The only changes during birth are environmental.
Becoming separate from the mother's body is environmental.

It is irrational to claim the right to life on the basis of your environment.

The right to live cannot come from environment. The right to live belongs to those who are alive. (This is why dead people, who have been born just like you have, don't have the right to live - because they aren't alive).

Ethics and Philosophy are not pure sciences for goodness sake. The are Codes of Ethical Conduct based on ethical principles - but these are not scientific principles.

Philosophy in its simplest interpretation means a way of thinking - and every human being has a different set of neurones and ways of thinking (cognition). We can share ideas or concepts with others. But we all have individual cognitions.

Ethics and Philosophies are largely subjective - due to people's personal experiences, values, attitudes, and behavioural repetoires.

Cheers
Kay

Jose “The only changes during birth are environmental.
Becoming separate from the mother's body is environmental.
It is irrational to claim the right to life on the basis of your environment.”

The changes that accompany “birth” represent more than a change of “environment”.

The changes represent “independence” from the resources, protection and comfort of the mothers body.

The moment of birth means what was once a few cells that “changed” into an embryo and then “developed “(changed) into a fetus aspired to a life capability independent of the mother – eg. all the children who have survived a childbirth in which the mother died are proof of same.

It should be noted that until recently in western society and still, in less well advances societies, regardless of the “changes” which accompany the embryo/fetus along its journey to sovereign individuality, marked by the moment of “birth”, changes and serious risks accompany the mother.

Child birth can be one of the major influences of mortality risks.

The mother’s life is at greater risk during the processes of gestation and child birth than it is at other times.

Acceptance of those risk is the sovereign choice of the mother – they are not yours to impose upon her against her individual will.

The right to live belongs to those who are alive and the mother is “alive” and she also has the “choice”

As for what you said regarding dead people -
Your opinion lacks sufficient lucid reasoning to warrant any sensible comment

– beyond
"I “post”, therefore I must be "alive""!

Kalweb – agree completely everything you said

Col,
"The changes represent “independence” from the resources, protection and comfort of the mothers body."

I agree, that the child achieves greater independence from the mother.
But the fact that the child was not independent from the mother prior to birth, does not negate Individuality.
Again, independence is environmental. -(see my previous post for context)

"The moment of birth means what was once a few cells that “changed” into an embryo and then “developed “(changed) into a fetus aspired to a life capability independent of the mother."

It is important to recognise that we are talking about an "organism". It is not *merely* "a few cells" but is a living, human organism (Objective).

"...individuality,[is] marked by the moment of “birth”"
Again, Independence does not determine Individuality. Individuality comes from it being a living organism.

"...serious risks accompany the mother."
I completely agree. This amoung other reasons is why the decision to begin a pregnancy should be taken seriously.

"Acceptance of those risk is the sovereign choice of the mother – they are not yours to impose upon her against her individual will."
This is one amoung many reasons why I do not tolerate rape.
The acceptance of these risks is indeed up to the mother, which is why beginning a pregnancy is a serious decision. The woman has time to consider these serious risks before conception.

Jose “I agree, that the child achieves greater independence from the mother.”

You might, however my point is, prior to birth the embryo / fetus has “no” independence. Thus it cannot aspire to “greater” independence.

Prior to birth the embryo / fetus is completely and entirely “dependent” upon the mother.
In the last trimester some degree of “independence” starts to manifest. Prior to 25 weeks gestation the survival rate of premature deliveries does not exist evidencing a lack of inherent or developed “independence”.

“It is important to recognise that we are talking about an "organism". It is not *merely* "a few cells" but is a living, human organism (Objective).”

We ALL know what we are talking about, so what is your point? – Ultimately we combine consciousness and other higher abilities in a synergy with what is merely “a very large bunch of cells” to become “a living human organism”. However it all starts from just “a bunch of cells” – “consciousness etc” comes later and continues to develop for years after "birth".

“Again, Independence does not determine Individuality. Individuality comes from it being a living organism.”

Again the notion of “individuality” is a nonsense without “independence”.
Further, Individuality is a concept which develops and is not created at moment of conception. I could cite any number of non-abortion scenarios where “opportunity to express independence and individuality” being denied results in the complete repression of the individual – I suggest a brief visit on 20th century political studies will satisfy you on that score.

“This is one among many reasons why I do not tolerate rape.”

I would suggest your “intolerance to rape” will not prevent a single rapist from his bestial course.

Unfortunately the victim of such acts does not have the same opportunity. She has to make a decision, post trauma. My support is wholly and completely for her – it is her (violated) body. We should not add insult to her injury. She did not choose rape – but she can choose to remain pregnant or not – her choice.

One thing we directly disagree on:

You say Individuality HAS Independence as a pre-requisite.
I say Individuality DOES NOT HAVE Independence as a pre-requisite.
(Upper case used in lieu of italics)

The reason I say that Independence is not a pre-requisite of Individuality is because Individuality is biologically determined. The child is a distinct organism.

About consciousness etc,
Plants are individual organisms. Plants do not ever have consciousness etc.
The reason I brought up plants (before you think I'm green) was to make the point that Individuality is determined by being a distinct organism, and that cognitive faculties are secondary.

About the issue of rape,
Indeed the pregnancy has been forced upon the woman. This is why the rapist, if caught, must be made to pay sufficient compensation. If this cannot be met, the government should provide for the woman.

My point in emphasising that we are talking not merely about a few cells but about an organism is to emphasise the fact that it is an individual human organism.

Let us focus on our direct disagreement, that of Independence being or not being a pre-requisite of Individuality.