Actually parts of the brain begin developing between the 7th and 9th weeks of the pregnancy. It's the 24th week when the brain is whole.

The heart may have symbolic importance, but that's it. If you think about it it's just an organ that pumps blood. It doesn't provide you with thought. If hearts gave people rights brain-dead people whose hearts were still being would legally be considered alive and letting them off life support would be murder.

While I consider the fetus to be a person when it has its first thoughts(including primitive sensations), since personhood is based on our ability to think and these early thoughts are built on to reach an intelligent level of thinking I also think that unless the fetus can be removed without killing it then abortion should be legal, because regardless of life and death there is no right to enslave the mother by taking living off of her body's nutrients without her consent. Eventually ectogenesis will make this issue moot, because the baby will be able to be saved and placed in an artificial womb at any time during the pregnancy.

Ah, another stupid poll. A human fetus is always human. That's not the point of the abortion debate. A fetus is NOT a person with civil rights. That is the real issue.

Bitner wrote:

Ah, another stupid poll. A human fetus is always human. That's not the point of the abortion debate. A fetus is NOT a person with civil rights. That is the real issue.

Absolutely right!

Bitner wrote:

Ah, another stupid poll. A human fetus is always human. That's not the point of the abortion debate. A fetus is NOT a person with civil rights. That is the real issue.

DNA evidence says it is a person at conception. The same evidence is routinely used to prove a "person" was at a crime scene. I can prove you were you at conception by DNA evidence.

Pro Life JP Freeman wrote:

<quoted text>
DNA evidence says it is a person at conception. The same evidence is routinely used to prove a "person" was at a crime scene. I can prove you were you at conception by DNA evidence.

No, it does not. It only acknowledges that the fetus is human. Personhood is a legal designation, and is confered at birth.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it does not. It only acknowledges that the fetus is human. Personhood is a legal designation, and is confered at birth.

Personhood can also be a philosophical designation independent of what the law says. See my above post for my reasoning why a fetus becomes a person once it has a brain(Even just a little developed) but that a woman still has the moral right to choose to abort until viability, after which she should have the right to an early delivery if she doesn't want to continue to be pregnant.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it does not. It only acknowledges that the fetus is human. Personhood is a legal designation, and is confered at birth.

Again If you can Identify a "PERSON" at a crime scene by DNA evidence. Then you can use DNA evidence to prove a "PERSON" is in the womb. We become Indiduals at Conception Human Anatomy and Physiology Third edition by Elaine N. Marieb used when I attended Penn State. "WE are PENN State"

Pro Life JP Freeman wrote:

<quoted text>
Again If you can Identify a "PERSON" at a crime scene by DNA evidence. Then you can use DNA evidence to prove a "PERSON" is in the womb. We become Indiduals at Conception Human Anatomy and Physiology Third edition by Elaine N. Marieb used when I attended Penn State. "WE are PENN State"

The fetus is human if it was created by a human sperm & egg. It is not a person with civil rights under the law until birth.

TheTimeIsNow wrote:

<quoted text>
Personhood can also be a philosophical designation independent of what the law says. See my above post for my reasoning why a fetus becomes a person once it has a brain(Even just a little developed) but that a woman still has the moral right to choose to abort until viability, after which she should have the right to an early delivery if she doesn't want to continue to be pregnant.

True, but a philosophical definition of personhood is irrelevant to the law, so I discount it in this discussion.

Pro Life JP Freeman wrote:

<quoted text>
Again If you can Identify a "PERSON" at a crime scene by DNA evidence. Then you can use DNA evidence to prove a "PERSON" is in the womb. We become Indiduals at Conception Human Anatomy and Physiology Third edition by Elaine N. Marieb used when I attended Penn State. "WE are PENN State"

Anyone may google a title for an A&P text. I'm not inclined to take anyone's word for whether or not a book that I have no access to says certain things. I have my own A&P books, and neither of them say we are persons at conception. I call bullshit.

pbfa wrote:

<quoted text>
The fetus is human if it was created by a human sperm & egg. It is not a person with civil rights under the law until birth.

With that being said, laws do change especially when they can be proven that they do unjust harm to a human being.

You can give birth to a human race but can you raise it to be a man. People have different ability to be mother and father.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Anyone may google a title for an A&P text. I'm not inclined to take anyone's word for whether or not a book that I have no access to says certain things. I have my own A&P books, and neither of them say we are persons at conception. I call bullshit.

No It says we become a new indidual at conception, the exact words. Like it or not DNA evidence can prove you were a you at conception. You can not call that bull shit. It is just a fact.

Pro Life JP Freeman wrote:

<quoted text>
No It says we become a new indidual at conception, the exact words. Like it or not DNA evidence can prove you were a you at conception. You can not call that bull shit. It is just a fact.

Every living thing is individual. So? You keep saying DNA and Person, and now indivudual. These are not mutually inclusive terms, you know. You can have one without the other. And the only one that applies to our laws is the legal one, personhood.

marysaidyes2life wrote:

<quoted text>With that being said, laws do change especially when they can be proven that they do unjust harm to a human being.

As citizens (remember that is a born person according to the Constitution), we have many rights, not just the right to life. And ALL of our rights are just as important as ANY of them. None of your rights may be removed, not even so that another person may have theirs. None. That is why personhood, and rights are confered at birth. There is no way to have two 'persons' occupying one body (and yes, if the fetus is inside the woman's body, it is occupying it) and yet each of them retain their full rights. There is no way to do that. That is why it is not done, legally. The one who is born, who is conscious, who is already living a meaningful life is the one whose rights are protected. It is her choice, always.

Pro Life JP Freeman wrote:

<quoted text>
DNA evidence says it is a person at conception. The same evidence is routinely used to prove a "person" was at a crime scene. I can prove you were you at conception by DNA evidence.

No, DNA says its human. "Personhood" is achieved at birth. At least one Supreme Court Justice agrees - Judge Scalia.

He said in an interview on 60 Minutes last nite:

"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."

marysaidyes2life wrote:

<quoted text>With that being said, laws do change especially when they can be proven that they do unjust harm to a human being.

According to Judge Scalia, they wont be changed using Constitutional law.

"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."

"Scalia says. "On the abortion thing for example, if indeed I were, you know, trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion."

Scalia says he's against that.

"It's just not in the Constitution,"

"Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it."

Lilrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, DNA says its human. "Personhood" is achieved at birth. At least one Supreme Court Justice agrees - Judge Scalia.
He said in an interview on 60 Minutes last nite:
"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."

Are you trying to say it wasn't you in your Mother's Womb? Fact DNA evidence will prove it was you in your Mothers womb. Sorry science and DNA evidence does not lie. Also in many states you can be charged with murder if you kill a Baby in the womb without the Mother's permission.

Are you going to spew more nonsense from your "Freeman Files" now? Gee, I can hardly wait.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
As citizens (remember that is a born person according to the Constitution), we have many rights, not just the right to life. And ALL of our rights are just as important as ANY of them. None of your rights may be removed, not even so that another person may have theirs. None. That is why personhood, and rights are confered at birth. There is no way to have two 'persons' occupying one body (and yes, if the fetus is inside the woman's body, it is occupying it) and yet each of them retain their full rights. There is no way to do that. That is why it is not done, legally. The one who is born, who is conscious, who is already living a meaningful life is the one whose rights are protected. It is her choice, always.

Abortion is discrimination against a human being because of his or her age and place of residency and yes we have other rights besides life, but none of them matter if you dont put life first. Also that human being who I will call a person in the womb didnt get there all by his or her lonesome.