The earliest point where it could be is when it has settled and is being nourished, but from there on in it is terribly fluid. Life independent of the mother is a stupid argument - do you want to disenfranchise people living in iron lungs, too? Your dependence on someone or something else says nothing about your personhood. Besides, I don't much like being called anti-women. It's a bloody excuse and ad hominem, not an argument.
Who would actually care for these fetuses? Who would continue to care for them after "birth?" Where would the money come from? What would be their quality of life? This is going to sound pretty ****ed up, but it's something I've thought about time and time again. Overpopulation is a pretty legitimate thing. Human population just keeps on growing. Yes, we have technology. Yes, that very same technology is growing at just a fast, if not faster, rate. But there's only so much progress that can be made technologically to continually support a skyrocketing number of people. I recently heard about a charity (church missionaries) that donated food to underdeveloped and impoverished areas such as the slums of India, as well as tiny African communities. And I began to wonder, if food is supplied to those people, obviously they'd continue to live. If they live, chances are they'll have children. Then, in addition to the adults, there will be the children to feed thanks to modern medicine. And then the children's children. I'm not saying Firk everyone and let them die to reduce the population. This was just a thought I had, and all I'm saying is that wouldn't abortion help with the issue of overpopulation? I mean, why force someone who for whatever reason does not want a child to have that child? Maybe they don't have the means. Maybe they simply DO NOT WANT A CHILD. Especially since there are no definite laws as to when a human is a human. Just some thoughts I had.
Overpopulation is as much of a myth as Germany being an energy importer. It needs to bloody go the way of the dodo before I get an aneurysm from being mad at people for not knowing what they are talking about.
It's more of a current massive mismanagement basic human resources, and a fear of what 4-6 billion more would mean when we're already growing a exponentially similar rate. Again the debate of taking care of what we have properly before thrusting more into it.
Current food production exceeds current food requirements by far and could be scaled up to ridiculous degrees by, for example, saving on meat, which is about twenty times less energy efficient than grains. The average population density is idiotically low, the unexploited potential for further food production gigantic, and birth rates are pretty much always sinking in correspondence with rising living standards and education levels. Overpopulation is not a thing.
Laws can be good, bad, neutral, angelic, demonic or some combo thereof. A definitive law will not solve this issue,
Think you missed my point. Perhaps I only articulated better in a later post. My point was that it might lead to an advancement where an unwanted fetus could be actively transferred to a mother that could carry to term. Who would then care, and provide for said child. Creating a Zerg breading program for every 'miss-matched' child is a terrible idea.
iron lungs are mothers? Why are you taking what I said out of the context of an embryo inside a person? that makes no sense. keywords where "independent of the mother" yet you think the keywords were :"sustaining life"
If you take someone's heart out and hook him up to the blood supply of someone else, and stuff the first person into the second (somehow), does the first person magically lose its personhood? Or being inside and hooked up to someone else perhaps ... irrelevant?
If a fetus is considered human when it has settled and is being nourished, then do you believe that women using drugs/alcohol while pregnant should be charged with a crime if that usage terminates the pregnancy?
Depends on the circumstances, but potentially yes. Carrying a child gives you responsibilities. I also think the exact same about hte fathers - fathering a child oblieges you to care for your child as much as the mother, and financial support is about the least thing you could do.
Using a point you said earlier. 51% IF the general consensus agrees at the point of life. Then potentially yes, "It's not my body, it's our body." Again, not just their child (spouse), on top of which that Narcotics/Alcohol where former is illegal, and both can be considered Negligent homicide in this case. Again tho, if she's being forced to carry it to term and this situation occurs, general clustfirk.
I immagine it would be unethical to do so without the second person consenting to this act, so this second person should have the right over his body back. however we can take the person without the heart and give him an artificial heart or a pump so the issue is solved.
keyword: person , an embryo does not qualify as a person. Also I think the bodies of an artificial conjoined twin would reject eachother so better save the one person from dieing of being attached to a dead person than losing both. incidentally a reason why abortions are sometimes done.
