Stopping abortion the correct way

[Scrabaholic]

What's wrong with disposable ones?

Bad for the environment.

Supposing I had one, like so many pro-life activists do, how would you respond?

Go through gestation & childbirth.

 

[Lursa]

So the Texas law goes into effect, and a Catholic crisis pregnancy center steps up to provide mothers who would otherwise abort their children with the resources necessary to keep afloat.

This is absolutely wonderful news. It doesn't exactly dovetail with the caricature of pro-lifers as desiring to punish women for having sex, or not caring about mothers and children after birth. This woman has saved lives that would otherwise have gone to a butcher masquerading as a doctor.

“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” God bless her and her organization. If she has a place to take donations I'll give right now or send her a thousand diapers.

Outlawing abortion isn't about efficacy. Abortion, like slavery, like murder, like theft, should be outlawed even if it has no effect on incidence.

How long are they going to support mother and baby? Are they supporting her other children and dependents too?

"This woman" is doing a favor to women that want babies...that's nice. Is there some reason pro-life people cant do this more?

And if the women arent prepared to be mothers, financially or otherwise...how long will she help them?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Is it advisable to make public policy based on people's emotions, or should reason, logic, and societal precedence carry much more weight?

What does that have to do w/ my comment?

 

[Scrabaholic]

So if I am a cancer doctor trying to save the patient in front of me knowing that next year the same number of people will die of cancer, what is my motivation?

What does that have to do w/ my comment?

 

[Lursa]

What's wrong with disposable ones?

They dont biodegrade and they fill up landfills and dumps. Their manufacture uses plastics and other chemicals.

Yeah, we know we use lots of that stuff...here it's not necessary and contributes billions of tons of waste.

 

[Lursa]

Interesting.

Well, since we're sharing, here's why I call pro-choicers "full of beans" when they get self-righteous.

1. First of all, if this is all about choice, why doesn't the father have any choices? I get that the mother bears 100% of the biological commitment, but why isn't the father allowed to opt out of the financial commitment (forced child support) the way the mother is allowed to opt out of the biological and financial commitment? The financial ramifications of having a chid are the most oft cited reason that "pro-choice" people cite to justify abortion, and you used those reasons yourself. So why does only one parent have a choice about avoiding them?

2. Why do "pro-choice" people act as though people who conceived a child had no choice about using birth control before they created a baby? Don't look now, but that was a choice. It's 2021, not 1921. Birth control in our time is safe, effective, easy to get, and cheap. Why do people who supposedly celebrate and champion choice not recognize or admit that the first choice that was made leading to an unwanted pregnancy was actually a choice?

3. Third, why do "pro-choice" people also not recognize adoption as just as much of a viable choice as any other when it comes to having an unwanted pregnancy? Why is destroying the baby the only recognized choice? My BIL and SIL were unable to conceive on their own and they were able to adopt a child that a woman chose not to destroy. It took some time for them to find that situation, so I assume there is more demand than there is supply.

4. Why do "pro-choice" people always assume that a pro-life stance is synonymous with Christianity? First of all, I'm not aware of a major world religion that doesn't condemn abortion, so it's not just Christians, but secondly, even as an atheist I have never supported abortion. It's not necessary to have a holy book tell you that destroying innocent human life is a societal negative in order for people to know it...it's kind of self-evident. It really just requires intellectual honesty IMO.

5. Why do "pro-choice" people act as though pretty much every other societal precedence regarding preserving and revering innocent human life doesn't apply in the case of abortion?

6. Why do "pro-choice" people act as though the intentions of pro-life people regarding what happens to a baby after he or she is born (which they feel 100% qualified to mind-read) really have anything to do with whether it's o.k. to destroy them while in utero? If someone commits a violent crime, the correct thing that should happen to him for society's sake is for him to go to prison. My attitude of what should or shouldn't happen to him once he gets out or whether I believe in ongoing rehabilitation after prison or not is beside the point. It's an important question, but it has no bearing on the first question. They aren't related.

These are just a few reasons why

There are solid threads that answer all those questions. I suggest you search for your answers. If you dont find them, create your own threads for each. We'll clear your presumptions right up.

Here's all you need for your first one. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/post-conception-opt-out-for-men.458324/

If you feel the need to start your own thread...please put it in the Law and Order forum...it's a legal discussion, it's not about abortion.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Interesting.

