Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Way before 20/24/28 weeks, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Way before 20/24/28 weeks, that's for sure. Does it breathe oxygen at those points, or does a mother have to provide it via her own lungs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Way before 20/24/28 weeks, that's for sure. I disagree, the first breath occurs when the umbilical cord is broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It breathes, it's human, and it could be born; so why isn't it a life? Correction. A feotus does not breathe in utero, otherwise its lungs would fill with amniotic fluid. The feotus's oxygen comes from the placenta. The reason that they are slapped on the backside once born, after their airways have been suctioned, is to stimulate their pulmonary function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It breathes, it's human, and it could be born; so why isn't it a life? As already pointed out, it doesn't breath, it could be born and would very quickly die (ie it's not capable of living outside of it's mother), and human, no more so than my little finger is human... Of humankind, yes, human in it's own right, not at that stage of development. It's not a life because it is not capable of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Alternative: it is alive, albeit not necessarily capable, as yet, of independent life. That's true of many people in hospital, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 And, yes- having a baby might well be inconvenient for its mother. But that's not a reason to kill the child, is it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 having a baby might well be inconvenient for its mother. But that's not a reason to kill the child, is it now? It might not be a reason for some women to 'kill a child', but equally it isn't a reason to make abortion illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I did not comment on abortion's lawfulness. But unjustified killing is wrong, esp. a defenceless child (see thread title). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Indeed. But a fetus is not "a child", and there are valid reasons for allowing people to abort pregnancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.