When is a fetus a person?

Posted by: xhammy

When is it nolonger just a thing and now a person. When is it "poof" a person with a soul and what not.

26 Total Votes


11 votes


11 votes

12 Weeks

2 votes

22 weeks

Able to survive in incubator at this point.
2 votes

1 Month

0 votes

3 Months

0 votes

6 Months

0 votes

9 Months

0 votes

1 Week

0 votes

2 weeks

0 votes

6 weeks

0 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
briantheliberal says2015-05-14T10:07:39.1397932-05:00
According to the law, at birth.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-14T11:36:03.9410026-05:00
@Briantheliberal. Which law? Each state has a different definition of person hood. The definition of person in Colorado is very different from the legal definition in Pennsylvania.
Thegreatdebate98 says2015-05-14T12:00:44.1809172-05:00
To people who chose birth, answer me this... What you're telling me is that the fetus automatically becomes a person when exiting the womb? That means that it magically flourishes into something valuable due to its location, because the location of the fetus makes a world of difference, apparently. Tell me, if the fetus was half out of the mother and half not, half of it would be a person, and half of it wouldn't? I'm sorry I sound completely absurd, but that's what it means for a fetus to be a person at birth.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T14:18:07.8480886-05:00
"Doesn't mean the woman doesn't have rights, and since the baby's don't trump hers, abortion is still fine." But because no ones rights should be 'trumping' anyone elses ... It'd be wrong to abort.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T14:21:39.7069223-05:00
Especially when we are talking about capital punishment here. Moms should not be making kill decisions on their own. Nowhere have we given them that right. So i'm unsure where it is that baby's rights being trumped automatically leads to people being able to carry out death sentences on their own.
Kreakin says2015-05-14T16:40:27.3016225-05:00
24 weeks in the UK
NothingMore says2015-05-14T16:43:28.0914532-05:00
How I see it is when the fetus can survive on it's own it is a person. The mother has the right to stop letting the fetus survive off of her.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-14T19:50:08.6459353-05:00
@NothingMore So the definition of person changes based on technology? Also what do you define as survive on its own? Technically a newborn can't survive by itself, is a newborn also not a person?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T19:58:47.0313026-05:00
Neither can a child of 5yrs old. Neither a pre-teen for that matter ... If you consider what is required to be able to survive in the modern world. If you can't work, you can't live. That rules out anyone under the working age of ~15.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T20:02:20.7459850-05:00
Survival has nothing to do with it. If killing it by removal of the mom is your way of justification ... I say compare such treatment to parental neglect in any other form. Any child would die if you removed parents and guardians from the equation. They could be several years old and still find death if a parent neglected to take care of them. How is it justified?
dmussi12 says2015-05-14T22:07:59.3800770-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Their rights as humans are equal. However, the fetus's existence is an infringement on the mother's rights. Therefore it loses its own rights, and no longer has to be protected. That's why the government has the power to take away people's rights - if they violate others', they lose their own.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T22:20:19.0791602-05:00
So parents owe nothing to their children in the way of support? No responsibility there? Parents are not to be held accountable? Why do we in prison them for neglect or sue for child support? Why is that upheld in court if a Childs existence is an infringement to a parents life?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-14T22:26:27.1840135-05:00
"That's why the government has the power to take away people's rights - if they violate others', they lose their own.'' Government isn't making the call though, a biased and emotionally unstable entity (the mother) is making the decision exclusively. Where is the justice in that. No trial, no nothing. That all besides the fact that taking the Childs life in an act of vigilantism is directly violating other lives. Fathers and other relatives should be able to press charges in the name of their slain family member in the same manner as any other homicide. 1 person (the mother) should not be making 'justified killings' on her own, regardless of infringement.
shroomis says2015-05-15T12:26:07.3732302-05:00
Whenever it can survive without the mother
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-15T12:33:19.7417741-05:00
@Shroomis Children outside of the womb cannot survive without their parents either. So we are calling it at 16yrs? 18yrs?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-15T14:29:48.0295656-05:00
@dmussi12, Exactly how is the fetus infringing on its mother's rights? For pete's sake, it is the mother's body that is choosing to let the fetus mature. The fetus is literally doing nothing without the body's consent.
PetersSmith says2015-05-16T16:45:36.8970535-05:00
When it dreams.
dmussi12 says2015-05-16T17:23:47.4879504-05:00
Your body metabolizes poisons if you ingest them, that doesn't mean you are choosing to die. I'm not arguing this with you if you think that was a legitimate objection.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-16T20:20:19.6666308-05:00
@dmuss12. There is a difference from the body accidentally doing something harmful, and it doing it not on accident. The fetus isn't hijacking the body like a parasite, the body is purposely trying to mature the fetus. The fetus isn't a poison that the body is making a mistake about, the body is purposely supporting the fetus.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T10:38:28.7609965-05:00
