Is Mise,

<<When is a human being separate from the mother, at what stage is it still a foetus?>>

Answering this question is a key to when human life begins. What is the scientific evidence?

The American College of Pediatricians wrote an article to address this topic. Its abstract (summary) states:

“The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins” (When human life begins, http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins).

Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Maureen L Condic, reached a similar conclusion: 'When does human life begin? A scientific perspective, http://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf.

"If the embryo comes into existence at sperm-egg fusion, a human organism is fully present from the beginning, controlling and directing all of the develop-mental events that occur throughout life. This view of the embryo is objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other, and it is consistent with the factual evidence. It is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical questions surrounding the embryo:

"What value ought society to place on human life at the earliest stages of development? Does the human embryo possess the same right to life as do human beings at later developmental stages? A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species—human beings".

OzSpen,

If I may throw in a comment with a different spin.
In response to "When does human life begin"?
I propose that "human life", means a "living human being".
Now even though it may be the same living organism that was once inside a womb and later is born, it is not necessarily a "human being", until it takes it's first breath.
Think about it, it does not follow the old saying that "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck".
If that baby exited the womb, (wont say born for the purpose of this example) and it, for some reason does not breath air but finds it is capable of remaining in a liquid environment (such as water), similar to the womb, and it survives and prospers, (grows) is it in fact human?
It looks like a human but does not comply with ALL the specifications and requirements as laid down or set out by nature to be a "human being".
The answer is obviously, NO!
Humans are not designed to live in a liquid environment.
Unlike fish who can extract oxygen from water to survive, humans must do it from air.
So whatever this life form is, it is not "Human".
And if we say it is, then do we say it is a mutation, a faulty human, like queers and and midgets and any other life form that does not conform to the well established specifications and construct as has been the norm for the creation of "homo-sapiens", as we have reckognised as being such, and guided by historical reference of what a human being is and always has been and always will be.

ALTRAV,

"Now even though it may be the same living organism that was once inside a womb and later is born, it is not necessarily a "human being", until it takes it's first breath"

If it takes its first breath before the umbilical cord is severed is it still part of the mother?

Issy,

well, NO.
Because, (if I may use an engine as example) once the engine is started, via "jumper leads", let's call the umbilical, the jumper leads, the engine is running by itself.
So once the baby takes it's first breath, it is then and only then, "born".
It's not difficult to work out, because if the baby does not start breathing, and if no medical intervention, it is dead, or "still born".
By definition it is not a human being, because it does not fulfill the specifications of what a human being is.
Alive and breathing, for starters.
As it turns out Issy, nature answered your question for me.
The placenta automatically comes away once the child exits the womb, whether it is alive or not, it is a biological process implanted in the womans DNA and is just another automatic function that is set off by predetermined "triggers".
What happens to the baby if the umbilical cord is not cut away from the baby, I cannot say, but as long as it starts to breathe, it is now born.
I'm not sure but like other animals, I imagine the umbilical just shrivels up and die's off and eventually just falls away just like dead skin would.

ALTRAV: Yous say: "It looks like a human but does not comply with ALL the specifications and requirements as laid down or set out by nature to be a "human being"."

What I want to know is where exactly are these "specifications and requirements"? Can you show me a book/manual or maybe give me a web link that **NATURE** has produced with the details.

Additionally, there are a class of chemicals called perfluorochemicals in which it is theoretically possible to survive by "breathing" them even though they are a liquid. (eg: there is a picture in one of my old chemistry textbooks with a rat completely submersed in a solution of these- and it is doing fine. It survives by exacting dissolved oxygen even though its lungs are totally saturated with liquid). So the question I have for you is: if someone decides to lie immersed in a bath of this stuff are they now dead because they are not breathing air? Can I legally shot them and not be charged with manslaughter/murder because they are already dead?

Lastly, if I hold my breath, am I not living during this time? Do I die each time I'm deliberately not breathing then resurrect when I inhale?

I agree with Hasbeen! A wart or indeed a cancerous tumour is dividing cells supported by the host's blood flow. Ditto an embryo!

And just like the dividing cells of a fetus has no heartbeat to still! In order for something to qualify as murder, there has to be a heartbeat to still.

People choose to abort for numerous reasons, sometimes the baby's tissue and that of the mother reject the other and pose a significant danger to the living human parent and the, without a heartbeat to still, fetus.

Other times the incubator does not become pregnant with her informed consent as in rape or incest! And no fair-minded person on the planet is going to insist she carry to full term! But particularly in the case of incest where one, the child that is produced could be a gibbering idiot, the consequence of inbreeding, Or two, the mother is still a child whose life could be easily forfeit and that of the child if allowed to go full term.

Then here is the possibility of sex selection, not practised here just based on the provocative assumption without proof of the mischievious vexatious sh!te stirring author. Usually, because the parents as in China are not permitted to have more than one child, and that child is expected to support those parents in their dotage!

Similarly, in other countries, there is no age pension as such and the family is traditionally the support system for the parents and each other!

And if boys are more employable and or better paid, then the prospective parents are not given a real choice, neither are those let down by failed contraception!

Or the calloused indifference of those who continuously critique, but never ever put their hand in their pockets to assist raising the economically unaffordable child. We have just transitioned though the 7 billion number and soon to reach 9 billion!

If we were to successfully outlaw abortion, we'd transition through 20 billion. Look what 7 billion of us have already done to the planet and her finite resources, Dumbo!
Alan B.