Saddleback point: At what point is a life a life?

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Corbett
I think no matter how hard the Obama water boys here @ ATP&N try to spin it, this is the most damning evidence that Obama is just another hardcore liberal. I dont understand how ANYONE who says they oppose abortion "personally" can vote to have a LIVING BABY OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB KILLED.

Absolutely disgusting.

Don't believe the dishonest description of the bill presented in this hatchet-job article. Read the bill for yourself (go back a couple of pages in the thread) and you'll discover it doesn't "simply prohibit the killing of a baby born alive."

The fact that you accept on faith the grossly inaccurate characterizations made in this article, without tracking down the actual text of the bill and determining for yourself what the bill actually says, is a pretty damning indictment of your intellectual prowess.

Newsflash. A living fetus outside of the womb is not a fetus. Its a human being.

why? simply because it is outside of the womb, regardless of its gestational period?

You're going to have to provide a real argument for such a baseless claim, b/c that's pretty damn ridiculous. What, exactly, is a "living fetus?"

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Corbett
I think no matter how hard the Obama water boys here @ ATP&N try to spin it, this is the most damning evidence that Obama is just another hardcore liberal. I dont understand how ANYONE who says they oppose abortion "personally" can vote to have a LIVING BABY OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB KILLED.

Absolutely disgusting.

Don't believe the dishonest description of the bill presented in this hatchet-job article. Read the bill for yourself (go back a couple of pages in the thread) and you'll discover it doesn't "simply prohibit the killing of a baby born alive."

The fact that you accept on faith the grossly inaccurate characterizations made in this article, without tracking down the actual text of the bill and determining for yourself what the bill actually says, is a pretty damning indictment of your intellectual prowess.

Newsflash. A living fetus outside of the womb is not a fetus. Its a human being.

What in the world makes you think that's the argument here? Because some political hack with a vested interest in convincing you of something told you so? For God's sake, think for yourself once in a while. Bills are complex pieces of legislature that often contain dozens of different aspects, any one of which a reasonable person might use as a reason to reject the bill even if they don't disagree with ALL of the bill. Trying to spin this as "Obama votes to have a living baby killed" is stupid, but not as stupid as you buying the argument.

Try to follow along ....

Originally posted by: shira

So lets analyze:

This bill defines any living fetus outside the womb, at any stage of development, a person.

That statement alone makes it clear why this bill is totally unacceptable to anyone who is pro-choice: If a fetus (even a one-week-old fetus) happens to survive extraction from the womb, then killing the fetus thereafter is murder. And if the fetus cannot be killed absent fear of prosecution for murder, that means it's the abortion clinic's responsibility to fight to keep the fetus alive. regardless of cost.

wait. you mean one week after fetal stage? or one week after conception? one week after conception, the embryo is barely at blastula stage. it sure as shit isn't a fetus. it isn't even a fully-formed ball of cells. You probably couldn't even see the damn thing. Besides, this is when most naturally occurring spontaneous abortions occur. Women abort embryos quite frequently, actually; without even knowing they were pregnant.

I hope you mean the latter...or this is just another case of those not knowing anything about the issues that they try to cram down everyone else's throats.

 

[between]

 

[HeXploiT]

While you people waste time on this issue foolish men continue to run our nation. don't you know that those in control don't give a damn about abortion or gay rights? All they care about is keeping the two party system in control. Either way their bases are covered.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks
As to the second point, do you believe a woman whose life is in danger should be able to abort her fetus?

Life, not lifestyle, yes.

So when it comes down to it, the mother's life has more worth than the unborn baby and when her life is in danger, the baby must die so that the mother may live?

I see it more as a logical deduction, but ultimately yes.

If the mother's life is in danger, someone is going to die. If we must decide who dies, I would agree that the mother's life is paramount.

Saying a woman's "life is in danger" very rarely means that the woman will surely die if she continues to carry the fetus, as medical science isn't nearly that exact. It definitely means there's a greater risk she'll die than if she weren't pregnant, but just the fact the woman is pregnant increases the risk to the woman's life. So, how large a risk of death justifies a woman's receiving an abortion? 9 out of 10? 1 in 2? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000?

