Abortion

[hunterrose]

I'll need to ask a doctor, but I wonder if there is a point during labor where abortion as an alternative to birth simply becomes medically impossible.

The biggest problem that I see with this idea is that it's dependent on abortion being 1)a woman's right to end her pregnant state, as opposed to 2)a right to act on her body how she wants to. They lead to different results in cases where a pregnant woman knows that abortion will not change having to go through labor, but wants the abortion anyway (presumably at extreme personal harm to herself.)

Under your definition of when rights are acquired, a woman who is 9 months pregnant has the option of ordering doctors to kill her completely viable baby at any time prior to the umbilical cord being cut. I find that rather disturbing.

I have to agree to an extent. It does seem rather extreme to imply that abortion is legit on one removed from the womb, but still attached to the cord

Suppose, for example, that a fetus can be removed and put on a 50 thousand dollar machine for a month -- is that little enough burden on the mother than the fetus wins in court? (Yes, this is a slippery slope argument).

*hunterrose slides*

And if the machine were dirt-cheap or it's use freely donated to any pregnant mother, would abortion not be a right? (Not throwing that at DavidOdden in particular.)

[DavidOdden]

And if the machine were dirt-cheap or it's use freely donated to any pregnant mother, would abortion not be a right?

It would be a right of any woman regardless of the existence or cost of the machine.

[RationalBiker]

Under your definition of when rights are acquired, a woman who is 9 months pregnant has the option of ordering doctors to kill her completely viable baby at any time prior to the umbilical cord being cut. I find that rather disturbing.

A number of years ago I was a witness to the birth of my son. The idea of someone killing a fully developed baby inside of a woman's womb a week, an hour, or 15 minutes before birth is disturbing to me. In fact, the thought makes me a bit sick.

Simply stating an emotional reaction is not a sufficient reason for establishing "the line". Why are you disturbed by this? That is the important part of the discussion.

[Qwertz]

The biggest problem that I see with this idea is that it's dependent on abortion being 1)a woman's right to end her pregnant state, as opposed to 2)a right to act on her body how she wants to. They lead to different results in cases where a pregnant woman knows that abortion will not change having to go through labor, but wants the abortion anyway (presumably at extreme personal harm to herself.)

I was actually thinking about inevitability in terms of the potentiality of the fetus, but I do get your point.

So I'm ready to draw the line at birth, but specifically what part of birth? Crowning? Halfway out? All the way out? Before or after the cord is cut? Before or after the placenta is passed? I think this last one is unneccessary - the placenta is no longer part of the infant.

-Q

Edit: And what about the case of Caesarian? Granted once the procedure begins the mother loses the ability to assert her wishes (by virtue of anesthesia), but she doesn't lose rights by being unable to act on them...

Edited January 31, 2006 by Qwertz

[intellectualammo]

...and am curious to know where others draw the line...

Randrew, I draw the line across the umbilical cord....and when it is cut along it, you have a baby...before you cut it, you have a fetus.

Ayn Rand said that "life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action".

As long as the fetus is attached to the umbilical cord, whether inside or outside of the womb, it is still a "biological parasite feeding off of a host organism"(quote taken from Andrew Bernstein's pamphlet, "The Philosophical Basis of a Woman's Right To Abortion", *note* that the former unquoted part of the sentence is mine).

Fetal Blood Flow:

http://12.31.13.50/library/healthguide/en-...p?hwid=hw255772

Pay attention to the last part of that link:

"Ductus venosus. The ductus venosus is a vessel that allows blood to bypass the fetus's liver. It carries blood containing oxygen and nutrients from the umbilical cord straight to the right side of the fetus's heart. The ductus venosus closes shortly after birth, when the umbilical cord is cut and blood flowing between the mother and fetus stops."

When the fetus is fully clamped/cut, the potential becomes an actual, we then have a newbie!! Happy Birthday!!

Edited January 31, 2006 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

Edit: And what about the case of Caesarian? Granted once the procedure begins the mother loses the ability to assert her wishes (by virtue of anesthesia), but she doesn't lose rights by being unable to act on them...

"y virtue of anesthesia"...maybe by virtue of paperwork as well. She has to give permission for the C to be performed (not sure what happens if she was unconscious, and so forth, however). I'm not sure if...and/or...when you can even back out of such an operation, or back out of an operation in general.

