May I ask... in what way?  Or do you just not know yet.

Really, badgenome's crazy scientists wanting to kill babies more or less is the interesting arguement actually.

Mentally, there really isn't much difference between a newborn and a fetus in late stages of what's considered acceptable abortion.

Outside survivability, in that.... rather then only the mother being able to keep the baby alive, almost anbody can keep a newborn alive.

So it's not really a question of "Is the child a person".  It's a question of, "Does a perspective mother have the right to abort a fetus and withold nutrients... the fetus more or less being a parasitic being."

Which brings some pretty interesting philosphical questions.

Espiecally when you look at the history of Abortion... it more or less has mirrored survivability.  Once abortions became legal, the point for which abortions were no logner alowed more or less was "When a baby realistically could live on it's own."

And yet, if that's your mark, why can't then at least a woman induce pregancy if not have the abortion?

And of course, the biggest conservative stumbling block is the "Rape and incest" clause.  Which is why I tend to actually tend to like far right wing pro-life people more then the ones who use that cause.   I may think they're crazy, but at least they're ideologically sound.  I mean, if a baby is made through rape, incest how is it any less of a person.

Same goes for disability.

Your response was to Snesboy's comment about "her man" buying some rubbers instead of using taxpayer's money for contraceptives and/or welfare for the child.  In other words, you make it seem like you support the idea of the taxpayer's baring the burden of other's unwise behaviors.  If that isn't the case, I apologize.  If it is, I just find that ridiculous.

Shouldn't you be for planned parenthood then.

Afterall, you aren't going to get rid of welfare.  Let alone child welfare.

Abortion goes a great way to keeping welfare costs down... and crime rates.

I'm not really getting what you're talking about Kasz. What I am saying is that for something to be defined scientifically it needs to objective - personhood isn't. Just like good and evil it's a human construct to describe our perspective of the world.

You cannot scientifically say that "this is a person, this isn't". You can philosophise on the subject however.

Oh, and since abortion for some reason a hot button issue in this thread.

It would be unfortunate not to mention that some black rights advocates see abortion as racist.

Generally because Planned Parenthood was founded by someone in favor of eugenics, as a way to lower the birthrate of "Undesirables" and because abortions heavily favor minorities.

I of course disagree, but it's worth mentioning.

My question was, when does that life in the womb become human? Is not that life in the womb defined as human life? if we say we value human life then why do we not value human life when its in the womb? No one can deny the life inside the womb is human life.

Well first i'd consider reading Badgenome's article... but generally...

The very foundation of western philopshy and science on personhood can be boiled down to one latin phrase.

Cogito ergo sum.

I will say it another way. Lets say there is a man who had no living family and noone who knew him. He was hit by a car and was in a hospital bed in a coma. Now I would not do this ever but hypothetically...Tell me the truth, would you honestly condemn me or think that I am doing something criminal if I went into that hospital put a pistol to his brain, blew his brians out to end his life?

Three things.

Coma != braindead. If he were brain dead the situation is quite different.

Assuming he is braindead (in which case yes I consider him dead) it is not within your authority to 'unplug' him. That is the doctors authority.

Once again assuming he is braindead - I don't think you committed murder but I do think that you just mutilated a body which is in itself a criminal act.

Edit: And yes I agree that essentially philosophy defines personhood as consciousness - that still isn't scientific though.

Oh I wasn't trying to add to the discussion (which has been pretty awesome so far if I do say so myself, fair and balanced, and very polite) I was setting up flamebait.

Of course condoms aren't 100% effective. Neither are birth control pills. That's why all males that are only going to think with their abnormal penis should be either A) Euthanized or B) Sterilized.

Sounds about right.