Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

Kitsune · 03-15-2004, 02:54 PM

A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host.

Your explanation regarding the definition of a "person" versus a "fetus" is probably the best I've seen in the discussion so far, but I find it surprising that a mere umbilical cord makes so much of a difference. A fetus has has no consent to offer, but neither does a one year old. A fetus cannot survive on its own outside the mother, but a one year old cannot survive without the care of its mother -- it is just as much a parasite at that age. Location of the, uh, lifeform doesn't change that.

I have no real opinion on the matter of pro-life versus pro-choice, but I find the argument interesting because of the definitions drawn and how they are defined.

03-15-2004, 02:54 PM	#11
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host. Your explanation regarding the definition of a "person" versus a "fetus" is probably the best I've seen in the discussion so far, but I find it surprising that a mere umbilical cord makes so much of a difference. A fetus has has no consent to offer, but neither does a one year old. A fetus cannot survive on its own outside the mother, but a one year old cannot survive without the care of its mother -- it is just as much a parasite at that age. Location of the, uh, lifeform doesn't change that. I have no real opinion on the matter of pro-life versus pro-choice, but I find the argument interesting because of the definitions drawn and how they are defined.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)