I can remember when my ex-wife had to have a C after 24hrs of labor, she was sobbing and crying of how scared she was that it had to come to that. All I can say is as soon as 24hrs hit, everything started in motion, and fast. In comes the paper work, upon signing, they took my ex-wife out of the delivery room and down the hall, and they were giving me a gown to try to squeeze into, and in less than a half hour or so after the C began, my little cutie Kaity was born, Daddy's sweetest sweet pea. I love you, babe!!

[AisA]

Intellectualammo, thanks for the information about fetal blood flow and the umbilical cord. Prior to your post, it was not clear to me exactly when the blood flow from mother to fetus stopped. It is now.

[gags]

Here, again, is sloppy thinking. A fetus is not a "kid" or a "child", wanted or unwanted. Viability does not change a fetus into a baby. A fetus does not have the right to be taken out of a woman's womb. If it did have such a right, it could only be exercised, not by itself, but by a doctor, which would mean that a doctor would have the right to violate the rights of the woman. He would not be using retaliatory force, he would be initiating it (this is excluding instances involving her request, of course). If a woman is told that her fetus can mature only in an artificial womb, no one has the right to force her onto an operating table. The woman is an individual (independent, apart, separate) human being. Her (belonging to her, owned by her) fetus is not. It is not society's or the world's, or even her husband's, fetus. It is hers alone. She alone has the right to decide what to do with it. Anything else is the unholy, primitive, sacrifice of the individual.

Thanks for the "sloppy thinking" insult, again. What might actually be sloppy in connection with this thread is your understanding of my position. Earlier I defined viability as the dividing line at which a fetus becomes a human being able to survive without the assistance of the mother. Maybe that is at month 7, perhaps month 8? I don't know for sure. What I do know is that at some point prior to 9 months, a fetus becomes a viable human being and can survive without being attached to an umbilical cord or a machine.

The only reason I even became involved in this discussion is because the point was made that a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time prior to birth. You may disagree with my definition of the timing of viability and argue for that point to be birth, but I don't think we have an issue of "sloppy thinking" here.

When you draw lines, it's important to make those lines as bright as possible, because ultimately you're saying that force may rightly be used to get a person to do what you say is right. First the adoption question. I haven't heard any objections to adoption, nor have I heard an argument for focring someone to adopt. One bottom line question is, if nobody wants to adopt the infant (once it's out of the womb), who will you force to take care of the infant? If not some unwilling third party, what gives the government the right to force a woman to provide a means of survival for the child until it reaches the stage where it can take care of itself? This comes down to the question why the possibility of later adoption gives the government the right to force a woman to give birth.

Assume that a woman is carrying a fetus that passes the point of viability (therefore, it becomes a child - using my definition) and she decides that she no longer wants that child. At that point, even if the woman chose to abort the baby, the doctors would have to induce labor and somehow kill what has become a viable human being. So from the perspective of the mother, there wouldn't be any difference between delivering a dead baby or a live one. In fact, it might be easier to deliver the live baby, but I don't know for sure.

After the delivery of the baby, it would have the status of any other abandoned child in our society. He/she would be put up for adoption and if nobody wanted to adopt, then foster care would be the alternative. All of this could be done privately and would require none of the mother's financial resources. I think this subject of unwanted kids has been pretty much beaten to death in the Child's Rights thread.

Second, what is it about the nature of the supposed fetal right compared to the rights of the mother, that leads to a particular decision, pro-fetus vs. pro-mother? Suppose, for example, that a fetus can be removed and put on a 50 thousand dollar machine for a month -- is that little enough burden on the mother than the fetus wins in court? (Yes, this is a slippery slope argument). If the fetus has no rights, then these issues are moot, because the law would have nothing to say about a woman's individual choice. It's only when there is an apparent conflict in rights that the law has to get involved. While I share your viceral reaction to the idea of drilling into the skull of a fetus just before it is born, I also have a similar viceral reaction to eating dog soup, but I won't make my preferences a matter of law.

In terms of rights, the fetus has no rights. However, when the fetus passes viability and is able to live without the mother's assistance, then it becomes a person and has the same rights as any minor child, i.e. the mother cannot exert force against it.

It may well be that this entire discussion is irrelevant because I doubt there are many instances where women who are 7 or 8 months pregnant decide to abort. I also don't know whether there are even any doctors who would agree to do such an abortion unless the health of the mother was in jeopardy. Prior to viability, I fully support the right of the mother to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

Simply stating an emotional reaction is not a sufficient reason for establishing "the line". Why are you disturbed by this? That is the important part of the discussion.

