Sunday, November 14, 2010

When the Unborn Human Being Acquires Rights

One's personal stand on abortion or on anything is no one's business. But when one proposes to impose on others, one's arguments must be based solely on reason and reality.

There are no rights other than Individual Rights. The power of any government, state or federal, comes from the people, which cannot delegate a right they do not possess. In freedom, the only right delegated is the right to self defense (except in case of an emergency), so that citizens deal with each other only by reason and persuasion, never by force. Abortion is a matter of rights, not subject to resolution by each state.

Arguments against abortion that are not based on science, i.e. reality, are theocratic and/or tyrannical. Only an actual living rational being has rights. One cannot reason with animals, so they do not have rights though they have life and brains. By nature, man is fallible, so a woman may get pregnant though she and her partner might not yet be ready to be parents. The question that must be resolved based on science is when the unborn human being acquires rights, and thus becomes equal to the mother when it comes to rights.

I use the criterion for the cessation of human life, brain activity, as the criterion for the onset of becoming an actual living rational being. Only a being with a rational tool can be considered human, thus the zygote or embryo, though has the potential to become human, is not yet an actual human.

A fetus has a central nervous system and brain activity. Thus, it is an actual living rational being. Hence, it has rights.

74 comments:

BrianLee said...

Thank you for writing up this article, and giving importance to individual rights.

I'd like to add that a rational being that is dependent upon another individual for survival cannot have rights. There can be no right to life at the expense of another.

A being dependent for survival, living inside of another cannot have a right to life.

It is important to note when a being becomes and individual, an individual having rights.

Ilyn Ross said...

Brian, your criterion for rights differs from mine. If a pregnant girl/woman does not have an abortion during the embryonic stage, she is taking on the responsibility for another being.

A being with a rational tool and brain activity is an actual living human, with rights, regardless of its physical location.

Ilyn Ross said...

It is a medical fact, a reality, that an embryo does not yet have a central nervous system. A being with no rational tool is not yet human; a being with no brain and hence no brain activity is not yet an actual living human.

Ilyn Ross said...

God has given man FREE WILL. God is pro-choice. God is so loving that He allows man a window to change course, that one may not go through a lifetime paying for a mistake. He is so good that He always keeps the door to happiness open.

For abortion, the window to change course is the embryonic stage.

Ilyn Ross said...

Rational being: with a reason-and-logic attribute.

Rational beings have volition. One may choose not to use his/her reason-and-logic tool.

Ilyn Ross said...

The American Revolutionaries EARNED the privilege of defining the fundamentals of the USA.

Based on the Declaration of Independence, based on individual liberty, the ONLY right delegated is the right to self defense: "That to SECURE these rights, governments are instituted..."

Thomas Jefferson said: “Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments.”

To remove the use of force from citizen interactions so that individuals may deal with each other only by reason and persuasion, citizens delegate their right to self-defense to their government. Citizens cannot delegate a right they do not possess –

* Hence, the government has no right to intervene in any non-force realm.

* Hence, the government has no right to regulate inherent inalienable Rights, including the rights of individuals who hold that selfishness is a virtue.

* Hence, the government has no right to coerce nor extort. As it is a crime for an individual to rob or loot, it is a crime for the government to expropriate the property of any of its citizens.

The entity that has a monopoly on coercive power must not intervene in any other realm [e.g. moral & intellectual (e.g. production & trade)] because this defeats the purpose of the self-defense delegation:

-- It injects the use of force into interactions, and only one party has the legal power of "Do what you're ordered to do, or else": the government

-- The rights-protector must, at all times, be an impartial referee; thus it cannot be a player and a referee at the same time.

Ilyn Ross said...

"[The] voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the MINDS capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is ANARCHY, which of necessity produces DESPOTISM." -- Thomas Jefferson to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809. ME 16:328

Ilyn Ross said...

Human life begins at conception = The sun revolves around the Earth.

Pro-zygotes/embryos are DARK-AGES warriors. They would burn Galileos at the stake.

Ilyn Ross said...

I am pro-choice and certainly pro-actual-living-human. I support the right of a girl/woman to have an abortion during the embryonic stage.

Ilyn Ross said...

Knowledge is hierarchical and CONTEXTUAL. Jefferson is right, as always.

If one does not want to live by the society rules of the US, defined by those who won American Independence, one has the freedom to leave and form his/her own society or join another society.

Ilyn Ross said...

A right is an action that can be exercised without anyone's permission, limited ONLY by the equal right of others.