Well, since we're sharing, here's why I call pro-choicers "full of beans" when they get self-righteous.

1. First of all, if this is all about choice, why doesn't the father have any choices? I get that the mother bears 100% of the biological commitment, but why isn't the father allowed to opt out of the financial commitment (forced child support) the way the mother is allowed to opt out of the biological and financial commitment? The financial ramifications of having a chid are the most oft cited reason that "pro-choice" people cite to justify abortion, and you used those reasons yourself. So why does only one parent have a choice about avoiding them?

The taxpayer should not have to support the child before the father. How fair is it that women are the ones who gestate?

2. Why do "pro-choice" people act as though people who conceived a child had no choice about using birth control before they created a baby? Don't look now, but that was a choice. It's 2021, not 1921. Birth control in our time is safe, effective, easy to get, and cheap. Why do people who supposedly celebrate and champion choice not recognize or admit that the first choice that was made leading to an unwanted pregnancy was actually a choice?

51% of women who abort were using contraception.

3. Third, why do "pro-choice" people also not recognize adoption as just as much of a viable choice as any other when it comes to having an unwanted pregnancy? Why is destroying the baby the only recognized choice? My BIL and SIL were unable to conceive on their own and they were able to adopt a child that a woman chose not to destroy. It took some time for them to find that situation, so I assume there is more demand than there is supply.

I am adopted and would never inflict that on a child. What others do is not my business, but we women do not owe the barren our progeny. We are not broodmares.

4. Why do "pro-choice" people always assume that a pro-life stance is synonymous with Christianity? First of all, I'm not aware of a major world religion that doesn't condemn abortion, so it's not just Christians, but secondly, even as an atheist I have never supported abortion. It's not necessary to have a holy book tell you that destroying innocent human life is a societal negative in order for people to know it...it's kind of self-evident. It really just requires intellectual honesty IMO.

Most anti choicers in North America are Christian. Yes, some religions and even some denominations of Christianity are pro choice. ie the Jewish religion is pro choice. I am Christian and pro choice.

5. Why do "pro-choice" people act as though pretty much every other societal precedence regarding preserving and revering innocent human life doesn't apply in the case of abortion?

why should anyone "revere" human life?

 

[Atreus21]

How long are they going to support mother and baby? Are they supporting her other children and dependents too?

From the tenor of the article in the OP, until the mother and child cease coming to her for help, or until she no longer has the resources to help.

"This woman" is doing a favor to women that want babies...that's nice. Is there some reason pro-life people cant do this more?

No. And they do. This is what most crisis pregnancy centers do, though so often maligned by Planned Parenthood.

And if the women arent prepared to be mothers, financially or otherwise...how long will she help them?

See my first answer.

 

[Lursa]

From the tenor of the article in the OP, until the mother and child cease coming to her for help, or until she no longer has the resources to help.



No. And they do. This is what most crisis pregnancy centers do, though so often maligned by Planned Parenthood.



See my first answer.

Planned Parenthood provides many many services to women/couples. Many free and way beyond abortions. THey include support and free/subsidized appts, prenatal vitamins, counseling, lactation guidance, etc for pregnant women.

IMO, if people believe as she does...the woman in your article...then they should be acting the same. One woman at a time. Seems entirely possible if that's really their concern. My church and other organizations I've been a part of have often 'adopted' families. They didnt encourage unplanned families but supported any families, period.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

First of all, if this is all about choice, why doesn't the father have any choices? I get that the mother bears 100% of the biological commitment, but why isn't the father allowed to opt out of the financial commitment (forced child support) the way the mother is allowed to opt out of the biological and financial commitment? The financial ramifications of having a child are the most oft cited reason that "pro-choice" people cite to justify abortion, and you used those reasons yourself. So why does only one parent have a choice about avoiding them?

Both parents have financial obligations to their child (if he or she is born) for 18 years. The dad pays a lot less in paternity fees than the mom does for everything else if they are not married. If they are married, the dad chooses how much he spends on child care, just as Mom chooses how much she spends on it.

Why do "pro-choice" people act as though people who conceived a child had no choice about using birth control before they created a baby? Don't look now, but that was a choice. It's 2021, not 1921. Birth control in our time is safe, effective, easy to get, and cheap. Why do people who supposedly celebrate and champion choice not recognize or admit that the first choice that was made leading to an unwanted pregnancy was actually a choice?