You're correct. Visceral emotion isn't a sufficient reason for establishing a line of viability. My position is based on the fact that there is a point prior to birth when a baby can survive without the mother and at that point it becomes a human being. Killing/aborting a baby that has passed that line of viability is a violation of its rights.

[AisA]

My position is based on the fact that there is a point prior to birth when a baby can survive without the mother and at that point it becomes a human being.

I think you are confusing the potential and the actual; or, to put it another way, you are equating what could be with what is. The fact that a given fetus "can survive without the mother" means the fetus is a potential human being; but an actual human being is not a biologically-dependent parasite on another being's physiology. The referents of the concept "man" do not include such organisms.

[B. Royce]

To state that the use of "kid' or "child" for "fetus" is sloppy thinking is not an insult, just a proper evaluation. Nothing personal was intended.

If, as you assert, a human fetus can survive without the aid of its carrier at 7 or 8 months, then why don't we just cut the embilical cord at THAT time, then wait and see what happens?

[intellectualammo]

"What I do know is that at some point prior to 9 months, a fetus becomes a viable human being and can survive without being attached to an umbilical cord or a machine."

Sure, even if the fetus could live outside of the uterus (or is viable) "at somepoint prior to 9 months", if it is still attached via the umbilical cord, and that cord is not clamped/cut, it is still only a fetus, a "biological parasite", a potential.

"The only reason I even became involved in this discussion is because the point was made that a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time prior to birth. You may disagree with my definition of the timing of viability and argue for that point to be birth, but I don't think we have an issue of "sloppy thinking" here."

The issue I have is how fuzzy and unclear the "line" is drawn with "viability", or if you will, sloopy line drawing.

"Assume that a woman is carrying a fetus that passes the point of viability (therefore, it becomes a child - using my definition) and she decides that she no longer wants that child."

"[C]hild"?? You mean "fetus". Whether or not the "point of viability" is determined to have been reached, does not indicate or allow for such a name change. The umbilical cord, when clamped/cut, only can change the name from, "fetus" to "baby", when clamped/cut.

"In terms of rights, the fetus has no rights."

Yes, correct.

"However, when the fetus passes viability and is able to live without the mother's assistance, then it becomes a person and has the same rights as any minor child, i.e. the mother cannot exert force against it."

You are still wrong here however with viability. And are also wrong by giving the still called fetus the "same rights as any minor child", since it has passed or reached "some point of viability". And are also therefore wrong by saying that "the mother cannot exert force against it" because of it's "viability", this is actually against the individual rights of a woman to say that she "cannot exert force against it".

"My position is based on the fact that there is a point prior to birth when a baby can survive without the mother and at that point it becomes a human being. Killing/aborting a baby that has passed that line of viability is a violation of its rights."

That "line" that "point" when "reached", has no claim, no rights, at all, no matter how fuzzy or clear the "point of viability" is. Again, if there is an umbilical cord that is NOT clamped/cut, we still have a fetus, whether it is viable or not.

(Mod note: Fixed quote blocks)

Edited January 31, 2006 by softwareNerd

[gags]

I think you are confusing the potential and the actual; or, to put it another way, you are equating what could be with what is. The fact that a given fetus "can survive without the mother" means the fetus is a potential human being; but an actual human being is not a biologically-dependent parasite on another being's physiology. The referents of the concept "man" do not include such organisms.

I'll grant that this could be an error in my thinking. I have to consider it more.

[DavidOdden]

Assume that a woman is carrying a fetus that passes the point of viability (therefore, it becomes a child - using my definition) and she decides that she no longer wants that child. At that point, even if the woman chose to abort the baby, the doctors would have to induce labor and somehow kill what has become a viable human being. So from the perspective of the mother, there wouldn't be any difference between delivering a dead baby or a live one. In fact, it might be easier to deliver the live baby, but I don't know for sure.

Maybe then I don't understand your definition of viability. Are you saying that it is viable when it is possible to remove the thing surgically and it would survive without any additional life support, other than being fed and sheltered? If that's the definition of "viable", then many premature births produce non-viable non-children. Since I presume that you would reject the idea of murdering premature children, this leaves me (and, it appears, others) puzzled over exactly what you're defining "viable" as. Right now that would be somewhere around 6 months gestation, and it's hard to imagine that being a hard physiological wall. I would not be surprised if a 21 week premie survives during my lifetime. If the right to abortion is defined in this way -- "not once it would be possible for the thing to survive" -- then as I said before, it would not be at all surprising if women of the future would have no right to an abortion.

