And we will never know what level of intelligence a fetus truly has, unless we establish some form of link of communication with it... Much like Hellen Keller, the world did not know what was in there until a link of communication was able to be established. Fetuses might even have some worthwhile things to tell us (when it comes to issues in the subject of human consciousness and spirituality/religion).
And as I have said many times before, if you are the one paying for the plug, you have the right to stop paying for the plug. However, a patient in coma has actually been born and it is thus not an entirely fair comparison. A mother whose child is in a coma can be at home, while the child is at the hospital. They are two, separate individuals. A fetus is in a very tight and restricted space and has zero capacity to be conscious. Furthermore, rights only apply to human interaction in a society, on a desert island, there is neither need nor necessity for rights. Infants are definitely conscious and toddlers are very conscious. If you have ever seen any, you would know this without any doubt in your mind.
And you can only become aware of the world and start developing communication skills (be it braile or noise) when you are part of the world.
What if a window was created through the womb? Some pregnant women put headphones on their belly and play music for their fetus. (They even sell special pregnancy headphones, that stick on the woman even as she's jogging)
No. Most adults do not even have that capacity. There are people with two phDs who cannot even provide any sufficient insight to those subjects. Lol. That takes abstraction from the concretes of reality. A fetus is not out in the world and can therefore not start doing this. But, from their very first sight of light and very first scream, they are. Even if they are born with a serious mental disability, they will know that existence exists.
It has been around for ages and is called ultrasound. Yeah, it is believed that they can hear it and that playing Mozart for them will turn them into the next Einstein. For now, all of that is just pseudo-science. That is very cute for the woman who really wants motherhood.
But why shouldn't a woman who is planning on abortion not play music for her fetus too? Will not both fetuses, in either case, derive some enjoyment out of it?
Maybe she does? If it is true that they can hear it, she is doing it any time she listens to it herself.
It helps to have the headphones right up against the belly. A lot of the amplitude of the sound wave is lost between the transition from low density air to the higher density fluids of the body.
To get back on topic, restrictions on abortion may very well cause better technologies for these type of things to never be developed.
That's what those on the Left have been doing, when it comes to laws on environmental policies. Create difficult/impractical to meet mandates, and then hope the technology catches up later.
The Left and Right are in absolute agreement on all of the premises and I cannot really see how one side would be worse than the other. What we are seeing on both sides is a shift from individualism towards collectivism and from freedom to restriction. I could go on a longer rant about this, but this thread is about abortion. As far as abortion goes, the Left is right in its conclusion. Although I am not entirely sure if it is fair to frame the abortion debate as one of "Right vs Left".
What "trick" is there? It is a simple straightforward yes/no question. Here, you are attempting to use 'human' as an adjective again, rather than a noun, as my question uses it as. I said that they are HUMAN (noun). Yes, you did. Here, you AGAIN attempt to use 'human' as an adjective rather than a noun (as my question uses it as). My question says nothing about a "being" ... My premise is that a fetus is a LIVING HUMAN (iow, of the homo sapien species and has a heartbeat). Yet ANOTHER attempt to use 'human' as an adjective rather than a noun.
You and Ritter keep wishing to use human as an adjective even though the question is referring to the noun form of the word. Irrelevant to the question that I asked. I see that you're back to fabricating my positions... I've already made it.
I didn't ask "medical science"; I asked YOU, since YOU are acting as if my main question is completely ridiculous... How would you determine whether or not something is a 'human'? How would you determine whether or not that 'human' is 'living'? How would you determine whether or not a family member of yours is 'living'?
gfm7175: let's just stay focused on what constitutes a 'living human'. Then share it with us all. How would you determine whether or not something is a 'human'? How would you determine whether or not that 'human' is 'living'? How do you determine whether or not a family member of yours is 'living'? [1] Nowhere have I ever mentioned "persons". I have only ever mentioned HUMANS. Let's stick with that. [2] This is, yet again, completely irrelevant to my question (and to defining 'living humans') Yes, a pregnant woman is a living human. Irrelevant to the question that I asked (and to defining 'living human').
It seems to me, the only logical punishment that could best dissuade a woman from getting an abortion, without being too punitive or creating a detrimental wasteful burden on society, would be to require her to be pregnant again. Perhaps carrying a child for an infertile couple. Sending the message that there's no escape from that which she fears.
No, it shows your silly "argument" just doesn't mean a thing No, that would be you claiming things posters never said nor agreed with. LOL, only in your mind.....I haven't seen it here and you couldn't produce it.....did your fingers get tired ?
My gawd, you sure must hate women! You , as I have said, sure want to punish them...the object of most Anti-Choicers...
Obviously, there is not ONE law. There are more than 50 laws on what might be the charges against someone whose violent attack on a woman caused the loss of a pregnancy. Do you know why there are MORE than 50 laws on this? How many times do I have to point that out?
