Does a fetus have rights under religion? How young do you have to be to be human?
961515
For me it's human when it has a complete brain
802745
This is for civil cases: Many states require that a child must be born alive for its death to constitute the first element of a wrongful death action, so the death of a fetus might not be actionable. An attorney can tell you what the precise law is in your state.\n\nAfter 24 weeks, the DA may or may not bring up a manslaughter -- a crime of killing a human being without malice -- indictment.
740662
The UK is once again debating over its abortion laws. It is allowed in this country currently up 24 weeks providing 2 doctors give their consent that to not abort would be of detrrement to the womans physical or mental health, that it would harm the child or their family. \nseems about right to me.
450090
Jewish Law only sets general guidelines, while specific rulings depend on INDIVIDUAL cases.  There is no one rule fits all.\nThe fetus is not a living person according to Jewish Law, and in the first 40 days after conception is considered nothing more than a membrane.\nThere are a variety of halachic opinions on the subject, but generally Judaism allows abortion if the mother's HEALTH (not just life, but health) is in danger.  There may be other circumstances where a ruling may be lenient, specifically at the very begninning of the pregenancy.\n\nTHe State of Israel allows abortions.  For what they claim are safety reasons, legal abortions must take place in hospitals, though of course some doctors perform abortions in private clinics.\nAn abortion is legal in Israel if the mother is a minor, not married (whether single, divorced, or widowed), for reasons of physical or psychological health, or if there's something wrong with the fetus.  The State pays for abortions for girls 17 and under.
435055
I agree. I find it interesting that it is okay to abort a fetus while it is in the womb but not when it is out of the womb. This makes no sense to me. It seems to me that if it is  to be legal then parents should be allowed to have an abortion up until the fetus is 18 years old.
660173
"2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. \n\nMy frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. " ( St. Charles Borromeo)<1> \n\nMy opinion is that it is murder.  I have a strange feeling that God created us at creation.  When God spoke to Abraham about his decendents being "Countless as the Stars"  is when God announced all life arrivals (the moment of conception).\n\nPlus, it seems that babies have imaginations.  When parents are in the 9 month waiting period, they do little stuff like play classical music and talk to the baby in the womb.  Many of the baby resurch does indicate that this can help the baby grow smarter and more social.  Now, baby research is indicating that a baby can be taught to 'Eat right' in the womb.  \n\nSadly, many abortions happen because the man, woman, or both do not take time to understand life.  It is all about their own 'Self-enjoyment'.  Many times, the woman wants the child, but is bullyed into an abortion when she realizes that the man does not love her the way she imagined him to love her.  This realization comes when he puts his fist through a wall, or starts cusing saying, "How dare you ruin my life" (again selfishness).  Even sadder is when a woman is rapped and has an abortion.  This fear drives her to an action she does not understand and typically the baby of a rape incident is the saving force for the woman many years down the line.\n\nIn short, my opinion of abortion is that it's killing the imagination of a fellow human being who is helpless and cannot protect themselves.  It is a waste!!!
976298
1) Is abortion murder? no. as long as it is done before the 4th month. \n\n2) are there any acceptions in which abortion is acceptable?(is yes, why only those)yes. rape, molestation, not being able to take care of the child, if the mother isnt ready, health conditions.  I personally would never get an abortion, but i dont think that it is right to have people outside of clinics screaming at them making them feel worse than they already do. if they want an abortion and maybe mess up their insides, its on them :D\n\n3) is a fetus/unborn baby (in your oppinion) a conscience being?\nyes.\n\n4) In this non-abortion situation: a girl was born with a twin attached, head to head. The twin has a FULLY functional brain. It can feel, react, cry, sleep, etc. Is this twin alive? oh i saw that. yes. now if it was just a limb, or a face, then no.\n\n5) is it more alive or more of a human being than a fetus/unborn baby?the conjoined twins? yes and no. they are about equal.\n\n6) same twin story: the twin has a lump of a body with no organs. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/compon... do you still consider it a live human being?\nno.\n\n7) Is it worse to seperate this "twin" which will die, or have an abortion? (sorry, not a yes or no answer)the previous twins? i think it would be worse to seperate. personally i would seperate though.\n\n8) comments\ni really think abortion is one of those topics that both sides are to blind to the other. i really hate how people can have sex and then just erase their mistake, but then again i think its wrong for groups of people to walk up and down busy malls that have kids with parents and show pictures of aborted fetus's screaming about how abortion is a sin.