All of this could be done privately and would require none of the mother's financial resources. I think this subject of unwanted kids has been pretty much beaten to death in the Child's Rights thread.

The one thing that you have to bring over from that discussion is that if the benevolence of society fails to provide an alternative form of support to the unwanted child, then the law must force the mother to provide for the child. You can argue that it is unlikely that there would be even a single child which would remain un-adopted, but it would be quite irrational for a pregnant woman to dismiss that outcome as an impossibility. She may decide based on her knowledge of her life that it is an outcome she could live with -- or may realize that it is not an good outcome and that it would hinder her life. If she comes to the latter realization, she should have an abortion, and the law must allow it.

[B. Royce]

Viability, in its most general sense, means capable of living. A fetus is not capable of living---rather, the woman whose womb it is in is capable of keeping her fetus alive. When a fetus is placed in an incubator the fetus is not capable of living. If there is a power failure in the morning, at the end of the day the doctor in charge will still be capable of living, but the fetus will never reach that stage.

The term "viable" is never used by anti-abortionists in its widest sense; they depend on its continued narrow usage. They want, also, to continue to use words like "child" and "baby" when referring to the fetus. Why? Because they don't want reality to get in the way. For example, when a pregnant woman's friend comes up and puts her hand on her belly and says, "How's the baby doing today?" is she picturing in her mind a placenta-covered, curled up fetus, or a smiling, open-eyed, hand-waving baby? If the latter, then she is regarding her imagination as if it were reality, and the word "abortion" will become synonymous with murder in her mind.

In most discussions of abortion the terms "mother" and "father" are also often missused. A pregnant woman is not a mother, the impregnating man is not a father, until there is a baby to be a mother and father of. The same goes with "sister" and "brother" and all other terms of family relations. But note that, outside of philosophical and scientific discussion, the use of these terms is perfectly legitimate----AS LONG AS the users keep in mind that they are speaking in terms of future expectations. You can easily see that in a society in which Aristotelean logic and precise definitions are not taught, the misuse of these terms in discussion is going to be rampant. Which is why it behooves those who ARE capable of knowing better to use terms properly.

[DavidOdden]

Viability, in its most general sense, means capable of living. A fetus is not capable of living---rather, the woman whose womb it is in is capable of keeping her fetus alive. When a fetus is placed in an incubator the fetus is not capable of living. If there is a power failure in the morning, at the end of the day the doctor in charge will still be capable of living, but the fetus will never reach that stage.

This points to another problem with defining rights in terms of the concept "viability". A person who needs oxygen forced into his lungs to breathe is not capable of living, because the power can go out. A sailor in a submarine at the bottom of the ocean is equally at risk from catastrophic implosion. An astronaut on a walk outside a space shuttle is not capable of living, if his oxygen runs out or he is hit by a meteoroid travelling at 100,000 mph. I am not capable of living if I get electrocuted; in all of these cases, the fact that death is possible has no bearing on the question of whether the person has rights. For that reason, acontextual "viability" has no relevance to the issue of rights.

I do have to object to your implication that it is even possible to put a fetus in an incubator -- it is not. You can only put a person (infant) in an incubator. A fetus only exists inside the womb, and once it is outside the womb it is a person. You're right that precise definitions are essential (I'm also ignoring the fact that an infant in an incubator necessarily dies when the power goes out: that's a complex technical question which is irrelevant to the issue of rights).

[B. Royce]

This points to another problem with defining rights in terms of the concept "viability". A person who needs oxygen forced into his lungs to breathe is not capable of living, because the power can go out. A sailor in a submarine at the bottom of the ocean is equally at risk from catastrophic implosion. An astronaut on a walk outside a space shuttle is not capable of living, if his oxygen runs out or he is hit by a meteoroid travelling at 100,000 mph. I am not capable of living if I get electrocuted; in all of these cases, the fact that death is possible has no bearing on the question of whether the person has rights. For that reason, acontextual "viability" has no relevance to the issue of rights.