If you have a high school diploma, you know the answer: Only spaying and neutering are 100% effective and both surgeries are rarely performed on people. Condoms, vaginal rings, and IUDs break. Women forget to take estrogen pills and the morning after pill. Even tying tubes in both men and women fails sometimes. No married couples can be expected to abstain from sexual activity forever. Raped women obviously have no way of knowing they will need birth control when they are forced to have sex. Rape is being forced to have sex after saying no, so it is 100% the dad's fault if the mom gets pregnant, not hers.

Third, why do "pro-choice" people also not recognize adoption as just as much of a viable choice as any other when it comes to having an unwanted pregnancy? Why is destroying the baby the only recognized choice? My BIL and SIL were unable to conceive on their own and they were able to adopt a child that a woman chose not to destroy. It took some time for them to find that situation, so I assume there is more demand than there is supply.

Adoption is an option if the mom's only problem is inability to take care of a baby. Did you ever think about the other reasons women have abortions? Such as a doctor saying if she does not kill the fetus, the fetus will kill her? Pregnancy complications often are fatal or cause permanent damage. When this happens, the mom wanted a baby; otherwise it would have been aborted months earlier. Anti-choicers tell women a medical need is an immoral choice, even though it obviously is a choice to save her own life.

Why do "pro-choice" people act as though pretty much every other societal precedence regarding preserving and revering innocent human life doesn't apply in the case of abortion?

I want to know why people think there is a difference between the "innocence" of an embryo and that of your furniture. It has no more ability to think or feel anything than a couch. If the mom waits until thinking and perceiving is possible she wanted a baby and the abortion was medically necessary.

Why do "pro-choice" people act as though the intentions of pro-life people regarding what happens to a baby after he or she is born (which they feel 100% qualified to mind-read) really have anything to do with whether it's OK to destroy them while in utero? If someone commits a violent crime, the correct thing that should happen to him for society's sake is for him to go to prison. My attitude of what should or shouldn't happen to him once he gets out or whether I believe in ongoing rehabilitation after prison or not is beside the point. It's an important question, but it has no bearing on the first question. They aren't related.

Pro-choice people often hear the same complaints. "She should have used contraception," can only mean, "She should be forced to have sex whether she wants it or not." That is an easy one: Men only care about is controlling women.

 

[BroHaHa]

What does that have to do w/ my comment?

Obviously, your statement was that a male would feel differently if he were female, as though the way he (she?) felt mattered to the question of policy.

If you don't think it did, why did you say that?

 

[BroHaHa]

What does that have to do w/ my comment?

Did I quote the wrong person or something? I'm sorry, I played along with the first doe-eye batting, "Who, me?" but let's not play too stupid here. We wouldn't want to infantilize women or anything.

 

[BroHaHa]

There are solid threads that answer all those questions. I suggest you search for your answers. If you dont find them, create your own threads for each. We'll clear your presumptions right up.

Here's all you need for your first one. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/post-conception-opt-out-for-men.458324/

If you feel the need to start your own thread...please put it in the Law and Order forum...it's a legal discussion, it's not about abortion.

I'm sorry, but that link was not authored by the poster to whom I was asking the questions. If you want to start your own thread, go ahead, but I was talking to someone else. We were trading reasons we felt pro-choice and pro-life people were disingenuous. If you have reasons you'd like to add, feel free. Otherwise, we got this.

 

[BroHaHa]

The taxpayer should not have to support the child before the father. How fair is it that women are the ones who gestate?




51% of women who abort were using contraception.



I am adopted and would never inflict that on a child. What others do is not my business, but we women do not owe the barren our progeny. We are not broodmares.




Most anti choicers in North America are Christian. Yes, some religions and even some denominations of Christianity are pro choice. ie the Jewish religion is pro choice. I am Christian and pro choice.




why should anyone "revere" human life?

"The taxpayer should not have to support the child before the father."

Well, no. The mother should have to support the child if she chooses to have it anyway despite the father wishing to avoid those financial consequences. Again, why should the mother get to choose whether the father incurs those consequences? Your response undermines the entire argument.

"How fair is it that women are the ones who gestate?"

I'm glad that you posted this response, because you hit upon the reason why people are so willing to ignore the obvious problem with the abortion stance. The idea is to make it all about the woman's freedom so that no one notices the party that is negatively affected by the woman exercising her freedom.

