When Did It Become a Baby?

[Kenny]

When a fetus becomes a baby is all about abortion. To pretend it's not is disingenuous. "When did *IT" become a baby" is a question of ensoulment because "it" is a statement of fetus, not a person, but a "baby" is a person.

I am trying to find out what people think. I am not talking about abortion. One person said, if I remember correctly, when they cut the umbilical cord.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am probably not making myself clear. The video shows a baby still in the sac of the mothers womb and then they broke the sac. When did it become a baby. Was it when the sac was pierced and the baby started to breath. Was it after they pulled it out of the womb? Was it still a baby when in the womb before they did the c-section?

I hope that clears up what I am talking about.

Again: a baby in what sense?

Edit: and at what point in the video would you say marks the transition from "not born" to "born"?

 

[Kenny]

Again: a baby in what sense?

A baby vs a fetus.

Edit: and at what point in the video would you say marks the transition from "not born" to "born"?

I would say when they pierced the sac.

 

[VoidCat]

I am trying to find out what people think. I am not talking about abortion. One person said, if I remember correctly, when they cut the umbilical cord.

Sadly this question often leads to discussion about abortion due to political issues going on right now. Maybe you could edit the OP to talk about how this thread is not about abortion just when is a fetus brcomes a baby?

I did that with this thread: Etopic pregnancy and Live Infant I also can go back and delete my comment about abortion in this thread you need me to

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A baby vs a fetus.

Maybe I'm not being clear. What context are you using?

Physiology? (e.g. "this heart condition isn't a threat to the fetus, but we'll have to do surgery as soon as the baby is born.")

Road safety? (e.g. "you don't need a child seat to drive with a fetus, but you do need one to drive with a baby.")

Taxes? (e.g. "you can't claim a fetus as a dependent, but you can claim a baby.")

Some other context?

 

[Jimmy]

is it illegal to be pro choice in your beliefs in regards to rape and incest?

 

[Kenny]

Sadly this question often leads to discussion about abortion due to political issues going on right now. Maybe you could edit the OP to talk about how this thread is not about abortion just when is a fetus brcomes a baby?

I did that with this thread: Etopic pregnancy and Live Infant I also can go back and delete my comment about abortion in this thread you need me to

Let me see how I can edit it...

 

[VoidCat]

Let me see how I can edit it...

I deleted my comment on abortion. Hopefully that helps

 

[GoodAttention]

I am probably not making myself clear. The video shows a baby still in the sac of the mothers womb and then they broke the sac. When did it become a baby. Was it when the sac was pierced and the baby started to breath. Was it after they pulled it out of the womb? Was it still a baby when in the womb before they did the c-section?

I hope that clears up what I am talking about.

A baby is closer in definition to a

- New born
- Neonate
- Infant
- Child

And further in definition from a

- Fetus
- Embryo
- Zygote
- Blastocyst

For example, a fetus can undergo surgery “in-vitro”, which I believe would pierce the sac, but there obviously is no birth of a baby.

A fetus that is delivered, or “birthed” is either a new born or a still born.

 

[Brickjectivity]

IT IS A QUESTION ON WHAT YOU THINK BECAUSE OF A C-SECTION.

I have a way of thinking about this which I think corroborates scientific and scriptural approaches and can lead to a good common resolve between the currently obsessively opposed political factions in the USA.

A gradual becoming is the very simplest way to describe it. This allows us to view the love and time as an investment in the child as he or she is knit. To borrow from scripture the child is being knit in the womb; but we don't need scripture to know that. Its obvious that the process is gradual. As you allude in your OP there is no point at which you can set down a finger and say "Now! Now its a child!" That is because it is gradual.

Here is the compromise: I realize that some people would love everyone to accept that at some point a supernatural event occurs injecting a soul into that baby, but that is not what 'Knit' means. This does not mean the unborn deserve nothing. They do deserve consideration, however it is neither scientific nor scriptural to impose an instantaneous human suddenness. Its a favorite view of many mommies and daddies, but it is not supportable without a lot of imposition of ideas onto the actual situation. To illustrate how insupportable it is: some claim it also makes a single cell into a complete human being, an impossible position to support either clinically or legally. We simply cannot consider the death of one cell to be equal the murder of a child. We can, however, consider it to be a loss. The fetus is not unloved or unvalued, but it is not fully knit either. This is the most unifying, most moral approach to view things: reflecting reality.

To borrow from Psychology and from Child Development the personality continues to develop after birth.

The best way I think to approach this is the way scripture already does (and which most legal systems do) which is to view time and love as an investment in a person who is becoming a being. The greater the investment, the greater the loss if the life ends.

************

The above realistic view can aid with resolving several disagreements about the unborn.

Does a father have any say in what happens? It depends upon what he has invested into the child: time and love. These are things which can be quantized in a court. How long as the child been developing, and does the father love this unborn child?

Who should have custody? It helps determine this.