I do have to object to your implication that it is even possible to put a fetus in an incubator -- it is not. You can only put a person (infant) in an incubator. A fetus only exists inside the womb, and once it is outside the womb it is a person. You're right that precise definitions are essential (I'm also ignoring the fact that an infant in an incubator necessarily dies when the power goes out: that's a complex technical question which is irrelevant to the issue of rights).

But what is the incubator (in the specific context of a malfunctioning womb) if not an extension of a healthy womb?

A person who needs oxygen is able to use it because his previous state was that of being capable to live. The same with the sailor and the astronaut, and you being electrocuted.

What exists inside the womb, (natural or artificial) is not a person; it is only a fetus.

[DavidOdden]

But what is the incubator (in the specific context of a malfunctioning womb) if not an extension of a healthy womb?

It is a mechanical devise, similar in function to a combined space heater and iron lung. One important difference between an incubator and a womb is that an incubator is not a part of a person, and a womb is. Incubators need to be plugged into the wall, women do not; if an incubator goes bad you call a repairman, if a woman goes bad you... (I'm not going there); incubators break, women die. Broken incubators can be fixed; dead women cannot be resurrected.

A person who needs oxygen is able to use it because his previous state was that of being capable to live. The same with the sailor and the astronaut, and you being electrocuted.

I don't understand the relevance of this. A newly born child was in his immediately previous existance incapable of living, so does that incapacity mean that the newborn remains incapable of living after birth? A child born prematurely and put in an incubator is temporarily capable of living free of the incubator -- otherwise, the child is dead. The only thing I can see is that you're implicitly thinking that it matters how long you are capable of surviving on your own.

What exists inside the womb, (natural or artificial) is not a person; it is only a fetus.

That's predicated on the false equation of an articifial live-sustaining device and an actual womb. The term "fetus" refers to a particular stage of development in unborn animals -- after the stage known as "embryo". When it is born -- expelled from the mother -- it is no longer a fetus, it is a child (calf, kid, foal etc. depending on species).

[intellectualammo]

But what is the incubator (in the specific context of a malfunctioning womb) if not an extension of a healthy womb?....What exists inside the womb, (natural or artificial) is not a person; it is only a fetus.

I disagree that what is put inside of an incubator can still be called a "fetus".

Whenever the umbilical cord is clamped/cut, we NO LONGER have a "biological parasite", a fetus, but a human baby, an infant.

Even though, for whatever reason or circumstance, the baby was born, it does have special needs. We might be able to create an "artificial womb", but the baby is no longer totally dependent upon the mother, the way that it was before. It now exists as a separate living being, and because of technology, it has a better chance at survival, of surviving.

Look at it this way, for whatever reason or circumstance, the baby is born, if we did not, or could not increase it's life span with technology, it would still have been born, since assuming the umbilical cord was clamped/cut, and it would rapidly/slowly pass away, due to it's own special needs that we cannot yet meet. But in that time, it exists as a separate being, no longer biologically dependent upon mom, struggling with grave difficulty to make it on its own. With or without our intervention with technology, if it is clearly not dependent biologically on mom, has vitals(even some, without any it's stillborn, right?), we have to change its status from "fetus" to "infant". Whether it can survive outside of the womb, with the umbilical cord clamped/cut, for a few minutes, hours, days, or with more human technological intervention, can go on to survive months, years, decades, it is not a "fetus", but an "infant".

[B. Royce]

It is a mechanical devise, similar in function to a combined space heater and iron lung. One important difference between an incubator and a womb is that an incubator is not a part of a person, and a womb is. Incubators need to be plugged into the wall, women do not; if an incubator goes bad you call a repairman, if a woman goes bad you... (I'm not going there); incubators break, women die. Broken incubators can be fixed; dead women cannot be resurrected.I don't understand the relevance of this. A newly born child was in his immediately previous existance incapable of living, so does that incapacity mean that the newborn remains incapable of living after birth? A child born prematurely and put in an incubator is temporarily capable of living free of the incubator -- otherwise, the child is dead. The only thing I can see is that you're implicitly thinking that it matters how long you are capable of surviving on your own.That's predicated on the false equation of an articifial live-sustaining device and an actual womb. The term "fetus" refers to a particular stage of development in unborn animals -- after the stage known as "embryo". When it is born -- expelled from the mother -- it is no longer a fetus, it is a child (calf, kid, foal etc. depending on species).