The ONLY proper function of law and of government is "to SECURE these rights" - in freedom, anything goes as long as one does not infringe the rights of others. When one attempts to initiate force, or initiates force, the government SECURES rights.

The US government has the right to use force "to SECURE these rights".

Ilyn Ross said...

Only a satanic being would create fallible beings with strong sexual urges, and then torture them for a lifetime for their nature.

Ilyn Ross said...

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its FIRST BREATH...

Ilyn Ross said...

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-development-in-fetus.html

Week 9: The nervous system by now is quite developed for proper functioning.

Ilyn Ross said...

Medical Dictionary

em·bryo definition

the DEVELOPING human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the EIGHTH WEEK after conception

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embryo?o=100074

Ilyn Ross said...

Prior to week 9, there can be no brain activity since the brain is not yet developed.

The fetus takes its FIRST BREATH at week 10.

Ilyn Ross said...

Human with NO brain activity = NOT ALIVE

Ilyn Ross said...

Some anti-abortionists claim that the presence of 'brain' activity in an embryo at six weeks is evidence of sentience, and therefore personhood, thus regarding its life as morally and legally significant from that moment. However, Easterbrook believes the medical evidence shows that this so-called brain 'activity' is nothing more than, 'random neuron firings as nerves connect – basically tiny spasms'. In fact, according to him it is only around the twenty-second to twenty-fourth week that the cerebral cortex becomes 'wired', and we begin to see evidence of more complex brain activity comparable to that found in newborns:

'From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically “impossible” before these connections form.' (Easterbrook G., Abortion and Brain Waves)

http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Applied_Ethics/Abortion/concept_of_personhood_4.php

Ilyn Ross said...

Rights are based on the actual-living-human attribute, NOT on the physical location of the human.

A six-month-old unborn fetus has the same rights as a premature baby born at 6 months.

Ilyn Ross said...

Regarding VOLITION/CHOICE - what is the difference between a six-month-old unborn fetus and a premature baby born at 6 months? Nothing.

They have the same rights.

Ilyn Ross said...

The basis of rights is NOT volition. Babies are born tabula rasa. Without knowledge, there can be no volition. One in a coma cannot choose, but has rights.

An actual living human has rights. A fetus has the attibute of an actual living human: brain activity.

Ilyn Ross said...

Every actual living human has rights by virtue of it being human and alive. Its location has no bearing whatsoever.

Ilyn Ross said...

Every human life is precious. It is not subject to anyone's whims including its own mother. Ignorance is no excuse.

Ilyn Ross said...

the claim that life begins at conception is clearly based on religion, not on science. This position is further damaged by legislations declaring the birth control pill as murder [2010 Colorado Amendment 62].

The second trimester law must be based on this:

'From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically “impossible” before these connections form.' (Easterbrook G., Abortion and Brain Waves)

http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Applied_Ethics/Abortion/concept_of_personhood_4.php

Ilyn Ross said...

The PRO-ZYGOTE blank out the life of the pregnant human being; they champion destroying the life of an actual human being, most of the time: a young girl; they advocate FORCE – advocate forcing a female human being to go through a lifetime paying for a mistake. They are, certainly, NOT pro-life. They lust for a theocracy.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pence-nation-will-not-stand-life-will-no

Ilyn Ross said...

My criterion for human life is human brain activity, not rational thought nor the human's location (e.g. the womb or incubator or crib).

One in a coma has brain activity. Those with neurological disorders have brain activity. A FETUS has brain activity. They have rights.

Ilyn Ross said...

A zygote or an embryo cannot be murdered. It has no central nervous system, thus no brain activity, thus it is not yet an actual living human.

‘House’ Actress Stars in MoveOn.org Abortion Ad; Accuses GOP of Forcing ‘Back Alley ‘ Abortions -

http://www.breitbart.tv/house-actress-stars-in-moveon-org-abortion-ad-accuses-gop-of-forcing-back-alley-abortions/

Ilyn Ross said...

Brain activity is not the same as conciousness. Humans in a coma, or those with neurological disorders, or those who choose not to use their brains, have rights.

Ilyn Ross said...

Human with NO brain activity = NOT ALIVE.

Since the zygote nor the embryo has no CNS and hence has no brain activity, it is not yet an actual living human.

Ilyn Ross said...

Human life begins at conception = The sun revolves around the Earth.

Those who lust to ram down their religion-based values have the MARK of EVIL.

Ilyn Ross said...

