Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hannukah harry
doesn't follow? how doesn't it follow? until the baby is born, it has the potential of not making it all the way through the pregnancy. it is not a human life independent of the mother. it is part of her with the potential to become an independent human life. but that potential hasn't been met. now that i've added potential, does that follow?
|
No, it follows now because you added the word 'independent'. I'll not dispute the claim that it's dependant. I will dispute the claim that it's not a human life. I will dispute the claim that it's merely a potential human life.
This is my question: how does it follow from "it has a low chance of survival during pregnancy" that "it is potential human life"? I don't see how it does.
Quote:
|
yes it becomes dependent in a different way. and when it's 10 years old, it'll still be dependent in a different way. i'm 26, and i'm still dependent. i'm dependent on society for growing my food, making my clothing, being stable enough to have an environment where employment is possible. so that line of thinking really doesn't work for you. because once we're out of our mothers bodies, we're still dependent on something.
|
Uh, that's exactly my point: the criterion of dependence cannot be used to determine when human life begins. At least not broadly, as we both apparently have established.
Quote:
|
the issue isn't when or how we're dependent, it's 1) it's her body and 2) the fetus isn't a seperate life. it has the potential, but not the guarantee.
|
Physically separate? No, it isn't. But I don't see the relevance.
Its own biological entity? Yes, it is. It's not an organ or an appendage of the mother, it's a distinct organism residing within the mother.