"Your body metabolizes poisons if you ingest them, that doesn't mean you are choosing to die." Sure it does ... You ingested them. Something in you drove you to eat the stuff (Choice). It's more about whose making the choice. If the fetus died off on its own, it just wasn't meant to be. If you're there actively ingesting poisons for it to try and kill it, that's your body making the decisions for another body.
dmussi12 says2015-05-18T10:59:24.8398834-05:00
Why am I continuing this? DO YOU AGREE THAT YOUR BODY DOES THINGS THAT YOUR MIND DOESN'T WANT IT TO? OF COURSE YOU DO. DO YOU (YOUR MIND, NOT YOUR BODY) HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTROL YOUR BODY TO THE EXTENT OF ITS POWER? YES - YOU CAN MOVE YOUR ARM WHEN YOU WANT TO. DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS WHO ARE INFRINGING ON THIS RIGHT, WHETHER INTENTIONALLY OR NOT? YES - IF SOMEONE IS SLEEPWALKING AND TRYING TO SIT ON YOU, YOU CAN PUSH THEM AWAY. Abortion is the only way to stop a fetus from infringing on this right until viability, so it is justified. Now, can you stop bringing up how a body's natural functions somehow trump the will of the person in control?
geauxpelicans5 says2015-05-18T11:13:53.8748628-05:00
"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Richard Nixon
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-18T11:20:08.1160396-05:00
@dmussi12, so if I have a seizure, my body is violating my rights? Are allergic reactions also my body committing a violation of my rights? Weird way to look at that I guess. Also you are allowed to push someone who is sleepwalking and will accidentally sit on you? I don't know the legal side of that but from the moral and logic side it doesn't make sense. Why not A)move out of the way or B) lightly move them off while not hurting them. Don't see the point in just pushing someone sleepwalking onto the ground which may cause serious brain injury.
geauxpelicans5 says2015-05-18T11:21:31.4844372-05:00
Reading through this conversation it is very interesting.
dmussi12 says2015-05-18T12:11:12.2321097-05:00
It was a hypothetical off the top off my head. And sort of. A seizure/allergy/etc. Is uncontrolled. Do you want to have seizures? I'm guessing no, which is why everyone has a right to medical care (not insurance, hospitals will treat people even if they can't pay). While it's strange to say, "my body is violating my rights," it follows from the same principles and is consistent with how things work in the real world.
dmussi12 says2015-05-18T12:13:24.2400954-05:00
The more complete, strange statement would be, "an uncontrollable force generating from within my body (an immune response, etc) is violating my right to exhibit control over controllable parts of my body that would otherwise be unaffected."
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T12:16:38.4432767-05:00
@dmussi12 But she consented to have it there already. Its like inviting a person into your home and then killing them in an attempt to remove them from the home afterwards. She and her counterpart consented to this. It's not justified after you already consented to them coming in. It's like a tenant. You can't just kick them out ... Especially when they've committed nothing out of the ordinary to justify them being kicked out given the agreement you entered into with them from the beginning. It's common knowledge what getting pregnant and having a child entails. Anything the child does beyond that point is wholly within the bounds of that contract. If it is found that something unusual might be happening (like the mother might die or something), then perhaps it could be considered. Or maybe that the contract was not consensual (rape). There are some instances, but not just "for the hell of it".
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T12:21:09.5931098-05:00
Having sex and getting pregnant as a result is a social contract you enter between you, your partner, the child, and to an extent the government and all your neighbors etc. Those other people are only included because of our f'ed up socialism practices ... So you can blame that if you don't like taxpayers in your business. The father and child are inherent and natural to that social contract though.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T12:32:30.1830352-05:00
While it's strange to say, "my body is violating my rights," Its not your body though. It's you and another body.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T12:36:02.8949504-05:00
The childs body is not working in unison with the mothers. Its not an organ imparting any service to the mothers body. It is its own thing, whose cells are working toward a completely different goal than ones that are part of the mothers body.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-18T12:38:14.5441269-05:00
@dmuss12, so it isn't the fetus that is violating the mother's rights, but the mother's body violating the mother's rights.
Varrack says2015-05-18T12:48:15.3755369-05:00
@rphk123, birthdays in America are cultural, not scientific. The Chinese measures someone's age by the estimated time of conception.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T12:51:13.4097031-05:00
All I can say further is consent is the biggest factor. You consent to sex ... To consent to everything that comes with it. After that, whether the condom failed you or not, there is another life at stake and it needs to be accounted for.
Varrack says2015-05-18T12:53:51.2549515-05:00
@geauxpelicans that quote was made by Reagan, not Nixon.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-18T12:54:39.8192816-05:00
If pregnancy could just 'happen' to you as randomly as getting sick by a virus (like what was compared) then you might have a case. We know how pregnancy happens though. Ignorance does make it excusable anymore.
iQ says2017-08-22T23:45:58.0963078Z
I consider a person to be a human being with a personality. Considering this, a foetus would gradually fit the definition shortly after being born.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.