There's also the issue of short term risk of death versus long term. Suppose that the immediate risk of death is "small" (say, 1 in 10,000), but it's very likely the woman's health will be damaged (maybe it will cause her to become hypertensive), which will reduce her life expectancy by several years. Does THAT justify abortion?

Or suppose the risk is solely to health, not to life. Suppose, for example, that if the woman gives birth, she'll likely go blind? Would that justify abortion?

Or suppose the risk to health is smaller. Suppose the woman will have increased risk of arthritis, meaning that she'll be facing the likelihood of a more painful existence in her later years if she gives birth? Would THAT justify abortion? In other words, is reduced quality of life a valid justification for abortion?

And does reduced quality of life HAVE to be merely based on health? If so, why? Why is more physical pain a valid justification but more emotional pain NOT a valid justification?

And so on.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Corbett
I think no matter how hard the Obama water boys here @ ATP&N try to spin it, this is the most damning evidence that Obama is just another hardcore liberal. I dont understand how ANYONE who says they oppose abortion "personally" can vote to have a LIVING BABY OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB KILLED.

Absolutely disgusting.

Don't believe the dishonest description of the bill presented in this hatchet-job article. Read the bill for yourself (go back a couple of pages in the thread) and you'll discover it doesn't "simply prohibit the killing of a baby born alive."

The fact that you accept on faith the grossly inaccurate characterizations made in this article, without tracking down the actual text of the bill and determining for yourself what the bill actually says, is a pretty damning indictment of your intellectual prowess.

Newsflash. A living fetus outside of the womb is not a fetus. Its a human being.

What in the world makes you think that's the argument here? Because some political hack with a vested interest in convincing you of something told you so? For God's sake, think for yourself once in a while. Bills are complex pieces of legislature that often contain dozens of different aspects, any one of which a reasonable person might use as a reason to reject the bill even if they don't disagree with ALL of the bill. Trying to spin this as "Obama votes to have a living baby killed" is stupid, but not as stupid as you buying the argument.

Try to follow along ....

Originally posted by: shira

So lets analyze:

This bill defines any living fetus outside the womb, at any stage of development, a person.

That statement alone makes it clear why this bill is totally unacceptable to anyone who is pro-choice: If a fetus (even a one-week-old fetus) happens to survive extraction from the womb, then killing the fetus thereafter is murder. And if the fetus cannot be killed absent fear of prosecution for murder, that means it's the abortion clinic's responsibility to fight to keep the fetus alive. regardless of cost.

wait. you mean one week after fetal stage? or one week after conception? one week after conception, the embryo is barely at blastula stage. it sure as shit isn't a fetus. it isn't even a fully-formed ball of cells. You probably couldn't even see the damn thing. Besides, this is when most naturally occurring spontaneous abortions occur. Women abort embryos quite frequently, actually; without even knowing they were pregnant.

I hope you mean the latter...or this is just another case of those not knowing anything about the issues that they try to cram down everyone else's throats.

I used the words "fetus" loosely, to refer to the post-conception "entity" carried by the mother. I realize that "fetus" when used formally refers to that entity at the end of the 8th week post-conception. The bill does is NOT restricted to fetuses. It's actual words are:

As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles

From information I found after my original post on the bill, it looks like 22 days post-conception (that is, when the heart begins to beat) is the earliest that, under the terms of the bill, the "member of the species homo sapiens" could be considered "born alive."

Note that the very earliest abortions are performed 5 to 7 days after the first missed period (earliest abortions) and that a woman can easily be fertile 11 days after her last menstruation (17 days before the missed period). Thus, in practice, even the earliest possible abortion can be dealing with a 22-day-old "member". That is, there's no way for abortion providers to know with confidence that the "member of the species homo sapiens" they're about to remove is LESS than 22 days old.

Thus, every, single abortion performed would be affected by this bill. And since early abortions are performed by sucking the lining of the uterus into a tube, it's very likely that the "member" in the sucked-out material would have a heartbeat. Thus, when the "member" died shortly thereafter, that would be murder.

That's why I call this bill a complete fraud. Its proponents disguise it as an effort to protect aborted third-trimester babies that have a chance to live full lives, but the reality is that the bill makes even the EARLIEST abortions - as typically performed - illegal.

 

[Toasthead]

in Spain, chimps have human rights...

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
The question was: At what point does a baby get human rights?