In terms of its intended use (its final cause, as Aristotle would say) an incubator IS an extended womb. And, just as an incubator needs energy(electricity) to run properly, so does a pregnant woman's body need energy (food) to run properly. You go from broken incubators to dead women, instead of from an incubator with a broken part (which can be replaced or fixed) to a woman who has a broken part (like an arm, that can be fixed). Thus your reasoning is a little skewed.

"When it is born---expelled from the mother"... (what is now its mother) "...it is no longer a fetus..." To this I agree. But, if the fetus is not, through natural processes (even when that process is aided, it is at root natural), expelled from its carrier, it still remains a fetus IF it must be hooked up to womb-like apparatus. Its basic condition is not changed just because it can exist for a short while going from the womb to the incubator. It is no nearer to breast-feeding than it was in the natural womb.

[DavidOdden]

But, if the fetus is not, through natural processes (even when that process is aided, it is at root natural), expelled from its carrier, it still remains a fetus IF it must be hooked up to womb-like apparatus.

As I understand your position, a homo sapiens lump which is born prematurely and goes into an incubator can rightly be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as property by its owners (usually the female who gestates the homo-lump, possibly involving someone else via a contractual relationship). The lump only acquires rights (and therefore can no longer be destroyed) when it can prove its ability to exist for an extended period of time (shall we say three hours?) without mechanical life-support devices -- unless it is born vaginally. So ordinary C-section transforms a fetus into a human when it is proven that the thing can survive alone for the requisite period of time; and a premature vaginal birth requiring mechanical life support results in a human (not a fetus) because the expulsion process is natural. The particular no-rights condition you're speaking of is the combination of a need for mechanical support, and a C-section -- is that right? I'm just trying to interpret what you said.

[B. Royce]

As I understand your position, a homo sapiens lump which is born prematurely and goes into an incubator can rightly be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as property by its owners (usually the female who gestates the homo-lump, possibly involving someone else via a contractual relationship). The lump only acquires rights (and therefore can no longer be destroyed) when it can prove its ability to exist for an extended period of time (shall we say three hours?) without mechanical life-support devices -- unless it is born vaginally. So ordinary C-section transforms a fetus into a human when it is proven that the thing can survive alone for the requisite period of time; and a premature vaginal birth requiring mechanical life support results in a human (not a fetus) because the expulsion process is natural. The particular no-rights condition you're speaking of is the combination of a need for mechanical support, and a C-section -- is that right? I'm just trying to interpret what you said.

Yes, essentially that is my view. But it is not a specific amount of time that is significant, but the actual exercising of independent (non-womb, non-incubator) ability to live. Specifying a particular time (especially if made law) would ignore differing development rates; that is, would ignore individuals just as they become individuals. Individual rights would be meaningless.

[DavidOdden]

But it is not a specific amount of time that is significant, but the actual exercising of independent (non-womb, non-incubator) ability to live. Specifying a particular time (especially if made law) would ignore differing development rates; that is, would ignore individuals just as they become individuals. Individual rights would be meaningless.

That's fine -- that 3 hours was a temporary convenience. In other words, it's an epistemological problem -- whether or not you recognize that a being does exercise the ability to live independently isn't supposed to be the issue. You could assume in error that they can't, but that does not change the fact that they can (when they actually can), and therefore are people with rights; equally, presuming that a being can live independently (and thus assuming they have rights) when actually they can't would be an epistemological problem, not an ethical one.

[hunterrose]

Okay, I'm not getting some things. Wouldn't any human being that is outside the womb have some rights?

As long as the fetus is attached to the umbilical cord, whether inside or outside of the womb, it is still a "biological parasite feeding off of a host organism."

Why would a child out of the womb, but still attached to the umbilical cord not have rights?

An actual human being is not a biologically-dependent parasite on another being's physiology. The referents of the concept "man" do not include such organisms.

Would you elaborate?

[intellectualammo]

Why would a child out of the womb, but still attached to the umbilical cord not have rights?

Would you elaborate?

Well, a quick elaboration, would be that the blood from the mother to the fetus is still flowing back and forth through the umbilical cord, whether the bun is in or out of the oven.

For a better elaboration and more technical/medical support on my position I refer you to this excellent link I found:

http://health.allrefer.com/health/changes-...birth-info.html

[DavidOdden]

Okay, I'm not getting some things. Wouldn't any human being that is outside the womb have some rights?

B. Royce is arguing that an inorganic life support machine outside of a woman is an extended womb, so you have to be careful when you speak of "outside the womb".