(05-11-2022 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 02:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 10:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with OO, 'then what is it then'.... but I don't do that to dismiss your point either. Clearly its not a 'toddler' or a 'baby'... but it is a unique (undeveloped) human

It does bring to mind something interesting to me though..., have you ever had a 'farm fresh' egg that was bloody? Are you going to eat it?? Or would you eat an unfertilized one?? A rhetorical question for certain, but it shows the clear difference in choices that MOST people make.

I don't consider the current standard to be 'the middle'... because I don't think there are that many people advocating for 27 or 28 weeks... or 22 or 23. MAYBE there are, but I don't think so.

I think the focus on 'dates' is wrong. To me the issue should be, when did you or should you have known, and how long should you be given to make a decision, knowing that as each day passes, the 'cruel and unusual' punishment you are giving your unborn child increases. Pregnancy tests are cheap and reliable. Hand them out and encourage sexually active women or women at risk to take one, even if they don't have any 'symptoms'... and if it comes back positive... you have a week or two to get something done.

the viability of the child isn't the issue to me... It's the burden being placed on that child... because the mom won't engage in the simple act of peeing on a stick.

It’s pretty common practice to call an organisms something different depending on its stage of development. Caterpillars become butterflies. Tadpoles become frogs. They’re all based on developmental changes, and we don’t call them “undeveloped X.” I don’t find this a compelling reason to call a fertilized egg a child, or even an undeveloped child. But if people really want to do that, that’s their prerogative.

Being a butterfly or a caterpillar doesn't detract from that organism being of z species. Or alive.

A fetus is still both alive, and if a species

A human fetus, a human embryo, a human zygote, znd a full grown human ate all still alive, and all still human.

But that wasn’t the comment I was responding to - it was when a fetus became a “child” or if it was a “child” from fertilization.

IMO, it becomes a child at fertilization, and everything after that is a stage of development on the way to being an adult human.

A better question is when does it stop being a child? 18? Why that number? It used to be much lower. Of course, it also used to be 21. Is either of those when it suddenly becomes viable to live on its own?

I knew a man who thought like that. He kicked his son out of the house on his 18th birthday. The kid was still in high school.

Yep - I disagree with that perspective, but like I said, it’s our prerogatives to do so.

I think comparing something that’s more scientific (child vs fertilized egg/fetus/etc.) and based primarily off of developmental stages to something that is a legal construct, is a tough one and not necessarily apt. And it’s definitely not apt to compare viability of literally surviving with living independently.

But in that vein, I don’t know if there are perfect answers to setting any line when it comes to age and legal standings. There are always pros and cons, and I think it’s best is all sides recognized that and did not demonize or belittle others who disagreed with where that line was set.