My answer: When it is born.

They're both giving silly answers. Why are presidential candidates arguing about abortion or their faith anyway?

Because a section of voters believe that to be their main issue, or certainly an important issue on their political agenda.

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: Colt45
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one... simple enough, yeah?

Abortions or not is not the issue here.

Yes it is. The whole point of raising the conception issue in any political sphere is tacitly tying the discussion to the abortion issue.

Colt45 has it right. If you don't believe in abortion don;t have one. There are others whose culture / faith does not address the issue as Christianity does.. Why should they be forced to give up their choices just because a majority if Christian voters feel so.

So if my religion/culture/faith thinks its okay to shoot people in the face then I should be allowed to? Its not a religious issue. I think the main issue is should abortion be a form of birth control. I think this is irresponsible. There are MANY ways to prevent pregnancy and ALL those steps should be taken.

Although the freakeconomist in me says PLEASE abort the kids you will not support or take care of, they will become criminals anyway

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

For the last time, we're not searching for the beginning of life, but the beginning of humanity. Cells are inherently alive, human or not.

No, we're searching for the beginning of personhood. Not everything that is human is a person, and it is persons that are the objects of rights and duties in the positive law of the United States.

If a baby at some point becomes human, then any unnecessary killing of the baby after the point of humanity is murder. Therefore, if humanity begins at conception, any unnecessary abortion is murder.

Wrong. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being (i.e. person) with malice aforethought. It's human-ness is insufficient to qualify it for rights under the law. HeLa cell cultures, tissue samples, cancer cells... all examples of things human and alive which people regularly kill and face no legal retribution.

That's the logical argument. I don't know that I agree if humanity begins at conception or not.

Of course it doesn't begin at conception. The sperm and egg are already human. The zygote is still human. At no point in the human reproductive process does anything become non-human.

Name something that is a human being that isn't a person. We're stuck arguing terms.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Name something that is a human being that isn't a person. We're stuck arguing terms.

I have never argued that human beings are not persons. I've only said that not all things which are human and alive are persons.

You need to be careful with the term "human being," because it isn't as rigorous of a term as "person." Legally, they are synonymous, but it easy for lazy thinkers to suppose that human objects like cells are the same as human beings becase of the sloppy sense in which things can be considered "beings." Not everthing that can "be" is a "being," in other words.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Name something that is a human being that isn't a person. We're stuck arguing terms.

I have never argued that human beings are not persons. I've only said that not all things which are human and alive are persons.

You need to be careful with the term "human being," because it isn't as rigorous of a term as "person." Legally, they are synonymous, but it easy for lazy thinkers to suppose that human objects like cells are the same as human beings becase of the sloppy sense in which things can be considered "beings." Not everthing that can "be" is a "being," in other words.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

So a mircosecond before the point of birth, the fetus isn't human....pretty much according to rules that we just...make up? What happens at birth that magically bestows humanity?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Name something that is a human being that isn't a person. We're stuck arguing terms.

I have never argued that human beings are not persons. I've only said that not all things which are human and alive are persons.

You need to be careful with the term "human being," because it isn't as rigorous of a term as "person." Legally, they are synonymous, but it easy for lazy thinkers to suppose that human objects like cells are the same as human beings becase of the sloppy sense in which things can be considered "beings." Not everthing that can "be" is a "being," in other words.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

So a mircosecond before the point of birth, the fetus isn't human...

I have never argued that the fetus is non-human at any point of human reproduction and development. Please pay attention and read more carefully. That an object is properly characterized at "human" (i.e. gametes, cell cultures, tissue samples) does not make it the same thing as a "human being" (i.e. a person).

Persons are human, born, and alive.

pretty much according to rules that we just...make up? What happens at birth that magically bestows humanity?

Seriously, you need to read what I write, and actually think about it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Name something that is a human being that isn't a person. We're stuck arguing terms.

I have never argued that human beings are not persons. I've only said that not all things which are human and alive are persons.

