At what point do you think an unborn baby becomes a separate entity from its mother?

[Anonymous]

Is it at conception or some point during pregnancy or not until birth?

[Chazmatazz269]

Immediately upon conception, under current laws everywhere in the US. It’s something modern democrats refuse to acknowledge.
https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf

The unborn victims of violence act became federal law in 2004, as a matter of uniformity. Prior to that, every single state in the US had prosecuted offenders for killing unborn babies in a variety of scenarios. If you drove drunk and killed a pregnant woman, double murder charges. If a pregnant woman attacked you and in fighting her off you caused injuries that may or may not have resulted in her fetus’s death, you are charged with murder. Every state in the nation has a precedence for this and no feminist nor democrat ever protested its use. What they want to do with abortion is create yet another privileged class that doesn’t have to observe and obey the same laws as the rest of us. It’s a baby and it’s alive when the mother wants it. It’s not a baby and it’s not alive when the mother wants to kill it.
That double standard isn’t just wrong, it’s flat out unconstitutional. It exclusively benefits women. Which is why the lunatic left doesn’t b*tch about it. Name a policy or practice that primarily benefits men and they never shut up about it. But they can’t get enough extra rights and privileges for women and girls.
In short, as soon as the child is conceived it is perceived as a separate entity under the law. Any legislation that contradicts these existing precedents and laws must be challenged in the SCOTUS.

[goaded]

Some point during pregnancy. The two extremes of conception and at birth are just that: extreme opinions.

Before that point (whatever it is), I believe abortions should be legal. After it, abortions should be allowed as end of life decisions by their obvious next of kin (the mother), in case of serious developmental problems, or for the health and safety of the mother.

Viability outside the womb is a reasonable starting point for discussion. You don't need a microscope to see a person, people have heads and brains and other organs.

If you want your society to have more children, look after the ones who are born.

[goaded]

Thanks for MHO.

[CalmUntilAbused]

That would be at conception. The DNA is different than that of the mother, and it's very much alive. Oh, and it's definitely human DNA, so the unborn baby is a separate, living human being.😀

[goaded]

How many human beings is that?

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded I'm not sure I understand the question...

[goaded]

Have you ever heard of monozygotic twins? It's one zygote, then two people.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded Oh... I suppose they would be natural clones, then. Anyway, my primary point still stands. The zygote is at least one new, separate, living human being. If anything, multiple human beings getting killed is even worse than one human being getting killed. It doesn't help the feminist "pro-choice" narrative a single bit. 🤣

[goaded]

Wait until you find out about chimeras, where one person comes from two zygotes.

Saying any of those things are people who should have rights is simply ridiculous.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded What's ridiculous is denying a living human being the to live.

[CalmUntilAbused]

"the right to live"*

[goaded]

Can you define "a person"?

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded I basically did it just above. A living being with human DNA (i might add a "unique" part, in order to disprove the horrifying "my body, my choice" argument - the child's DNA is different that his/her mother's).

[goaded]

Then define "living being". Amoeba? A single cell is a potential person, like an acorn is a potential tree. You think a single cell should have the same rights, more rights, really, since you think it should have control of another person, than a living breathing child with experiences.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded Well, that "another person" had a choice to bring the unborn child into being (or not). Once the unborn child is brought into being, it has the right to live. That's called responsibility.

[goaded]

No that's called extreme religion, and a belief that's not even that old.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded Well, religion does platform responsibility, and atheism platforms irresponsibility. This much I agree with. But it is very much a matter of responsibility and irresponsibility. Modern people are incresingly irresponsible. It could be because they stray further and further from God Almighty, but I do not know any definite proof.

[goaded]

No, "religion does platform responsibility, and atheism platforms irresponsibility" is a lie. People can and are moral without religion. If anything, it's easier.

The British law, for nearly a thousand years before the US existed and adopted by the US for many decades was that a fetus wasn't important until the quickening, when the mother could feel movement. Even then, killing one wasn't murder.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded Well, it was a special kind of murder, I suppose. The original Hippocratic Oath stated, among other rules:

"(...) Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. (...)"