218648
I'll say it bluntly.  Yes, abortion is wrong.  Some people say that it is the own choice of the female to terminate the fetus if they choose, or if they are unhappy with it's existence.  However, ask yourself, if a woman was unhappy with her two-year old son, and he was getting in her way, could she kill him? Absolutely not!  It is murder.  Therefore, the issue is not whether or not the mother has control over her body, but whether what she is killing is a human being or not\n\nLet's start with a basic question.  Is a newborn child human?  Yes, it is.  Now to compare it to the "fetus" or young human in the womb.  As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there are only four differences between the unborn child and the newborn child.\n\nFirst is size.  If you don't know, the unborn child is at one point smaller than the head of a pin.  So does that make it not human?  If you answered yes, consider this.  Are bigger people more human than smaller people?  By that note, is Margaret Sanger less of a person than Shaquille O' Neal since she is smaller?  I don't think so, nor do many other people.  So if you can't apply this on the extreme of it, you can't apply it to the unborn and say they are less human because of their size.\n\nNext is level of development.  The unborn is much less developed then the newborn, so does that make the unborn not human?  While I may not know the exact levels of development for this, I do know that a fourteen year-old girl is more developed than a four year-old girl.  I also know that men don't reach their mental peak until their mid-40's and their physical peak until their mid-30's.  So does this mean that the four year-old girl, or any male under the age of 30 is less human because they are less developed?  Again, this does not make much sense.\n\nThird is Environment.  What change occurs from inside the womb to coming outside the womb that merits murder?  Consider this.  If you were to leave your computer and go get a snack in the kitchen, would you be more human when you walked into the kitchen then you were in the computer room?  Or if you went on a trip to see your grandmother, would you be more human at her house than at yours?  Or would you be more human when you got on the plane to get to her house than before you got on?  As you can see, change of location does not make a person more or less of who they are, and it applies the same to the unborn child.\n\nFinally, you have degree of dependency.  Since the unborn is more dependent on the mother for life than the newborn, we can kill the unborn child, right?  Wrong.  By that merit, anyone who takes insulin or needs an oxygen tube would become less human than anyone not dependent on those sorts of things.  So how does the fact that someone is more dependent on something than somebody else make that person less human?  As far as I can see, it doesn't.  Therefore, according to these four differences, there is no difference between an unborn child and a newborn child that merits killing the unborn that doesn't work for the newborn.\n\nIf this doesn't convince, let me bring up science.  Before you were born, what were you?  If you said "a potential life" you are wrong.  That doesn't work.  According to the Law of Biogenesis, humans cannot produce offspring that are not human but later become human.  It is impossible, and that is a scientifically proven fact.  Therefore, once again, there is no possible way you can prove that the unborn isn't human.\n\nSome may try to bring in issues of rape or incest.  Consider this.  Why would you execute a child for the crime of it's father?  Wouldn't you just execute the father for committing the terrible crime?  And I admit, rape is a terrible thing.  But let's think straight here.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  "But how can you make this woman have the child if it is only going to remind her o
914437
Abortion\n\nsome people feel it is wrong to terminate the life of a baby because the mother was not ready to have children.\n\nTo some extent abortion can be right especially if the woman was brutally raped and as an consequence she is pregnant. Or she has suffered for child abuse and as a result she is pregnant and she could be really young like 12 years old. Sometimes the baby could have a serve disability and will have 24 hour care when born and would cost alot of money that the parents don't have.\n\nReasons why people are against it is for many reasons. The most obvious is religion. The Bible/ Quran clearly state that it is wrong to take another human life NO MATTER what the events are leading to the pregnancy, it is a sin. People say that there are other options other than abortion e.g. adoption/ fostering. Most people are infertile and if you don't want your child then give the child to a family that will love the child as any parent would. Another reason is that sometimes the mother will later form a bond with the child if she keeps the pregnancy and gives birth.\n\nHope this helps xx
396381
Interesting point, but somehow I don't think it will fly. As to your question, I think that life begins at conception, yet I do not believe that a fetus is viable until the point where it can survive outside the womb. I think that the fetus should be protected, but I am also pro-choice. If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, then it is her choice. I do not however, feel that women should use abortion as birth control. If one does not want to conceive, then they should prevent conception. There are too many ways to do so in this day and age. If a fetus is endangered by the mother's gross neglect, such as drug abuse, and the end result is the death of a viable fetus or damage to the child upon or after birth, then the fetus should be protected. Proving gross neglect however, is rather difficult.
224257
God is not a member of any kind of religion. He couldn't be. So everybody is protected by Him, not only the new born babies. well, if his parents belong to a religious cult, that's ok. so the baby will. but if they don't, that doesn't mean that the baby is deserted.