God has given man FREE WILL. God is pro-choice. God is so loving that He allows man a window to change course, that one may not go through a lifetime paying for a mistake. He is so good that He always keeps the door to happiness open.

For abortion, the window to change course is the embryonic stage.

Ilyn Ross said...

By nature, man is fallible and has strong sexual tendencies. In abortion, the embryonic stage is the window to change course in case man makes a mistake due to his nature.

Ilyn Ross said...

On fb, Seán Mx commented: "Since a pregnancy is not usually fatal, the mother is not in danger of loss of life. There may be risk associated with accepting the responsibility of being the fiduciary of the Trust, but if the woman entered into the agreement voluntarily, consent to the risk is implied by the act of allowing insemination and the creation of the resulting Trust. The resulting embryo, since it was created using the cells of both the father and the mother and the fact that it is designed to be separable at birth, shows that the embryo/baby is not a part of the body of the mother, but is a distinctly different being than herself that is temporarily attached to the mother within her uterus, an organ who's purpose is known be a place to act as a temporary shelter to foster the growth of an embryo/baby. Therefore the mother/trustee cannot claim exclusive right to the property she holds possession of, and cannot lawfully ignore her fiduciary responsibility to protect."

Erskine Fincher replied: "@Sean -- That's a lovely analogy. To establish a Trust requires an explicit contract though. For there to be a contract, at minimum, the man has to deposit the sperm with the intent of creating a child, and the woman has to receive it with the intent of giving birth to that child. I would say that that eliminates the vast majority of cases in which abortions take place. If, however, a man could establish that he had an explicit agreement with the woman to create a child, then I would support his legal action to have her fulfill the contract, so long as it did not place her life in jeopardy. (I would also support a breech of contract action on his part, if they had an explicit agreement NOT to create a child, and she went off contraceptives without telling him. In that case, he should not be liable for child support.)"

Ilyn Ross said...

Democrats Say GOP Antiabortion Bill Lacks That Bit About the Constitution.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/11/democrats-say-gop-antiabortion-bill-lacks-that-bit-about-the-constitution/

"When tea party and other conservative activists helped give Republicans the House majority in the November elections, GOP leaders returned the favor with a new rule: All bills must cite the specific section of the Constitution under which their bills pass constitutional muster."

*
The zygote/embryo, as evidenced by SCIENCE, is not an actual living human. A potential, yes, but not actual. Without brain activity, it is not yet alive.

ONE'S PERSONAL STAND ON ANYTHING IS NO ONE'S BUSINESS. But no one has a right to impose on another based on definitions that contradict reality.

Ilyn Ross said...

Who possess the right to life? Actual living humans.

Is the embryo an actual human? No, since it does not have a central nervous sytem (CNS). A human with no brain activity is not alive. An embryo cannot have brain activity because it has no CNS.

Ilyn Ross said...

Human life begins at conception = The brain dead are alive = The sun revolves around the Earth.

One's personal stand on anything is no one's business, but those who lust to impose a definition of human life not backed by science are DARK-AGES WARRIORS. They are anti-mind, anti-reason, anti-life, and anti-happiness.

Ilyn Ross said...

I use the criterion for the cessation of human life as the criterion for the onset of human life: brain activity. Thus, I hold that the FETUS has rights. Since the embryo is not yet an actual living human, it has no rights.

The pregnant must choose before the onset of brain activity, which could happen starting the 9th week (the fetus takes its FIRST BREATH at 10 weeks).

Giving up one's baby, an ACTUAL LIVING HUMAN, one you've carried for nine months, is 24/7 TORTURE for a LIFETIME. To wish this on anyone is MONSTROUS.

Freddy said...

I agree with the sentiment of this article that the issue of abortion should be decided on science and natural rights (ie. the right to life, liberty, and property that are inherent in being human and not given to us by any government). But starting at that point, I reach a different conclusion then Ilyn Ross.

Starting with the definition of life from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The one that best fits this argument is the following: a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. I would contend that an embryo meets all the requirements listed above at conception. I do not think anyone would argue with the first two as the metabolism is quite evident due the growth of the embryo once conception occurs. The second one is a little less clear, but given that even single cell organisms are known to react to stimuli, I think arguing the opposite for an embryo at any stage of development is very weak. The last one should be also quite evident, because first the sole purpose of the embryo is reproduction. Further more in the case if identical twins it is known that an embryo can reproduce through fission.

