(November 9, 2009 at 11:12 pm)theblindferrengi Wrote: @ solarwave: it has nothing to do with first breath, it is when the baby is physically severed from its mother (umbillical cord) it becomes independent, and therefore alive on its own. Unitll then, it is no more alive than your hand is.
(November 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm)Saerules Wrote:Solarwave Wrote:Saerules: What is it about the first breath of a baby that is so special? Or is it that they are outside the mother? So then is it our location or the ability to breath that makes us a person? It can't be independance since a baby outside is no more likely to survive without its mother than a baby inside the mother.It's exactly like TBF just said (as far as I can see it anyway). Until the baby can be reckoned as a separate entity from the mother: it is only a part of the mother. If i have the right to cut my hair: i have the right to cut off my left hand: I have the right to stop the growth within my 'womb'.
To be honest I have no idea what I think on this issue.
I am not going to argue this though: people get too butthurt and angry over it.
Yeah, a baby attatch by umbillical cord is just like hair.
Do siamese twins then have the right to stab the other? I mean cutting your own head (its attached to you so your twins head is yours too) is just the same as cutting off your finger or even hair.... right?
Mark Taylor: "Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not."
Einstein: “The most unintelligible thing about nature is that it is intelligible”
Einstein: “The most unintelligible thing about nature is that it is intelligible”