744269
Gosh, how do you get such a depressing reasoning out of the religions?  We're being tested here on earth, and it gets tough, but life isn't just all about pain and suffering, hopefully.  Maybe yours is though??  There are still so many wonderful things in life to celebrate, and having a baby is one of them.  I have a little 11 months old, and he is the light of my life, and I will never regret bringing him into this world.  Life in this world is not the perfect state, but we are all going toward that perfect state - the afterlife - but what we do in this life will reflect our next one.  If you are so sad, and have such a bad outlook on your life, I hope you get some relief in family and friends.  Children are the most wonderful thing in this world, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
634114
I think you are saying that anyone without the capacity of reason does not deserve rights. Wouldn't this include:\n- The Unborn?\n- All children before the age of reason, about 6 or 7?\n- All mentally ill people?\n- All mentally retarded people (sorry if I am using an old description)?\n- All coma victims?\n- Anyone who is unconscious?\n- Anyone who is sleeping?\n\nThe Catholic Church has the highest respect for all human live, whether reasoning or not. It is pro-life in the widest sense. This is often called a "Consistent Ethic of Life."\n\nThis pro-life stance stresses the highest regard for dignity of human life including that of:\n- All people in objecting to unjust war and nuclear arms.\n- The unborn in objecting to to abortion, in fitro fertilization, frozen embryos, stem cell research, and cloning\n- The elderly, sick and dying in objection to assisted suicide and euthanazia\n- Prisoners in objecting to the death penalty\n- The poor and minorities in supporting social justice issues.\n\nWith love in Christ.
93469
Here's the problem, and why that's not the question to ask.\n\nWhat constitutes an "human unborn baby"? Ask different people and you'll get different answers. What constitutes an "animal"? Pretty straightforward.\n\nThe problem isn't with liberals or conservatives, or democrats vs. republicans, or doctors vs. priests. \n\nThe issue that we really should be asking is -- do we EVER want someone else to be making those kind of definitions for us? Do we EVER want the majority to be able to define what is and is not life, for everyone, just because there are more people who have that different opinion?\n\nExample: How would conservatives (who, for sake of this hypothetical believe that life starts at conception) feel if the majority happened to believe that: (1) life starts at birth; (2) we have too many people on the planet; and (3) abortion should be mandatory for families with two or more children (like they do in China currently)? And because they are the majority, they pass those laws, imposing that viewpoint on everyone else.\n\nAt that point, pro-lifers would be screaming for the Supreme Court to say that the government cannot make laws that contradict their personal beliefs, and to hold that any laws which try to take away their choice to HAVE a child are invalidated as unconstitutional.\n\nThat's what people don't get get. Pro-choice advocates are not pro-abortion -- they are anti-government-interference. They don't believe that just because 51% come to one conclusion that majority should be able to decide for everyone.\n\nIt's not about who has more rights. It's about who gets to force who.
1162561
I think there is truly a moment of conception (or a day of conception if you wish), but what that means exactly is open to interpretation. The argument is more about when that group of cells becomes "human" or "is inhabited with a spirit" than merely about when cells began to divide. \n\nTo the strictest abortion opponents, not only does life begin at conception, but "consciousness" does. For others, "consciousness" begins somewhat later, perhaps when the heart starts beating, or when the fetus begins to resemble a human, or when the fetus can sense pain. \n\nIn other words, the discussion of when "life" begins would more intelligently be framed as when "consciousness" begins, but, as you point out, the strictest abortion opponents want to confuse the issue by linking the idea of human consciousness to the point at which life itself begins so as to push the consciousness issue back to its most elementary moment. And for some, it goes back even farther! After all, Catholics consider not only the fertilized egg as holy, but the sperm and egg themselves as holy, even prior to conception!\n\nI personally think late-term abortions should be illegal, but I see no problem with early term abortions performed when the fetus is only so many cells and has not as of yet developed the ability to sense pain.
365282
A lot of people think this is about religion, but it's not. It's about human rights. Scientific DNA testing would prove that the fetus is: A) a human being B) a different individual than the mother (so it is NOT a part of the mother's body), and C) that it is alive. To end the life of a fetus is to end the life of a living, individual human being. A culture proves its worth by how it treats the most vulnerable people within its society. Here in America, we seem to have no trouble killing these vulnerable humans. We freak out about animal rights, but human rights are thrown in the garbage along with aborted fetuses.
656568
I've been wondering that too. If it was legal, I would do a controlled experiment with newborns, and having them grow up in a totally isolated home, away from the world and outside influences (including people)and and see if they feel the need for a higher being in their life, like if they naturally feel the presence of a God. Also to see if the child is naturally good or evil would be interesting (of course this depends on your definition of good and evil). Sure the fact that no human would ever have contact with them, ever, would really screw the kid up, but whatever.