At what point can the child be murdered versus lost? It helps with this. Can an unborn child be murdered? Of course, but not all unborn can be murdered. The practical consideration is the time, the state of development and the state of the unborn child. Instead of imposing that its instantly a baby, we choose the evidence based knowledge that one is being knit.

It helps with these in a way that can be rationally discussed and unborn life defended while not slapping cuffs onto women or forcing them into inspections.

 

[shunyadragon]

You can always give your own choice even if it is not listed

The thread is front loaded with a religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am probably not making myself clear. The video shows a baby still in the sac of the mothers womb and then they broke the sac. When did it become a baby. Was it when the sac was pierced and the baby started to breath. Was it after they pulled it out of the womb? Was it still a baby when in the womb before they did the c-section?

I hope that clears up what I am talking about.

Biblically not yet a human being..

 

[anotherneil]

None of the above choices. At conception a soul is given.

Regards Tony

Given that this thread is in the science & technology section of the forum, what is a "soul" in context?

 

[anotherneil]

The video and the questions are highly biased and I could not answer the selection of choices.

I only see one question, but how can a question be biased? I know a question can be loaded, but I only know of non-loaded, non-interrogative statements as capable of being biased. Do you see it as a loaded question? If you were pluralizing it because you consider there to be more than one question at hand, what are the questions?

 

[anotherneil]

Many years I thought abortion is good under certain circumstances. I have come to understand that it is good under several circumstance. When both would die but the mother can be saved. Or rape and incest. Some cases can be so sad.

The word "abortion" in the politically charged sense has Orwellian characteristics. It actually refers to either a premature and intentional termination of a pregnancy or a miscarriage, but when it's used in a political context, it includes the destruction and killing of the unborn child without ever pointing this out or even acknowledging it; it even entails denial or refusal to accept the fact that this is what's also involved.

Same with "pro choice" for abortion - it involves this false narrative that it's only for the right to having a premature and intentional termination of a pregnancy in such a way that ignores the fact that it also involves the destruction and killing of the unborn child.

I'm using the word "child" in the same context that a son or daughter is still referred to as a child of a parent even if the son or daughter are adults; I also prefer to use "child" rather than "fetus", since there are also the germinal and embryonic stages of pregnancy & neither one of them are part of the fetal stage of pregnancy.

BTW the word fetus applies to any mammals (and other organisms), not just human beings, so when someone says that what a pregnant woman has in her womb is fetus not a human being, they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[anotherneil]

A "baby" refers to a born human.

A "fetus" refers to an unborn human after a particular developmental milestone has been reached - specifically all major organs are present.

Prior to that you have an "embryo" where there is little resemblance to human and more of a mass of tissue or a cluster of cells depending on how early in development we're talking.

A "fetus" does not exclusively refer to humans.

 

[anotherneil]

I’d choose my wife over my unborn child. The wife would choose herself over the unborn child.

Most people would not agree that the unborn child gets priority. I am not saying that majority=right but just wanted to state that it is an extreme view that you have, even among “prolifers”.


This implies even in the circumstance of unwanted contact that produced the baby. That is also an extreme view that I think is wrong.

I believe the unborn child is that; a child. So perhaps that makes my reasoning bad, as I do not deny the personhood of the person being aborted. But, aborting a baby to save your own life is literal self defense. Do you not believe in self defense?

Is it necessary to rip it up like a piece of paper to achieve "self defense"?

 

[anotherneil]

A baby doesn’t survive abortions

That's generally the goal in many cases, but they can survive, they have survived, and effort can be made to prematurely terminate a pregnancy without preventing the baby from being able to survive.

I work in the healthcare industry, and in the NICU I've seen many babies in incubators; I was working in the NICU just this week and last week, and saw them. I'm not saying that they're from botched abortions (it's at a regular hospital - I wouldn't work for an abortionist); what I'm saying is that there's this technology that does exist that helps babies survive.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Given that this thread is in the science & technology section of the forum, what is a "soul" in context?

The force that enables and sustains life.

Regards Tony

 

[GoodAttention]

That's generally the goal in many cases, but they can survive, they have survived, and effort can be made to prematurely terminate a pregnancy without preventing the baby from being able to survive.

Termination of pregnancy is exactly that. It is termed “abortion”, and whilst this is a misnomer, any “termination” is to end the pregnancy.

Inducing delivery is not always the same as a “termination of pregnancy”.

I work in the healthcare industry, and in the NICU I've seen many babies in incubators; I was working in the NICU just this week and last week, and saw them. I'm not saying that they're from botched abortions (it's at a regular hospital - I wouldn't work for an abortionist); what I'm saying is that there's this technology that does exist that helps babies survive.

When a fetus is delivered prematurely, if there is a chance for life then the neonate is admitted under the intensive care unit, hence NICU.

Not all neonates are premature, some are born at term but face health problems that require admission.

There is no such scenario as working for an “abortionist”, since such a term has no meaning in any health care setting.