You need to be careful with the term "human being," because it isn't as rigorous of a term as "person." Legally, they are synonymous, but it easy for lazy thinkers to suppose that human objects like cells are the same as human beings becase of the sloppy sense in which things can be considered "beings." Not everthing that can "be" is a "being," in other words.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

That makes no sense to me at all. If "human life, born alive" is the necessary and sufficient criterion for personhood, then under that standard if a physician performs a Cesarean abortion at 9-months term (cuts open the mother and stabs the fetus in the heart until it's dead, then pulls the dead fetus out of the womb), that would be a perfectly legal abortion (if done with the consent of the mother).

Why go to such extremes? A better approach would be to define a fetus at some definite stage of development (5 months term, say) as a "person" and put increasing legal barriers (but not an outright ban) in place for abortions of fetuses beyond that point. And if the killing of "born-alive," late-term fetuses is a concern, pass laws requiring that abortions beyond 5 months be performed such as to preserve the life of the fetus (which happily is also consistent with the safest procedure for the mother) and also stating that a fetus so delivered becomes a ward of the state, unless the father or mother wants it.

To me, the above makes a lot of sense. I'm not aware of any pro-choice folks who insist that a late-term-aborted fetus be killed. As far as I can tell, only the rabid anti-abortion camp doesn't want such laws, because they think even just-fertilized eggs are people.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Name something that is a human being that isn't a person. We're stuck arguing terms.

I have never argued that human beings are not persons. I've only said that not all things which are human and alive are persons.

You need to be careful with the term "human being," because it isn't as rigorous of a term as "person." Legally, they are synonymous, but it easy for lazy thinkers to suppose that human objects like cells are the same as human beings becase of the sloppy sense in which things can be considered "beings." Not everthing that can "be" is a "being," in other words.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

So a mircosecond before the point of birth, the fetus isn't human...

I have never argued that the fetus is non-human at any point of human reproduction and development. Please pay attention and read more carefully. That an object is properly characterized at "human" (i.e. gametes, cell cultures, tissue samples) does not make it the same thing as a "human being" (i.e. a person).

Persons are human, born, and alive.

pretty much according to rules that we just...make up? What happens at birth that magically bestows humanity?

Seriously, you need to read what I write, and actually think about it.

Once again we're arguing terminology.

So a microsecond before birth, a fetus isn't a person? Why? Says who? What about birth magically bestows personhood, or human beingness, or whatever term you insist upon using?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Name something that is a human being that isn't a person. We're stuck arguing terms.

I have never argued that human beings are not persons. I've only said that not all things which are human and alive are persons.

You need to be careful with the term "human being," because it isn't as rigorous of a term as "person." Legally, they are synonymous, but it easy for lazy thinkers to suppose that human objects like cells are the same as human beings becase of the sloppy sense in which things can be considered "beings." Not everthing that can "be" is a "being," in other words.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

So a mircosecond before the point of birth, the fetus isn't human...

I have never argued that the fetus is non-human at any point of human reproduction and development. Please pay attention and read more carefully. That an object is properly characterized at "human" (i.e. gametes, cell cultures, tissue samples) does not make it the same thing as a "human being" (i.e. a person).

Persons are human, born, and alive.

pretty much according to rules that we just...make up? What happens at birth that magically bestows humanity?

Seriously, you need to read what I write, and actually think about it.

Once again we're arguing terminology.

We wouldn't be if you would've grasped it the first time.

So a microsecond before birth, a fetus isn't a person?

Basically, yes.

Why? Says who?

The law. Read the Fourteenth Amendment sometime.

What about birth magically bestows personhood, or human beingness, or whatever term you insist upon using?

There isn't anything magical about it. Personhood is a category into which we have grouped things which are human, born, and alive.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Name something that is a human being that isn't a person. We're stuck arguing terms.

I have never argued that human beings are not persons. I've only said that not all things which are human and alive are persons.

You need to be careful with the term "human being," because it isn't as rigorous of a term as "person." Legally, they are synonymous, but it easy for lazy thinkers to suppose that human objects like cells are the same as human beings becase of the sloppy sense in which things can be considered "beings." Not everthing that can "be" is a "being," in other words.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

That makes no sense to me at all. If "human life, born alive" is the necessary and sufficient criterion for personhood, then under that standard if a physician performs a Cesarean abortion at 9-months term (cuts open the mother and stabs the fetus in the heart until it's dead, then pulls the dead fetus out of the womb), that would be a perfectly legal abortion (if done with the consent of the mother).