It's obvious that in our society the standard for freedom is that you should be free to do anything you please, as long as there is no negative externality to someone else. And obviously in an abortion scenario there is a negative externality...another human necessarily dies. It clearly violates the societal standard we use for everything else.

So why is this even considered as an acceptable exception to the rule?

Because 2nd and 3rd wave feminists were angry that when men and women have sex, only women have biological consequences. That's it. The resentment of that biological fact drives this whole thing. It basically becomes, "This is unfair, and because it is, society ought to make an exception and prioritize even freedom that causes a negative externality in this case." So we deny the obvious and play games of semantics and obfuscate and act like the obvious negative externality really doesn't exist, etc., so that we can maintain this standard that doesn't apply anywhere else in society.

The problem with that is that—as almost every parent gets around to informing his or her children—life is not fair. It may not be fair for women to have biological consequences when men don't, but it's also not fair that some people are born with genetic predispositions to alcoholism or obesity or simply not being very attractive to whom they wish to be attractive. These Incel fellows who feel justified in resorting to violence in frustration of not being able to attract a sexual partner are following the exact same line of reasoning as the abortion justification. They feel that causing negative externalities to others is justified because they wish to have sex and feel that it is fundamentally unfair that the genetic lottery has left them lacking in the ability to attract a partner.

Anyway, we can't change the biological reality and make it so that men have to be biologically responsible for a pregnancy. We can easily make it fair for men to have choice over their financial obligations.

"51% of women who abort were using contraception."

Then they obviously were not using them properly, as I'm sure you know that the effective use statistics are much higher than that. And...what about the other 49%?

"we women do not owe the barren our progeny."

Nor did I ever say or imply that you did, but I do think you owe another human—assuming you voluntarily participated in creating it, which I think accounts for well above 90% of all unwanted pregnancies—their life if you can avoid taking it. Again, that's the standard for every other situation in society. And this again reflects the strategy here. Always ignore the unborn human in the equation.

"I am Christian and pro choice."

No you aren't. Not according to your post. You want to deny fathers choice according to your post.

"why should anyone "revere" human life?"

Are you sure you're even a Christian, if you have to ask that question? Obviously that's a much larger question, but it should also be obvious that if you don't find a sufficient reason to have reverence for human life, then there is no good reason for you to expect others to revere women's rights or for you to even have reverence or respect for them yourself. Yes, we disagree upon whether this particular question is a legitimate right, but it's nonsensical to argue for any rights without the right to life being the most basic, fundamental right, as none of the rest of them can exist without that one. I found that to be a very odd question.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I have a high school diploma, a college degree, and two masters degrees, one of which included a seminar on women's anthropology which included a thorough section on the biological human female and included pregnancy in really minute detail, one of which had a prereq of college-level biological anthropology and was in anthropology, which includes human biology.

And I can say that "A new human life begins at conception" is not true.

What is true is that a human cell with a new human DNA combination begins at so-called "conception."

How can a zygote, which is the only cell with its specific genetic code at the moment of fertilization, not be a new human life?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

So the Texas law goes into effect, and a Catholic crisis pregnancy center steps up to provide mothers who would otherwise abort their children with the resources necessary to keep afloat.

This is absolutely wonderful news. It doesn't exactly dovetail with the caricature of pro-lifers as desiring to punish women for having sex, or not caring about mothers and children after birth. This woman has saved lives that would otherwise have gone to a butcher masquerading as a doctor.

“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” God bless her and her organization. If she has a place to take donations I'll give right now or send her a thousand diapers.

The Catholic Church never really helps women. They actually mask their desire to harass girls into joining the churches against their will. If you don't believe me, read these articles:

The Public Health Risks of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Crisis pregnancy centers are organizations that provide counseling and other prenatal services from an antiabortion (prolife) perspective.1,2 According to a report prepared for Rep.

www.guttmacher.org

So-called “crisis pregnancy centers”

We oppose crisis pregnancy centers because of the biased and inaccurate information they give women seeking honest facts about birth control and abortion.

www.plannedparenthood.org

Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical

Crisis pregnancy centers violate ethical principles by providing misleading information and causing delays and inequities in access to abortion.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Is it advisable to make public policy based on people's emotions, or should reason, logic, and societal precedence carry much more weight?

