Summations Only

At the time of Jesus, human life began on the eighth day (counting the day of birth as day one) after birth. That was when the baby was finally given a name and accepted into the tribe (and also circumcised).Later in history a human life began once the child breathed on its own and cried.Today human life is considered to begin at the third trimester.The issue is not one of science but simply one of opinion.

Natural risk is pretty much irrelevant.If you want to make the issue one of personhood.Personhood involves several things, one is being an individual.As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person.There is no ere on the side of safety except when considering the mother.

And if I had to make the choice I'd choose to let the armed violent criminal die.

But no one stated or asserted that so it is irrelevant.Certainly there is a natural risk involved in a pregnancy but it is just one of the factors that would be considered in each individual case. It is up to the potential mother, her doctor and her family to try to evaluate the extent of the risk and in the end, up to the woman to decide if the risk is one she is willing to take. And no, there is no situation that eradicates the line without intentional misrepresentation.I did not say "simply a growth attached to the other" rather I said "simply a growth attached to the mother".The word "Mother" is not synonymous with the word "other".

The question is whether what you feel should have any bearing on the issues of when life begins or whether or not someone other than you has an abortion?

If there is anything dumb it would have to be your interpretation of what I said.Did I say "Personhood involves several things, one is being an individual. As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person."?Read that carefully.Did I say "As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person."?Read that carefully.In case you missed it I'll underline it for you."As long as the thing under discussion is simply a growth attached to the mother, it is not a person.You might consider it an issue of semantics; but the reality is it was an attempt to misrepresent what I actually wrote.

Is a conjoined twin still just a growth attached to the Mother?

So as long as the growth is inside the mother and attached with an umbilical cord it is not person.

Sorry but to asserted the existence of some soul has nothing to do with the topic and bring up a soul is just him trying to create another attractive rabbit hole in the hope that people don't notice he already conceded that as long as there is just a growth attached to the mother there is no person.Edited by jar, : fix wordingEdited by jar, : spallin appalin

Weird.How is not creating a life the same as eliminating a life?

Well of course you are wrong and the scientific and legal consensus is that human life begins around the third trimester. Even at that point there may not be human life.

Read other papers.

Just to make it more interesting, there are no real boundaries that would apply across the board, which is why a decision such as abortion really needs to be made on an individual by individual basis by those individuals directly involved; the mother, the mother's doctor and then the mothers family.

No idea; sorry but still insufficient information to say.No I imagine you can make up stuff like that example all day, but the answer is still the same; I don't have enough information to make such a decision or really have any standing to even speculate.The question is one that must be answered on each individual case and answered by those closest to the issue and that have as much data as is available, namely the woman, her doctor and perhaps her family.

Sorry but that is simply word salad and pea palming.Do you see the phrase "...will become through formation..." in what you posted?If something "will become" something else then it is not yet that thing.