Is there more than one ‘person’ in this picture?

[Still-alive]

There is only one person in this picture

There are more than one persons in this picture

I have a different opinion (please say)

[Stoner710]

Yes there is, unless she wearing a president suit there is more then 1 person the baby is a separate being from the mother, The mother doesn’t have 20 fingers and toes if her child is a boy the mother doesn’t have a penis. The mother doesn’t have 2 completely different DNA structures. The child is a separate being then the mother.

i love it when pro lifers say the mother and baby aren’t 2 different being and the baby is part of the mothers body. Then turn around and say it’s a parasite. Well you need to get a parasite removed right? Why should it matter if the women want a baby if it a parasite she needs to have the parasite removed form there body this includes all women not just some women.

also if giving birth is more dangerous then giving birth then why not sterilize every single one when they are born in order to protect there lives from getting pregnant as giving birth. Oh wait they would destroy the entire human race within 100 years

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

The baby inside the woman is technically called a foetus, not a baby. It is not independent of its mother.

As I stated earlier, the baby is called baby only after it takes birth, that is, becomes physically separated from its mother after the delivery. Gets its own legal identity through birth certificate.

The woman in the photo is a singular entity. Not multiple entities.

Are these the problems The States facing right now? This is literally wastage of resources available.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

A fetus is a human though

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

@TwoToTooTutu2
Yess. You are right. It is a human, but with no independent identity. The mother is its identity. It is not having its own identity. By law and even naturally.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

But it is an individual human which is the legal definition of a person

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

@TwoToTooTutu2
Nope. The umbilical chord has been the connection between the mother and the foetus from the start without any disconnection. Hence the foetus is simply a part of the mother's body and not an individual.

The foetus becomes a different human the moment the umbilical cord is cut off after the delivery. The fortus becomes an human baby after the delivery.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

It is an individual and sepparate human. It shows all signs of life and is a member of the Homo Sapien species

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

@TwoToTooTutu2
Lets consider the foetus to be an independent human at that instant. Whose rules will get applied to it. Male or female.

Pre-conception gender revelation is illegal in The States. How does it work then?

[TwoToTooTutu2]

What do you mean, what rules are you talking about. We don't have Gendered rules

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

@TwoToTooTutu2
It is a good thing if neutral rules are there.

But that still does not answer the question as to what an unborn child will do with the rights it is given. It is literally not able to see in 3D or even in 2D, or even see at all.

Only its hearing senses and olfactory senses are functional for application.

What will it do? Better let the parents take the decisions and avoid all of these useless complications.

The foetus is a human in development indeed, but it is not a full human. It is barely able to feel its own consciousness, which is a sense of identity for any animal.

I stand by my statement.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

It won't do anything with its rights. US citizens have a right to bear arms yet over half the citizens don't own any weapons. It isn't fully developed... so what? It's still an individual member of the Homo Sapien Species. Also all humans under 25 aren't fully developed.

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

@TwoToTooTutu2
Agree to disagree.

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

@Still-alive

The polls say it all. People are exactly equally divided between these two opinions.
But my final verdict would be... the answer lies in between these two extremely polarising statements. And it is extremely subjective to each foetus at the end, I believe. Plus what the parents think of it.

[Apulu_Imback]

There is only one person in this picture. Because the other one isn't visible now. Logically we can see only one person but technically there are 2.

[Apple1996]

One woman shown in that pic. She is pregnant and will soon have a baby tho

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

Very true.

Can you tell me why such an obvious and commonsense problem is there in first place? I find it senseless to be honest.

[ShaTTeredMasterpeace]

A person and a fetus. She looks to be about 5-6 months pregnant. Baby has a heartbeat and if someone were to shoot her or harm her and both she and baby die, they'd most likely charge the killer with double homicide depending on the state.

[hobnocker]

There's two. If a pregnant woman is murdered that murderer will be convicted of double homicide in 38 states

[andreasderjuengere]

I see one person, and the indications of one other potential person some time in the (near) future.

[SamA_nold]

A pregnant woman and what appears to be a viable fetus

[llorando]

Technically no since the unborn person can't be seen.

[Cherry234]

Only one person - the pregnant woman

[hIopinionated_]

According to Trumptards, yes

[jengeorge26]

Yes, two heart beats

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

There is only one picture

[TwoToTooTutu2]

There are up to 9 people in there.

[OddBeMe]

Can she drive the HOV lane by herself?

[EnglishEuropean]

One unborn citizen and one human incubator.

[Dinosaursandanime65]

I see a woman