Obviously it is NEVER a good idea to make public policy based on emotions. That is why abortion has been a legal right to all pregnant Americans since 1868.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

O.k., so the number of cells distinguishes it from a human being? How many cells qualify for that status?

It obviously has nothing to do with the number of cells. It is about the cell functions and developmental stages.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Obviously, your statement was that a male would feel differently if he were female, as though the way he (she?) felt mattered to the question of policy.

If you don't think it did, why did you say that?

Because it's easy to be against something that will never physically affect you.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Did I quote the wrong person or something? I'm sorry, I played along with the first doe-eye batting, "Who, me?" but let's not play too stupid here. We wouldn't want to infantilize women or anything.

IOW, it has nothing to do w/ my comment....

 

[Scrabaholic]

"The taxpayer should not have to support the child before the father."

Well, no. The mother should have to support the child if she chooses to have it anyway despite the father wishing to avoid those financial consequences. Again, why should the mother get to choose whether the father incurs those consequences? Your response undermines the entire argument.

"How fair is it that women are the ones who gestate?"

I'm glad that you posted this response, because you hit upon the reason why people are so willing to ignore the obvious problem with the abortion stance. The idea is to make it all about the woman's freedom so that no one notices the party that is negatively affected by the woman exercising her freedom.

It's obvious that in our society the standard for freedom is that you should be free to do anything you please, as long as there is no negative externality to someone else. And obviously in an abortion scenario there is a negative externality...another human necessarily dies. It clearly violates the societal standard we use for everything else.

So why is this even considered as an acceptable exception to the rule?

Because 2nd and 3rd wave feminists were angry that when men and women have sex, only women have biological consequences. That's it. The resentment of that biological fact drives this whole thing. It basically becomes, "This is unfair, and because it is, society ought to make an exception and prioritize even freedom that causes a negative externality in this case." So we deny the obvious and play games of semantics and obfuscate and act like the obvious negative externality really doesn't exist, etc., so that we can maintain this standard that doesn't apply anywhere else in society.

The problem with that is that—as almost every parent gets around to informing his or her children—life is not fair. It may not be fair for women to have biological consequences when men don't, but it's also not fair that some people are born with genetic predispositions to alcoholism or obesity or simply not being very attractive to whom they wish to be attractive. These Incel fellows who feel justified in resorting to violence in frustration of not being able to attract a sexual partner are following the exact same line of reasoning as the abortion justification. They feel that causing negative externalities to others is justified because they wish to have sex and feel that it is fundamentally unfair that the genetic lottery has left them lacking in the ability to attract a partner.

Anyway, we can't change the biological reality and make it so that men have to be biologically responsible for a pregnancy. We can easily make it fair for men to have choice over their financial obligations.

"51% of women who abort were using contraception."

Then they obviously were not using them properly, as I'm sure you know that the effective use statistics are much higher than that. And...what about the other 49%?

"we women do not owe the barren our progeny."

Nor did I ever say or imply that you did, but I do think you owe another human—assuming you voluntarily participated in creating it, which I think accounts for well above 90% of all unwanted pregnancies—their life if you can avoid taking it. Again, that's the standard for every other situation in society. And this again reflects the strategy here. Always ignore the unborn human in the equation.

"I am Christian and pro choice."

No you aren't. Not according to your post. You want to deny fathers choice according to your post.

"why should anyone "revere" human life?"

Are you sure you're even a Christian, if you have to ask that question? Obviously that's a much larger question, but it should also be obvious that if you don't find a sufficient reason to have reverence for human life, then there is no good reason for you to expect others to revere women's rights or for you to even have reverence or respect for them yourself. Yes, we disagree upon whether this particular question is a legitimate right, but it's nonsensical to argue for any rights without the right to life being the most basic, fundamental right, as none of the rest of them can exist without that one. I found that to be a very odd question.

tl;dr

 

[Lursa]

I'm sorry, but that link was not authored by the poster to whom I was asking the questions. If you want to start your own thread, go ahead, but I was talking to someone else. We were trading reasons we felt pro-choice and pro-life people were disingenuous. If you have reasons you'd like to add, feel free. Otherwise, we got this.

Sure. If you ever actually want to discuss that topic, feel free to post it. Again, I recommend the Law and Order forum...you'll get a broader, 'newer' set of responders and it really is about the law, not a medical procedure.