The second thing to look at is the embryo a human and is that human different from the mother. It is very clear that a DNA sample from an embryo at any point after conception would show two things. First the DNA is not a match for the mother, and second that the DNA is human in nature. Based on those two things I believe that we can conclude that an embryo is an unique human.

Now the question that needs to be answered is the following. Given that an embryo is a living (based on the argument in the second paragraph) human (based on the argument in the third paragraph), does any embryo have the natural rights that are inherent in all living humans. I would have to say yes, it does.

Now the author argues that a human needs a brain or brain activity to be considered alive. That is an interesting point, but given that we know that that embryo will develop that capacity and given the difficulty in determining brain deaths in adults, would it not be advisable to err on the side of caution.

What that means is that unless the mother was facing a certain death, we should not allow an abortion, if we truly support natural rights. Any other argument that takes in the circumstances of the mother, and the willingness or desire to get pregnant seems to overlook one other fundamental standard of our civilization, and that is a child should not be punished for the acts of their parents. An abortion violates that standard.

Ilyn Ross said...

A zygote or an embryo does not breathe; it is not sentient. It has no central nervous system, thus no brain activity, thus it is not yet an actual living human. A fetus has a CNS & brain activity. Thus, it is an actual living human. Hence, it has rights.

Ilyn Ross said...

A Day of Thanks to Abortion Providers!

http://www.trustwomenpac.org/2011/03/a-day-of-thanks-to-abortion-providers/

Ilyn Ross said...

In freedom: science, i.e. reality, is the basis for laws.

"The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being… Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature wi...th rights… A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature…” -- Thomas JeffersonSee More

Ilyn Ross said...

Infants, children, those in a coma, are helpless and are totally dependent on others, yet they have rights.

Regarding LIFE: what is the difference between a six-month-old unborn fetus and a premature baby born at 6 months? Nothing. Hence, they both have a right to life.

Ilyn Ross said...

Human brain activity is an attribute of an actual living human. Every actual living human has a right to life.

Ilyn Ross said...

My criterion for the right to life is: being an actual living human.

Ilyn Ross said...

A fetus has its OWN central nervous system, its OWN heart, its OWN nose, its OWN bodily parts, and it can breathe and move.

The one responsible for the existence of the fetus has no right to prevent its actions of breathing and moving.

Ilyn Ross said...

The embryo is a potential human being. It has no central nervous system. It does not breathe. It is not sentient.

The embryonic stage is the window for the pregnant to make a choice. After this stage, the fetus becomes an actual living human. A fetus can breathe and move.

Ilyn Ross said...

Human life is the criterion for rights. A fetus has human life.

Ilyn Ross said...

"The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being… Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights… A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature…” -- Thomas Jefferson

Ilyn Ross said...

A right is an action that can be exercised without anyone's permission limited only by the equal rights of others.

A fetus has the right to exercise the action of breathing without the permission of the one who chose it to exist and to be where it is.

The rights of the one responsible for the existence of the fetus are limited by the equal rights of others including the fetus.

Ilyn Ross said...

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

Ilyn Ross said...

Thomas Jefferson’s Republicanism:

1) That there exists a right independent of force;
2) That a right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire ...by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings;
3) That NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO OBSTRUCT ANOTHER exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature;
4) That justice is the fundamental law of society;
5) That the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society;
6) That action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately and removable by themselves.See More

Ilyn Ross said...

‎"3) That NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO OBSTRUCT ANOTHER exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature;"

The fetus has a right to continue exercising his faculty of breathing for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature.

Ilyn Ross said...

From Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable;
That all men are created equal & independent,
That from that equal creation
They derive rights inherent & inalienable,
Among which are the preservation of
Life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness…”

The fetus has a right to continue breathing for the preservation of its life.

Ilyn Ross said...

The comatose or brain-damaged have a right to unobstructed action according to THEIR WILL within limits drawn around them by the equal rights of others.

They have a right to breathe the air given by nature.

Ilyn Ross said...

If they have loved ones that finance other life-support systems, no one has a right to deprive them of those.

The comatose or brain-damaged have a chance to recover. If there are people willing to help them, or if there are people who are hopeful of their recovery and are happy to nurture them, it is a violation of their (the helpless and the willing nurturers) rights to stop them from breathing.

Ilyn Ross said...

The embryo has no CNS. It does not breathe. It is not sentient. The embryonic stage is the window to make a choice. After this stage, the unborn becomes an actual living human. The fetus has a CNS & brain activity. It breathes & moves.

A fetus has the right to exercise the action of breathing w/o anyone's permission including the one responsible for its existence.