That's far more ancient than any British law, it even predates Christianity itself. People have considered abortion an immoral act, whether they recognized it as murder or not, for an extensively long time.

[goaded]

"regardless of the author's original intention, the vague and polyvalent nature of the relevant line has allowed both professionals and non-professionals to interpret and use the oath in several ways."
But fair point.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded Well, if the act was known as immoral since at least Ancient Greece, now that we understand it in more detail, it is also obviously irresponsible, and on top of that, it puts the whole society in danger demographically, I cannot find a single reason to support the right to perform it.

I'm not sure who You quote on the line I quoted, but I find the line from the Hippocratic Oath pretty straightforward. My take is that one has to intentionally bend its meaning to make it allow abortion.

[goaded]

"known as immoral"? No, thought immoral, by people who thought slavery was just fine.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded See? Even slavery was acceptable to them, and abortion wasn't. This means abortion is worse than slavery! Also, it is a random tangent, but the ancient slavery was nothing like the colonial powers' and Southern US' slavery. If You had enough money, You could buy Your freedom back. It was more of a way for people who went broke to survive (while deprived of free will). Not unlike what happens today if You cannot pay a bank loan back, though arguably more humane.

[goaded]

Oh, great, you're pro-slavery as well!

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded Oh, great, You are misinterpreting my words, as is quite usual for You. I explained the historical context of slavery, but I never claimed t was okay. I am very much not okay with the modern form of slavery, courtesy of bank loans. The Ancient Greek form was a bit better, but charity is still a better solution than even this "mild" form of slavery - it's actually the best solution ever.

[goaded]

No, it's not, but your pretence that the last 2000 years didn't happen is "usual for You".

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded Your pretence that the last 2000 years happening changes how taking life or demographics work is more of a problem, if You ask me. Some rules are simply divine (or natural) law and nothing humans do can change it.

[goaded]

Because everybody's got to conform to your religious views, not their own, or their own consciences.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@goaded They do not have to, but in this specific aspect, they will die out if they do not - and by their own hand, in a way. I would consider it immoral of me if I did not warn them.

[Ariesman81]

A human baby is a separate entity (soul) at conception.

[goaded]

How many human beings is that? How many souls?

[Ariesman81]

@goaded

Huh?

[goaded]

You're claiming a baby with a soul is created at conception. Just one soul, right? One "baby". I want this to be very clear.

[Ariesman81]

@goaded

Unless it's twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.

[goaded]

You spotted the flaw in your position, then. Well done. Identical twins both come from the same conception. Do they get half a soul each, or what?

Regardless, many fertilised ova quite naturally don't implant or result in miscarriages early on. By your logic, God kills far more babies than abortionists.

If someone, a real living, breathing person with great talent or value needed to be medically attached my body for six months (or six days) to somehow heal enough to survive on their own, I would be under no obligation to provide it. Why should a woman be forced to do more for a small collection of cells?

Miscarriage rates among all fertilized zygotes are around 30% to 50%. About half of those have no chromosomal abnormalities.

[Ariesman81]

@goaded

There's a theory that identical twins actually do share a soul. It's often referenced by how connected the two are throughout life.

[goaded]

Not a scientific theory, obviously. What do they say about chimeras, who are one person with two sets of DNA.

[Sal_Monella]

How do you define a separate entity? I use that as possessing its own unique DNA. When does that happen? At conception. and thanks for asking.

[Anonymous]

At what point do you stop asking stupid questions that are obviously right-wing troll jobs?

[OlderAndWiser]

At conception.

[exitseven]

once it starts kicking.

[goaded]

The Quickening!

[OneViewpoint]

Legally, biologically, or philosophically?

[Hellraiser1984]

When mommy puts it in a dumpster at the prom.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Constantly

[Evsisa]

Conception.

[CalmUntilAbused]

And here we have a woman saying this. Best wishes to You, fair lady!