 

[choiceone]

Interesting.

Well, since we're sharing, here's why I call pro-choicers "full of beans" when they get self-righteous.

1. First of all, if this is all about choice, why doesn't the father have any choices? I get that the mother bears 100% of the biological commitment, but why isn't the father allowed to opt out of the financial commitment (forced child support)?

You have to ask Lursa about that, because I think the man should be allowed to opt out - but he owes the woman he impregnated 50% of the least expensive option - abortion plus attendant costs.

2. Why do "pro-choice" people act as though people who conceived a child had no choice about using birth control before they created a baby? . . . .

Pro-choicers do not act that way. Lots of women got pregnant while using b.c., because it's not 100%. That first choice was a rejection of pregnancy, and if mindless biology didn't obey, there are more choices.

3. Third, why do "pro-choice" people also not recognize adoption as just as much of a viable choice as any other when it comes to having an unwanted pregnancy? . . . .

Adoption is only a viable choice if you think it is. Most women who have just risked their lives and health for several months to give birth do not want to give a child to strangers who could sexually or physically abuse it.
Abortion does not "destroy a baby." It stops a process, pregnancy, of biologically growing a future child from a biological blueprint.

My cousin and her husband, same situation, adopted a brother and sister whose parents died. The reason your BIL and SIL had to wait is that 1)they wanted a newborn; 2)they were on a list. It is morally wrong to expect a stranger to gestate/grow a baby for you. She could die or have lifelong health problems or physical damage.

4. Why do "pro-choice" people always assume that a pro-life stance is synonymous with Christianity? First of all, I'm not aware of a major world religion that doesn't condemn abortion . . . .

I'm a pro-choice Christian. So is minnie. Major world religions were started and maintained by men who had a vested interest in future generations more than in the women who produced them. Women have a right to decide, because they can die or be irreparably injured or have serious health problems.

5. Why do "pro-choice" people act as though pretty much every other societal precedence regarding preserving and revering innocent human life doesn't apply in the case of abortion?

Because they can be killed or irreparably injured or have health problems because of pregnancy.

6. Why do "pro-choice" people act as though the intentions of pro-life people regarding what happens to a baby after he or she is born (which they feel 100% qualified to mind-read) really have anything to do with whether it's o.k. to destroy them . . .

Women and girls have died, been irreparably injured, or had serious health problems because of pregnancy.

But mostly, women don't have to have sex, and if the pro-life lobby had its way, most women and girls would never have sex with men again except to get pregnant. Men would not like it.

 

[mrjurrs]

It begins with comprehensive sex education in both public and private schools, with no parental opt-outs or religious exemptions allowed. Every girl in America must learn it before her first period. Every boy must learn it before his first ejaculation. One period, one ejaculation, one rape: that is all it takes for a 10-year old girl to get pregnant, drop out of school, lose friends, and suffer both physically and psychologically the rest of her life. This can happen to any fertile girl or woman who did not get a complete sex education.

It also can happen to anyone that rec'd that education.

 

[choiceone]

O.k., so the number of cells distinguishes it from a human being? How many cells qualify for that status?

An embryo before implantation is, so far as we know, immortal, because it can be frozen for a long time and then defrosted and used: don't try it with your body, because you have organs, and they can't be frozen (yet).

To get organs, an embryo has to be implanted in a woman's body, get oxygen, nutrients, and anti-bodies as if it were part of that body, by using her organs. Until they are each sufficiently grown, they cannot properly differentiate and be capable of complex functions. Etc.

At birth, a newborn has an organism completely separate from the woman and not dependent on her for life. Anyone can care for it. It can take in oxygen by itself - even if it needs an incubator. It can take in nutrients by itself - even if it needs a feeding tube.

It can be conscious and see light and dark (if little else) and otherwise experience and respond to stimuli, and it can have its own feelings/thoughts (however primitive) and express them (however primitively). That is a human being, a person.

The case of conjoined twins shows that it is necessary to have something beyond a separate organism with organs, because they have only one organism, technically, and sometimes it involves a conjoining that can't be surgically made into two organisms.

But if it has two heads with functional brains, ears/eyes/touch sensitivity, breathing and sound-making apparatus, etc., each of the twins can perceive/feel/express differently, and it is recognized that there are two human beings, two persons.

How many cells? Unbelievable.