Does being one of the unborn mean you have no rights or no life .?

Question

I wonder if response to food ,music, sounds ,movement ,drugs and a number of other things mean you are alive if you are not breathing on your own yet .
Does calling a child who relies on its mother for life support for 9 months mean that this person who has feelings and is able to hear and take in information mean that it has no rights till it takes a breath on its own or with a medical team devoted to saving its life at say 6 months or seven if born prematurely .
Why does our description of life not include sound ,feeling ,brain activity ,like it does for those in a coma . People on a respirator have rights but those in a mothers womb have none .
We need to re-examine our current thinking on life as well as our war in Iraq .
If we can rethink one subject matter then we can do several ,including assigning rights to those who rely on a mother for life support .
Years ago people did beleive the world was flat and the sun moved around the earth and animals had no feelings but we know now.

Answer 1

Ironically, while they believed the earth was flat, they also believed life began with conception.

Look at Leviticus and the criminal and civil remedies for harming a pregnant woman. (Studbolt missed my point: earth = flat).

I believe women should have "choice." The choice of birth control or abstinence. Pregnant? Choose adoption.

I have no problems with the rape kit used at hospitals also being used with incest victims.

Answer 2

I believe the unborn have every right that a baby that is already born has. I do think that this issue needs to be re-examined. There needs to be more solutions to this problem (i.e. birth control administered/available, easier adoptions, and better assistance for medical/life expenses.)

The Iraq war, the same. It didn't work the way it was supposed to, so some things need to change. The president could not have just sat and twiddled his thumbs while we were being attacked, but the Iraq war has gone far more into something that it shouldn't be.

Answer 3

Years ago a dude called Jesus walked a small part of the Earth. He pretty much made a pain of himself telling people there was a better way to live and giving them some tasks he wanted folks to work on. Said the tasks were God's will. One of the primary ones was take care of the poor. Funny thing is he didn't say a word about abortion (knowledge of herbs that would end pregnancy are far older than the Bible) or homosexuality. Poverty kills more people each year than there are abortions. Christ addressed poverty. When those of you who are Christian conservatives decide to get this upset at the sight of a person living in poverty, when you post lengthy rants about poverty, when you ban together and protest people having to live their lives in want, then let me know. At that point I'll be glad to sit down and talk about the problem (and there are problems) with abortion.

Answer 4

Quoting a knob like Glen Beck isn't going to gain anyone any credibility. We're talking human life. If they find a bacteria, that's life. It's not intelligent, sentient or human life, which is at issue here.

Responding to food, music, sounds, music and drugs – plants can arguably do that, flatworms can… response to stimuli does not necessarily mean consciousness, awareness or a soul. At what point are these characteristics present? We’re not sure. We can be sure, however, at what points they are NOT activated, like when the basic structures of the brain and the neural connections that enable that kind of higher activity don’t yet exist.

Your calling this a child, and your saying they have feelings and are able to hear and take in information isn’t fact, it’s conjecture. It’s also emotional hyperbole.

Sound, feeling and brain activity, as mentioned before, does not equate to consciousness. People in a coma are considered “brain alive” if their brain activity includes certain higher functions, so there are many, contrary to how it is depicted, that are physically alive, but considered "brain dead." Terry Sciavo, to quote the most famous case, had reflexive brain activity, but the autopsy confirmed that the areas of her brain necessary for consciousness were liquefied and no longer present.

Yes, years ago we believed things because we lacked understanding. Just like we believed that blastocysts, embryos and fetuses, in-utero were just miniature, functioning humans. We know better. Let’s not be mistaken here, I’m not pro-abortion, per se, but to define human life and consciousness as anything with human DNA that reacts to any stimulus, even in a reflexive way is to reduce our definition of what constitutes life. If you feel that any POTENTIAL human life is sacred, and should be treated as such, that’s fine. Or if you feel that all life, human, non-human, plant, microbial, whatever is sacred, fine as well. However, it’s intellectually dishonest to characterize a developing embryo or fetus as a fully developed newborn or child. Emotionally effective, perhaps, but not honest.

It’s these areas that are in dispute and are hard to define that fuel the controversy, obviously. Even if science can nail down the exact point where consciousness is attained, I doubt it would do much to reduce the debate.

What’s interesting to me is that many who oppose abortion also oppose sex education and birth control. My stand is that I don’t like abortion, as necessary as it may be at times, and until we do everything we can to reduce and eliminate unwanted pregnancy, we can’t really claim to be against abortion.

Answer 5

confident and no. The question isn't no count number if an unborn baby has a precise to existence, the question is while does existence initiate? no count number if that's universally agreed that existence starts off at thought, then confident abortions could be unlawful. even with the undeniable fact that no definate element of existence has been or ever would be desperate. as a result making this a moot arguement. as nicely in case you come to a variety existence starts off at thought, then day after pills might additionally be unlawful. might desire to we then additionally make beginning administration unlawful as nicely, with the aid of fact it stops (a minimum of is meant to) fertilization thereby no longer permitting an unborn fetus to exist and thereby taking aways its rights?

Answer 6

In many courts in the US the the unborn does have rights.
If a pregnant woman is murdered then that person may be tried to 2 murders...usually is the child would have been able to live outside the mothers womb.
A charge can also be brought against a person if a baby still in mom is injured and mom lives or if just the baby dies there could still be a charge.
so you see there are more and more rights

Answer 7

There are restrictions put on abortions in every state. and they limit the time frame a woman can terminate a pregnancy. So don't worry, as long as it is legal, we can put restrictions on it. And by doing so, and coupling it with appropriate sex ed that deals with portecting against unwanted pregnancies, and not just abstinence, we have greatly reduced the number of abortions out there. If you try and get some info from all different sources, you learn to relax more and not be so scared.

Answer 8

"Rights" is a legal term. And no, the "unborn" (I love these 'too cute' euphemisms) have no legal rights or responsibilities until the point when they become the "postborn."

If you want to extend "rights" before birth, fine. But, you have to realize that you will eventually come to a point of conflict with the rights of the woman, including the right to refuse to nourish, house and otherwise support an unwanted 'guest' (parasite) against her will. When that point comes, the legal rights of the woman are obviously superior, so you're right back in the same place you are now, replacing reason and common sense with blind emotionalism.

.

Answer 9

I don't know how any adult could honestly believe that a baby isn't a "living person". It's got it's own genetic makeup, it's own UNIQUE DNA, it (by the time you find out and do something about it) has a heart, a liver, and a brain, but it's not a human. It's a thing that can be disposed of.

"If scientists discovered a one-celled organism on Mars, the newspapers would scream "LIFE FOUND ON MARS!!!!!", but one cell in a woman, oh, that's nothing......" - Glenn Beck (I think)

Answer 10

I'd rather let the woman make the decision about the pregnancy than go back to the days where the woman had no rights or say in the matter. Those who want to outlaw abortion don't seem to give any consideration or concern for the woman in question.