Abortion?

That is essentially what I am saying, my assertion is nothing but an opinion and a strong belief. I believe it is morally wrong to abort, but thats just me.

I do understand where you and others are coming from, but I just don't believe in it.

 

Well certainly, you are free to believe whatever you wish, but to have any hope of having your belief realized in reality, you should pursue justification.

 

What about belief in religion, do they need to justify what they believe also?

(I'm Atheist as well, but just putting that out there to you)

 

If they want to impose their religious values on others, yes they do. For example, a Christian cannot make a very good argument that a theocracy should be established if he holds that his religion is taken entirely on faith.

 

I personally believe that abortion, is perfectly acceptable.
it's the mothers baby/ in her own body. She can do with it as she pleases.
And really, it would definitely have a better life with that happening, that going to a mother that does not want her child.

 

At what point does the fetus gain rights?

 

Somewhat, but maybe you did not understand my post..

If the fetus is not yet in it's fetal stage where prenatal development has started, then I do believe that it would be sensible, to say the lease,. to abort the fetus if abortion is needed.

If the fetus gets into it's fetal stage of prenatal development, where most major structures ARE developed, then I believe that it would be considered murder, for certain reasons.

Some people bias their opinions off of ethics and morality, however to really get down to what the case REALLY may be, it would be inevitable that somewhere, science would have to interfere.

However, when it really comes down to it, the only ethics and morality come in the decision of the mother and father. -.-

 

What systems need to be developed to give it rights? Why those particular systems?

 

If a fetus is alive why wouldn't people change the birthday to "pregnancy day"? Since you are alive, apparently.

 

A fetus is a fetus until birth has been given upon it. Hence, "BIRTHday".

 

Why does birth bestow rights upon a fetus?

Birthday = the day of birth. It's describing the moment you are birthed from your mother.

 

The rights of living?

The systems that incorporate both consciousness and emotions. The systems that constructs vital organs, making the fetus develop into an actual person.

Those systems. xD

Why does birth bestow rights upon a fetus..

Okay.
When the fetus has been given birth to, it is no longer a fetus, but a person. It's title, classification, name .. It's being as a person gives it those rights.

 

So as soon as a fetus has the systems to facilitate consciousness and emotions, and the vital organs, it gets rights?

 

Shredderbeam, I cannot tell what side you are taking.

Anyways, we are not considered alive or even on records until birth. Meaning we have no value to this earth until birth. It is a unwanting mother's decision on what to do with her unborn baby. The government should have no control of that seeing that it is in lack of consciousness and shows no signs of life to the outside.

I do see the apposing sides point, though. That they are taking the chance of a perfectly normal child of being born to be grown up and live a full life. But seeing the rapid increase in the world population, this would benefit the world. But not ignoring your side, there should be a limit to how often you can have a baby and try to increase the awareness of using birth control pills and devices.

 

Neither. I'm questioning both sides to expose their logic.

If legal documents do not recognize us as alive, that does not necessarily imply that we are not alive.

At eight months, the fetus shows signs of life. In fact, it's not that different to a just-born baby.

 

As SOON as it has the traits, systems, weaknesses, strengths, ect to make it to where it is considered human, yes, it gets rights.

This is what I am trying to get to. The systems that develop it, making it a person, bring upon it's rights.

 

What of people who lose their systems, and have them replaced by machinery?

 

Well, I won't try to beat around the bush with this one .. I can honestly tell you that I don't know.

However, I can try to make an assumption?

As people get older, these "systems" start to slow, making the organs and feelings that they protect more vulnerable to time. If the actions of these systems were substituted by machinery, I would have to assume that since the person as a whole still carries its human traits, it's considered a human, however, it's body is considered robotic. Since that person is still considered human, they would have the same rights.

 

If legal documents do not recognize us as alive, we would be legally dead. Stripping us of our rights, am I correct?

 

But you said that it was systems that give a human rights. Why are traits coming into this? What traits, anyway?