I'm confused, and I have some mixed feelings about when a fetus becomes a human, and I admit I'm not sure of the answer. But if a fetus is NOT a human being, why did they convict Scott Peterson of a double murder when he killed his wife and her unborn child. It seems to me if a fetus is NOT a human, he should have only been convicted for the murder of his wife. Don't you agree? It's almost as if a double standard is at play here.
David, the difference is viability outside the womb. As I stated in my earlier post Scott Peterson got tried for 2 murders because his unborn child was far enough along to have survived outside the womb
on its own. Presumably without the intense medical care needed for some preemies (some preemies are born so premature that not so long ago, the child would not have survived. That is nature trying to take its natural course). I'm not sure of the exact criteria.
So what I get from all of the last few messages is that we're not so much arguing a woman's choice is when a fetus becomes a person.
When a baby gets a 'soul' if such a thing exists, is a metaphysical question and science is never going to be able to answer it because it's not a measurable quantity.
What makes someone a person IMO is easier to answer.
If the Terri Schiavo case taught us anything , it was that a human can smile, grimace, be sensitive to light, breathe, defecate, open and close their eyes and still be just as gone as if she were six foot under.
Scientific testing has demonstrated that the cerebral cortex (where the brain houses higher thought processes, including consciousness, intellect, memories, and feelings) is where the
who of someone is. Once that area of the brain is gone - or in the case of the fetus - doesn't yet exist - literally, the lights are on, but no one is home. The body is just an electrochemical bag of meat going through the processes and automated actions of coded cells.
And that pretty much is a place where we can draw the line.