FWIW I think we should separate Morality from reason in this one. Even though I think both can be successfully argue this both ways.

Rationally if the fertilized egg will develop into a human being, it's a human being with 4 cells (that being the smallest 2nd division). At 2 weeks of age there are discernable appendages. Although you can't say what they are. So if we are going to be safe we might say that by 4 weeks you can call it a child.

Rationality also has no moral basis beyond one's individual insight, and allowed a goose stepping moustache-laden douchebag to murder millions of people because "in his view..."

I should mention the two researchers in the late 80's and early 90's who said that RNA was more important for disease and was inheritable were ridiculed by their pears. Now others take credit for epigenetics. BTW cancer starts with malfunction of mitochondria (its DNA passed down by the mother only).

I forgot what medical research journal I read it in but my friend Dr. Darrell Tanelian (PhD, MD) confirmed it. He went Galt.

For what it's worth, here's my view. The woman has the right to abort the child at any point up to the limits of Tennessee law. The government refuses to recognize that the unborn child is a human being fully invested with all the civil rights any of us enjoy. It is in all ways a different class of human being. One cannot speak of a seed as the adult plant or tree even though that is what it will become in time. The question is should a human be seen as anything different and if so, why.

My point of view is yes, that unborn child is a human and deserving of all human rights including a right to not be killed at the whim of the birth mother or to have it's mind cooked by her desire for crack. In this day when it is considered a violation to subject other people to second hand smoke in a restaurant (thank goodness) can't dumping narcotics into the helpless unborn child who can't even cry out in objection be seen as less a violation?

"certainly" I certainly do!!!

Absolutely, the moment of conception, when two cells combine to make a brand new life, that is a brand new human being.

Question... when your mom & dad conceived you, were you wholly YOU, just at a different stage of development? If not, please point out to me the EXACT moment when you became you.

Point being, there is no differentiating moment other than conception. It is a fully complete new life, wholly dependent on his mother (just like our 6 month old daughter is wholly dependent on us, and my wife to nurse her right now). All natural courses of events taking place, that new human being will grow into an adult some day.

Do you have a few cites?

If this issue causes society to go to the peer-reviewed literature and review the relative dangers of various drugs, that would be a great thing.

From both the reading and evaluation of peer review studies and personal observation, I will say it is well proved that some children (fortunately not all) exposed to opiates in the womb do indeed suffer permanent neurological and other sorts of damage. The question is whose rights trump whose and who decides? I do not have an answer, but I do know a great deal of taxpayer money is spent trying to help these children and often supporting them through their lives.

without passing any judgment on the law, I will say that from both peer-reviewed scientific studies that I have read, and from personal experience with "crack babies," it is extremely difficult to deny that many (fortunately not all) of these babies suffer permanent neurological damage. I do not know of any conclusive evidence that meth causes similar harm. The question seems to me to be that if we have proof that the knowing action of the mother causes harm to her child, whose rights trump whose? I do not have an answer.

I really think that we should not toss all pre-birth developmental stages into a single basket and then try to rule on how to treat them. There are some known stages to development and those stages should be taken into consideration: For the first week, the germinal stage, what you have is a lump of cells floating around in the female reproductive tract. Then, after a week, the blastocyst implants and you have a real embryo. (Pretty much all of the pre-implantation stage takes place on a microscopic level.) This embryo is still just a mass of cells that are differentiating into different layers. The embryo continues developing and after about two months (8 weeks, 60 days) it has developed enough to be considered a fetus. (For most of the 'embyonic' period the size of the embryo is about that of a quarter, and the embryo does not look human.) At the end of the first trimester the fetus (now the correct term) starts to actually look human. At 24 weeks of gestation, the fetus is capable of surviving if born pre-term...in a modern hospital setting.

I think that the germinal, embryonic, fetal and pre-term survivable stages should all be considered separately under the law (which, in many cases, they are).

Miscarriage is the loss of a fetus (/embryo) during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. It is considered synonymous with 'spontaneous abortion'. About one in 5 pregnancies are known to end in miscarriages, but it is suspected that the figure may be much higher since a gestational or early embryonic miscarriage may not be noted as such.

So, 'fetus' is an appropriate term for a pre-birth human, and if miscarriage is defined as spontaneous it cannot be manslaughter.

Jan

I would be very interested in knowing more about this. Do you have a source handy?

Jan

Your 100% correct.

Whatever is next, I can guarantee we won't like it.

This is just one more way that the state can invade our rights as individuals. The question is what is next?

It is scientifically proven that a woman considering to become a mother should end all harmful ingestion practices 3-4 years before conceiving. This is to rollback the RNA changes that could be passed to offspring. Smoking METH with permanently harm the baby's developing brain.

Listen to these dickbags... "fetus".. It's called a HUMAN BEING morons

"There is a limit to intelligence, but no limit to stupidity."
Incarcerating the moronic mom who takes drugs, amphetamines, or smokes and drinks while pregnant does what, exactly? Think that'll keep them from doing it? Yep, just like prohibition kept people from consuming alcohol. You can pass all the morality laws you can think of, but they will be as effective as trying to teach a caterpillar to stop becoming a moth.