Ilyn Ross said...

The Placenta

The organ that allows a baby to "breathe" in the uterus is called the placenta. This organ resembles a large, flat disc and is composed largely of blood vessels. In their book, "You, Having A Baby," Michael Roizen, M.D., and Mehmet Oz, M.D. note that the placenta is a very odd organ.

It forms in the mother's body--inside the uterus, to be precise--rather than the baby's, but it's composed of embryonic tissue. In other words, the baby forms an organ outside its body, and this organ implants deep in the lining of the uterus.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/153843-how-does-an-unborn-baby-breathe-in-the-womb/#ixzz1L3bs1qgp

Ilyn Ross said...

From Ayn Rand Answers, page 17: "Abortion at the last minute – when a baby is formed – is a different issue…. An “unborn child”, before it is formed, is not a human, it’s not a living entity, it has no rights…."

Ilyn Ross said...

By nature, humans are fallible & have strong sexual tendencies. The embryonic stage is the window to change course, so the young & the babies they would bear would not go thru a lifetime paying for a mistake.

When a person is raped/incest victim/battered wife, it is monstrous to force her to live with such memory.

Giving up an actual living human is 24/7 torture for life. Wishing this on anyone is monstrous.

Ilyn Ross said...

The zygote/embryo has no central nervous system, thus no brain activity. The fetus takes its first breath at week 10. Prior to this, the unborn is not an actual living human.

The anti-abortion are ANTI-GOD. "Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." Irrational, they evade that man is a fallible being with strong sexual tendencies. The embryonic stage is the window to change course. Only a satanic being would not provide such a window.

The anti-abortion lust to subjugate the female species. Monstrous, they couldn't care less whether teen girls or battered wives go though a lifetime paying for mistakes.

Ilyn Ross said...

My religious views are consistent with reality and science.

I believe in an all-good and all-loving God. It is self-evident that God created man with FREE WILL. I respect God's will, and I respect the free will of every man who respects the free will of others.

It is self-evident that man, by nature, is fallible and has strong sexual tendencies. Teenagers make mistakes, wives could get subhuman hu...sbands, and pregnant girls/women could be the victims of rape or incest. SCIENCE EVINCES that GOD PROVIDED the EMBRYONIC STAGE as the WINDOW to CHANGE COURSE. At this stage, the unborn has no central nervous system (CNS). Just as a person with no brain activity is no longer alive, the unborn with no human brain activity is not yet an actual living human being. The embryo does not breathe; it does not feel pain.

The CNS is fully developed at week 9. The fetus takes its first breath at week 10. I defer to science, but based on these, I hold that at this stage, the unborn is an actual living human being, and thus, has rights. When a pregnant girl/woman does not abort prior to this stage, she has consented to being responsible for her offspring from the womb until 18 years of age.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-am-a-Jeffersonian/102951273112979?v=wall#!/photo.php?fbid=2357127091385&set=a.1268872285695.139307.1346466773&type=1&theater

Ilyn Ross said...

MS voters defeat DARK-AGES warriors. Thank you, MS!

I am pro-choice and pro-life. They are not contradictory. Using the criterion for the cessation of life as the criterion for the onset of life: brain activity, the embryo is not yet an actual living human being. It is not sentient. It does not breathe. The central nervous system is fully developed at nine weeks. The fetus takes its first breath at 10 weeks. I hold that at this stage, the unborn has become an actual living human, thus, has acquired rights.

Ilyn Ross said...

http://news.yahoo.com/miss-defeats-life-fertilization-ballot-prop-041831234.html

Ilyn Ross said...

I differentiate between a fetus, embryo, and zygote. A fetus has a central nervous system [cns] and takes its first breath at 10 weeks. I hold that at this stage, it is an actual living human being since it has brain activity. I use the criterion for the cessation of the life of a human being as the same criterion for its onset. At such onset, the human being acquires rights.

When the fetus takes its first breath after the cns is fully developed, the pregnant human who did not decide earlier to terminate it has taken the responsibility to care for the helpless human, a decision that cannot be reneged. A fetus with brain activity has a right to life regardless of its location, whether it is in the womb, in an incubator, or in a crib. Since it has taken its first breath, it has the right to keep on breathing.

http://ilynross.blogspot.com/2010/11/when-unborn-human-being-acquires-rights.html

Ilyn Ross said...

I disagree when the term used is "fetus". I agree when the term used is embryo (up to 8 weeks). I use the criterion for the cessation of life as the criterion for the onset of life: brain activity.

