Need Help?
We hope your visit has been a productive one. If you're having any problems, or would like to give some feedback, we'd love to hear from you.
For general help, questions, and suggestions, try our dedicated support forums.
If you need to contact the Course-Notes.Org web experience team, please use our contact form.
Need Notes?
While we strive to provide the most comprehensive notes for as many high school textbooks as possible, there are certainly going to be some that we miss. Drop us a note and let us know which textbooks you need. Be sure to include which edition of the textbook you are using! If we see enough demand, we'll do whatever we can to get those notes up on the site for you!
Quote:It hasn't been born. Period. It may physically be alive but it has not taken a nessecary step, birth, to be a fully fledged human.
So now you're telling me that something that has not taken a breath, or a step is not human?
What is it then? An Alien? An animal?
It is a living part of the person carrying it ((hence the umbilical cord)) not a human being of its own statue and rights.
ehh, see this is where my view changes 3 months is enough time to make your decision anyways. in any case the term "viable" is basically "living" to me. i.e. 24 weeks after gestation (able to survive outside the womb)
GreekRayne, I couldn't disagree with you more.
The umbilical chord is there for feeding reasons, not because the "mass" is an extension of the woman's body.
Does the 'baby' live within the mother and depend upon it for nutrition? A mother cannot decide to just stop this extension of 'mass' from providing for it. It is a part of the mother until it is born. How can you say that something within a woman is not her responsibility and a part of her?
The way you stated it meakes it seem like you are saying it's just a mass that is united to her body and just is there for no apparent reason. I just can't understand how you can claim that a baby is not a human until it comes out of a woman's vagina (please be mature, as this is an AP student discussion).
Quote:Does the 'baby' live within the mother and depend upon it for nutrition? A mother cannot decide to just stop this extension of 'mass' from providing for it. It is a part of the mother until it is born. How can you say that something within a woman is not her responsibility and a part of her?
hence - viable....able to live outside of the mothers womb after 24 weeks. kind of encompasses every political view.
((of course I will be mature)) I am not saying it is there for no apparent reason, I understand the developmental uses. I am also saying it is a huge part of what makes a 'child' the womans responsibility and part of her body until birth. Please answer my question.
How is a 'baby' not a part of the mother until birth and her responsibility until that point?
I am exhausted for tonight but will return tommorrow.
Quote:
How is a 'baby' not a part of the mother until birth and her responsibility until that point?
If that's how you want to put it, then yes, the baby IS a part of the mother. However, how does that not make it a human? What DOES it make it?
Pages