It is a baby at the point where, without interference, such as killing it, it will grow and be born.
You have yet to give an example in which anyone has been charged with such a crime in a similar circumstance. In the event that the person came in without the owner’s consent, there are definitely laws that allow lethal forces, not just pushing them out.
And you have yet to answer whether carrying a pregnancy is more substantially similar to hosting someone in your house (which you claim there is an obligation) or donating blood/tissue/organ to someone (which you claim there is no obligation).
Because there was no similar circumstance. There is no one that inhuman. But as I said, feel free to consult an attorney - he will tell you. Hell, ask Bricker.
Abortion is similar to both - hosting someone in your house, and kicking them out into the cold with 100% chance of death. Or withdrawing an organ that you have ALREADY donated, leading to 100% chance of death.
If I require a donated kidney to live, I am entirely dependent upon the mercy on the one or few person(s) who can potentially donate. Do you think I should have the right to their kidney? If one of them agrees to donate to me but changes her mind on the way to surgery, and as a result I die, what crime do you think she should be guilty of?
No, we aren’t, since we aren’t actually basing our argument upon this point.
We’re admitting that you outplayed us in the Socratic game. You found a nitpicky little exception to a given definition. Okay, good. Nice work. You’d be a strong mathematician.
It’s like when Diogenes threw a plucked chicken over the wall of the Academy, in response to Plato’s definition of a man as a “featherless biped.” They granted the point, and changed it to “featherless biped with broad nails.” You win the point, and we bow to your skill.
Meanwhile, as wolfpup notes, we don’t really need to construct a mathematical definition of human for the legal purposes here. This is why we all rely on arbitrary lines. Legal personhood can be defined to begin at conception, or quickening, or the onset of brain activity, or viability, or birth. No one of those is intrinsically better than another.
You’ve chosen one…and want to try to compel us to accept it. We reject it, and, at present, have the law on our side. You’ve chosen one arguably defensible moral viewpoint…and want to compel us to accept it. It doesn’t negate our own arguably defensible moral viewpoint.
Is so. Is not. Is too. Is not.
(“And thus without stopping the music keeps dropping
for night after night and for day after day.” Henry Clay Work.)
Already donated organs cannot be withdrawn. Already born children are illegal to kill.
During pregnancy, a donation is in process, not done. Organ being donated is still within the body of the donor.
The “organ” (the environment in which the baby grows) has already been donated. The baby is inside it. No further action is needed - the “donation” has been done. Removing the baby is equivalent to organ donation being removed after it has already been donated and implanted.
So during blood donation, once a needle has been inserted into your vein, you forfeit your right to halt the process?
Once your kidney has been donated, you can’t take it back.
Define “will”. Because most abortions happen at the stage where the chance of being born is about 60%. If it has a 10% chance of being born, is it ok to abort? What about 1%?
And you never answered if, say, 1/400 chance for the woman’s death qualifies as an acceptable reason for abortion.
“Will”, unless something natural happens that cannot be fixed by doctors.
No, it doesn’t. That’s the “natural” chance. The danger to life that justifies an abortion is significantly above the natural chance.
At least you agree that the anti-abortion side has a morally defensible argument. There are far too many people on both sides that can’t or won’t recognize that.
Of course. We’re disagreeing with whether pregnancy equals completion of donation. Since blood still flows from donor to recipient, I asked about the blood donation process which you once again deflected. Most of the risk of death and health problems occur during the last stages of pregnancy, during pregnancy the woman still owns* and is connected to the uterus, and until birth the fetus still has no ability to live indepdently, so to equate implantation with donation completion is ridiculous.
- I recognize that this is the disconnect. From more and more comments from you and others, I realize that in your mind the uterus is no longer owned by or connected to the woman. Hence the misogyny charge is well justified.
What is significantly above? The current chance in the US is 1/4000. 1/400 is 10 times higher. If that is not significant enough, can you explain what is? Since you are the one that says the woman cannot be the one deciding, you should set a threshold.
Trinopus: no, the law is on my side. Or at least some law. In all these cases the law treats the fetus fully as a human being that you’re not allowed to kill.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/26/woman-indicted-for-homicide-after-kicking-pregnant-woman-in-stomach-killing/
http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/state/20041226-1306-ca-pregnantwomanattacked.html
No, the woman is not the one deciding. The doctor is. The doctor is the one that will have to justify his decision to the AMA’s ethics people, too. And will lose his license if he deliberately permits abortion without the significant risk to life (if that is what the law requires).
No, it is not. The donation is completed when the organ is installed where it should be and is working for the person to whom it was donated. Which is the status of the environment that the baby is in - it is where it should be and is working for the baby. It is not equivalence, it is an analogy, and this is as far as the analogy goes.
Except without interference, it can’t become a baby. It has to implant and start orchestrating changes in it’s mother’s body. For the first week or two the fertilized egg (up through blastocyst stage) constructs the amnion and the beginning of the umbilical and placenta. There are a few cells clumped together, waiting, that will only start to form an embryo when they get the chemical signal that implantation is complete.
The blastocyst does a lot before it starts to make a baby. One of the things it has to do is convince the mother’s immune system to ignore it. It also releases hormones that trigger changes in the uterine wall as it approaches, releases enzymes to erode the uterine lining where it touches, and releases more hormones to cause the lining that it burrows into to produce first capillaries and then the maternal portion of the placenta.
I guess my point is that even the fertilized egg thinks that the mother is the primary component of a successful pregnancy. It spends its first critical days working to secure that resource before using it to make a baby. And it doesn’t bother making a baby if it can’t secure that outside resource.
I really don’t like the donation metaphor. The whole thing is more of a dance. Through the whole pregnancy, the life support portion of the conception manipulates the mother’s body chemically. For one thing, it has to keep convincing her immune system to ignore it. It also has to keep her part of the placenta intact and providing blood. If it fails at these any time before viability, it’s game over. So the “donation” is not complete until the baby is born, and that’s sometimes done by emergency caesarian when something goes wrong with the dance.
(BTW, I though that the original question was pretty much answered - well, the opinions were defined - by about page 3 and I stopped checking in. Have we done ectopic pregnancies and what species is the placenta?)
Wow, this thread is still going on? Damn…didn’t know a few-minute high school lunch conversation would turn into hundreds of posts worth of intense debate on the SDMB…