"The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its FIRST BREATH..." http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

After the unborn takes its first breath, to prevent it from continuing to breathe is murder.

Ilyn Ross said...

The Placenta

The organ that allows a baby to "breathe" in the uterus is called the placenta. This organ resembles a large, flat disc and is composed largely of blood vessels. In their book, "You, Having A Baby," Michael Roizen, M.D., and Mehmet Oz, M.D. note that the placenta is a very odd organ.

It forms in the mother's body--inside the uterus, to be precise--rather than the baby's, but it's composed of embryonic tissue. In other words, the baby forms an organ outside its body, and this organ implants deep in the lining of the uterus.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/153843-how-does-an-unborn-baby-breathe-in-the-womb/#ixzz1L3bs1qgp

Ilyn Ross said...

What is the difference between a six-month-old unborn fetus and a premature baby born at 6 months? Location, which is not the criterion for rights.

Human brain activity is an attribute of an actual living human. Every actual living human has a right to life.

Ilyn Ross said...

A fetus has its OWN developed central nervous system, its OWN heart, its OWN nose, its OWN bodily parts, and it can breathe and move. The organ that allows a baby to "breathe" in the uterus is called the placenta.

The one responsible for the existence of the fetus has no right to prevent its actions of breathing and moving. A right is an action that can be exercised without anyone's permission limited only by the equal rights of others. A fetus has the right to exercise the actions of breathing and moving without the permission of the one who chose it to exist and to be where it is. The rights of the one responsible for the existence of the fetus are limited by the equal rights of others including the fetus.

A fetus with brain activity has a right to life REGARDLESS OF ITS LOCATION, whether it is in the womb, in an incubator, or in a crib. Since it has taken its first breath, it has the right to keep on breathing.

Ilyn Ross said...

A fetus [starting at 9 weeks] has its OWN developed central nervous system, its OWN heart, its OWN nose, its OWN bodily parts, and it can breathe and move. The organ that allows a baby to "breathe" in the uterus is called the placenta. A fetus takes its FIRST BREATH at 10 weeks.

Human brain activity is an attribute of an actual living human. Every actual living human has a right to life. A right is an action that can be exercised without anyone's permission limited only by the equal rights of others. A fetus has the right to exercise the actions of breathing and moving without the permission of the one who chose it to exist and to be where it is. The rights of the one responsible for the existence of the fetus are limited by the equal rights of others including the fetus.

A fetus with brain activity has a right to life REGARDLESS OF ITS LOCATION, whether it is in the womb, in an incubator, or in a crib. Since it has taken its first breath, it has the right to keep on breathing. What is the difference between a six-month-old unborn fetus and a premature baby born at 6 months? Location, which is not the criterion for rights.

Ilyn Ross said...

No one owns a person. Thus, no one has the right to coerce girls into giving birth by banning abortion.

Ilyn Ross said...

Those who hold life and freedom sacred do not evade the distinction: the pregnant is an actual living human while the embryo is not.

Ilyn Ross said...

Vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan was a co-sponsor last year of HR 212, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which states that "human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/health/ivf-outlawed

Ilyn Ross said...

Principles on Freedom are based on the laws of our being. "The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the LAWS of OUR BEING… Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by NATURE with rights… A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the LAWS of NATURE…” -- Thomas Jefferson

Ilyn Ross said...

Rights, which are rights to actions, are inherent. Since they are inherent, they are based on the entity's NATURAL ATTRIBUTES. Birth is not an attribute given by nature. In Thomas Jefferson's words, "Rights come from nature." He said that they are based on "the laws of our being." Birth does not come from nature. It is not inherent in the laws of human nature.

A fetus has its own bodily parts. Its brain activity is separate from the Mom's. The placenta, which the fetus uses to breathe, comes from embryonic cells. A fully formed human with brain activity has acquired the NATURAL ATTRIBUTES of an ACTUAL living human. It is not birth that accords actuality.

Rights are UNOBSTRUCTED actions according to one's will, limited only by the equal rights of others. If the Mom is in coma and life support, the fetus will continue to breathe. This evinces that the breathing of the fetus is an independent action.

Jefferson mentioned THE HUMAN ATTRIBUTE which is the rationale for RIGHTS: "Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights". The unborn with brain activity has INHERENT NATURAL rights.

One in a coma has rights. One with neurological disorders has rights. Man has volition. One can chose not to be rational.

Having the human mind makes man a rational animal, not the exercise of rationality. The unborn with brain activity has the rational attribute.