Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2015 11:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 8/27/2015 11:52:00 AM (view original):
It lives inside of her. It's no more a part of her than a biological parasitical organism is a part of her. In this case it is a biological parasitical human being that lives inside of her because that's how the process works.
It lives inside her but can't be separated, so it's part of her. When it can be separated, it's no longer part of her. It's then a separate person.
So now your definition rests on technology or ability? Hypothetically if technology could duplicate the conditions that exist in a mother's womb, say in an artificial womb, would it be a human being then? Or would it only be "a part" of the "artificial womb" and not something living inside of it?
The fetus is a separate life - that part is science, not opinion. The woman's arm is a "part of her". The fetus is a separate life that lives inside of her and not a part of her. If you can't see that, then you're just playing games.
You can say it's a part of her. The facts say otherwise.
You can say it's not a human being because of where it lives. The fact is that its DNA is human and it is a self-directed organism - which means it is a separate life, so cannot be another form of life regardless of location.
You can say it's not a human because it has not developed fully. The fact is that you were not fully developed until approximately 25 years after birth (the approximate time the brain completes its development), but you were human - I think
- the entire time.
You can say it's not a human because of its lack of ability to survive outside of the womb. The fact is that human rights do not exist on abilities to survive.
You can say it's not a human because of its size. The fact is that after conception the only thing the fetus does biologically is GROW.
None of those arguments hold up logically.
You can say it is not a human person deserving of protection because you want it to be that way. That would be a more believable reason, because none of the other ones hold any verifiable logic to them.