My criteria would be something like - has awareness and can feel pain, and I assume that's a similar time frame as the "survive independently" parameter.

agreed

I tend to agree with Dr. Block on the issue.

this sounds interesting, but you would have to explain away the long lines of people who want to adopt healthy infants.

lol

Bolded part is not at all obviously true. We get "technological increases" because of innovative ideas from people. The more people, the greater the likelihood that people will have great ideas. If anything, I think that centuries of increasing population and increasing standards of living suggest that the growth of technology will always outpace the growth of populations.

More people = more labor = more aggregate wealth = more cool stuff gets invented, more cool stuff gets produced. Or are you assuming that only boring unproductive schlubs would be selectively eliminated by expert death panels in your glorious population control regime?

Assume 50% of the people out there randomly disappeared. That means there's a 50% chance that your favorite musician is never born. 50% chance that there's no Steve Jobs. 50% chance there's no Issac Newton. 50% chance there's no Galileo.

OTOH, 50% chance there's no Hitler, Stalin, FDR, etc.

Overall, do you think we would be better off with 50% less?

Nice boogeyman. Overpopulation is not what we're talking about.

Mostly agree with Riverman on the right to privacy line of reasoning, always struck me as kinda weird.

I just take the tack that I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to force a couple who accidentally gets pregnant to go through with having the baby. That's enough in my lens. There's some arbitrary line down the road where things get hazy, but I don't particularly care too much.

I thought this was fascinating:

Unborn babies cry in mother's native tongue

Interesting.

Larger populations increase the tax base. Look at the social security ponzi scheme - we need more people at the bottom or else the pyramid inverts.

Q here for pro-lifers. If your wife/gf is pregnant but has not given birth during a census taking, is the fetus included in the form that you can fill out for the count. This assumes that that people in this thread would voluntarily participate in the census. I would answer no.

There is your answer of how many "persons" are residing at the residence. The idea of murder doesnt work in terms of the death of non-persons unless you want to stretch murder to cover the intentional killing of any animal, which I suspect is not the standard view in this forum.

So if someone answers yes, then what?

That depends on the baby, doesn't it?

There's got to be a timeline where people shift from "That's ok" to "That's murder!"

The morning after pill is basically an abortion. I know this is an old, tired argument, but it showcases the idea that for most people, it isn't a black or white issue. It's a matter of "when", as several have already indicated. Yes, some people will say immediately before delivery, and some will say we shouldn't even use condoms. Most people are in the gray area, and will never agree.

I used to say anytime before the third trimester, but if I HAD to pick a point during the pregnancy, I would say.....earlier than the youngest infant that has ever been born and survived with the ability to function normally. I don't even know what age that would be, btw.

Well, the morning after pill works in a particular way. It stops the implantation of the fetus. Obviously once the fetus is implanted, it's too late to stop the implantation.

Implantation is at least a specific dividing line (as birth is), not some wishy-washy "well third trimester is probably alive imo because that kinda looks like a baby" handwringing.

The point at which the the heart beats for the first time is also a specific dividing line. I was just giving the two extreme ends of the spectrum.

If someone kicks your 8 month pregnant wife in the stomach with the specific intention to kill the fetus, did he kill a person, or to expound on your question, did he commit murder? (the answer here is obviously yes)

Much more appropriate than attempting to a common government document like a census form to determine personhood imo.

What if we compromised and said unborn babies count as 3/5 of a person?

Sadly that's an improvement over right now

Anyone?

Going through a pregnancy is alot of physical trauma to stop from killing something with way less cognitive abilities and self awareness than what people usually eat for dinner.

Maybe I'm setting myself up to get Nielsio-pwned but I'll play: because you're denying another person one of their unalienable rights, the right to Life.

That doesn't answer the question, it just restates the question in an affirmative way. You're saying: people have the right not to be murdered.

The question is: why?

What is the source of these unalienable rights?

Important question, imo.