completely.

abe smith

(Insisting agen ,ad nauseam...) (WHAT do you MEAN, *life*, dammitall?) "Life" is a man-made verbal concept = a human artefact like all other verbal stuff. You want to put the question in terms of "when do (certain processes) begin"? Doing-THAT isn't going to tidy-up your qy either.
(arggggghh... mutter mutter)

fatherphil

after conception you end up having something genetically distinct from both parents regardless of its vulnerability to harm and sudden destruction.

also, answer this in a moral sense outside of the current court rulings we live under because history has shown that the courts can not always be relied on to do what is "right".

excreationist

Isn't the question just equivalent to - what's the lastest that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion?
(Where any later would be considered murder - since it would be a human being involved)

excreationist

Does that mean it has the same rights as an animal? i.e. if you think it is suffering too much you can just "put it down", etc?