You say you should be able to control your own body, and in this case each is a part of the other's body. According to you, there should be MORE reason to allow this than to allow abortion because the baby is not actually part of the mother's body. Yet somehow I'm guessing you'd have a problem with this. Why?
2007-04-02 04:42:33 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
When does a fetus become a person?
2007-04-02 04:47:38 · update #1
For those of you that think it's because the fetus is not a person, do you support late term abortions?
2007-04-02 04:48:47 · update #2
Elliot: What about later term pregancies. My argument holds there.
2007-04-02 04:49:51 · update #3
Aren't you an atheist? If so, I take it you are a pro-life atheist?
Well, I bet the liberal atheists can't stand you. Good show!
2007-04-02 04:50:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
There are laws regarding 'bodily domain;' that is, an individual is not legally required to allow another to use their body - or any part thereof - even if it would allow the other to live.
While a Siamese twin would not be allowed to kill another, as the other twin has (nominally) a brainstem and therefore is aware, he/she could demand to be surgically separated. If the other twin dies as a result of the separation, the first cannot be charged with murder or even manslaughter.
This is why abortion is not murder.
First, the blastocyst has no brainstem. That does not develop in the early stages of pregnancy; this is why abortion is only legal in the first trimester.
Second, the mother has no legal requirement to provide the nutrients, blood or other bodily functions that the fetus requires to live.
While I would love for all reasons for abortion to vanish (fallible birth control, rape, ectopic pregnancy, health complications, etc.), it should be an alternative while they exist.
2007-04-02 11:55:42 · answer #2 · answered by Johnny Sane 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Generally, it is not the same b/c they both have individual identities - functioning brains. I can kill a tumor if I choose. That would be a better comparison.
To ME, a fetus becomes a person when I conceive it - with my husband. If I were raped, I wouldn't even bother finding out, I would take the pill and never know either way. But, just b/c I believe that, doesn't mean everyone has to. I'm open-minded like that.
2007-04-02 11:47:38 · answer #3 · answered by ms_coktoasten 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't understand the premise or the question, but that's never stopped me before.
I was conceived as a twin (not conjoined) but s/he died less than a month into the pregnancy, so there is every reason to suggest that in some way I "killed" my twin. I've also had an abortion. I'm so thrilled - up until a few hours ago I thought I was such a good girl, but now it seems I'm a double murderer. Who woulda thunk, eh?
2007-04-02 11:53:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are times when twins/multiples will actually "kill" the other one(s). If one baby gets more nutrition than the other one, the one getting less will sometimes die.
Other than that, I know of no way one child could kill another in vitro. They wouldn't have much in the way of strength, ability or knowledge to do so. Afterall, at abortion time frames, they are not developed beyond a cluster of cells.
Late term abortions don't apply because they are only performed if there are health concerns.
2007-04-02 11:49:19 · answer #5 · answered by glitterkittyy 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You mean one conjoined twin? Not usually. Unlike foetuses, conjoined twins are self aware. Your argument really falls apart there. Current research suggests that self awareness isn't achieved until some time after birth, so yes I do support late term abortions, though I understand the procedure is much easier for all involved when performed earlier.
2007-04-02 11:48:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
If one siamese twin kills the other, the killer will die. So, there's really no punishment possible.
A fetus becomes a person when the law says it does, just as a killing is justifiable when the law says it is.
2007-04-02 11:59:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
a fetus becomes a person at conception. as for siamese twins, that is a difficult quesiton; every effort to save both shoud be made. but Im chuckling b/c i just saw a preview for a Thai horror movie on siamese twins where one has to die and the dead one haunts the living one...Siamese=Thai, btw.
2007-04-02 11:50:00 · answer #8 · answered by karen i 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because Siamese twins are independently thinking beings. They might be connected, but they're individual people. A fetus is not a person.
2007-04-02 11:46:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes they should be able to fight it out and after one kills the other they should just let the doctors cut the dead one off.
As for pro choice the mother should have made the choice to have him use a rubber when she chose to enjoy sex. Abortion is cold blooded murder at any stage.
2007-04-02 11:48:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Depends. Is the second twin capable of living life if seperated? or is it a leech off of the first? I say if the second twin is simply a leech hack the damn thing off! If its capable of living on its on go get surgery.
2007-04-02 11:56:20 · answer #11 · answered by brideofsatan_1 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