There would be several other legal principles brought to bear in such a scenario. You need to understand that ultimately personhood is irrelevant, because no person, born or unborn, can occupy the body of another person without that person's consent. That is the basis for justified abortion: the fetus occupies the body of the mother in violation of her rights, but with her provisional consent it is allowed to remain.

Abortion is simply the means to end the violation of her rights. If after 9 months she wishes not to be violated anymore, then the doctor can remove the fetus and sever the umbilical cord. There is no need to euthanize the fetus. Moreoever, after 9 months of being fully congnizent of the violation to her rights and a total failure to take action to end that violation, the fetus can be argued to have earned "sqatter's rights."

The point is my definition is consistent with the modern legal principles, and does not lead to the bizarre scenarios you seem to think.

Why go to such extremes? A better approach would be to define a fetus at some definite stage of development (5 months term, say) as a "person" and put increasing legal barriers (but not an outright ban) in place for abortions of fetuses beyond that point. And if the killing of "born-alive," late-term fetuses is a concern, pass laws requiring that abortions beyond 5 months be performed such as to preserve the life of the fetus (which happily is also consistent with the safest procedure for the mother) and also stating that a fetus so delivered becomes a ward of the state, unless the father or mother wants it.

In reality, this will likely be the case. Early term abortions will continue on demand with later-term abortions requiring a doctor's approval and perhaps even the approval of a medical review board in extremely late-term cases. I'm in no way opposed to such arrangements.

 

[Atreus21]

So a microsecond before birth, a fetus isn't a person?

Basically, yes.

Why not.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

So a microsecond before birth, a fetus isn't a person?

Basically, yes.

Why not.

Already answered.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

So a microsecond before birth, a fetus isn't a person?

Basically, yes.

Why not.

Already answered.

Please indulge me. What happens in that microsecond that bestows personhood or human-being-ness on the baby?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

So a microsecond before birth, a fetus isn't a person?

Basically, yes.

Why not.

Already answered.

Please indulge me. What happens in that microsecond that bestows personhood or human-being-ness on the baby?

The same thing that turns bachelors into husbands the moment they are married.

The same thing that turns wives into widows the moment their husbands die.

The same thing that turns students into graduates the moment they graduate.

That's just where the line is drawn as a matter of definition. Persons are human, born, and alive. Before it is born, it isn't a person. How is this not sinking in? How many times must I repeat myself before you actually begin to think about my responses?

 

[sapiens74]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

So a microsecond before birth, a fetus isn't a person?

Basically, yes.

Why not.

Already answered.

Please indulge me. What happens in that microsecond that bestows personhood or human-being-ness on the baby?

The same thing that turns bachelors into husbands the moment they are married.

The same thing that turns wives into widows the moment their husbands die.

The same thing that turns students into graduates the moment they graduate.

That's just where the line is drawn as a matter of definition. Persons are human, born, and alive. Before it is born, it isn't a person. How is this not sinking in? How many times must I repeat myself before you actually begin to think about my responses?

While I agree, we need to be more consistent in our laws and verbiage

A pregnant women is not a mother, she is a host until the child is born, and then she becomes a mother.

If someone abuses, murders a pregnant woman, it can only be a crime against one person

And if continue to support abortion on demand we need to support it for whatver reason.

If the mother doesn't want a black child, a gay child, a child with blue eyes, and child with blonde hair, for whatever reason she deems fit.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

While I agree, we need to be more consistent in our laws and verbiage

A pregnant women is not a mother, she is a host until the child is born, and then she becomes a mother.

If someone abuses, murders a pregnant woman, it can only be a crime against one person.

Many states have stipulations in their murder statutes for fetuses apart from persons, as a matter of fact. Only the pregnant woman has the right to decide whether she will remain pregnant or not.

And if continue to support abortion on demand we need to support it for whatver reason.

If the mother doesn't want a black child, a gay child, a child with blue eyes, and child with blonde hair, for whatever reason she deems fit.

I realize you're being facetious, but in reality a woman has the right to become unpregnant for whatever reason she decides. You don't have to like it. Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant.

 

[Conky]

Despite my objections to abortion on a purely scientific level(I will leave my religious opinion at the door) I still abhor proponents of third term abortions and ESPECIALLY partial birth abortions. Obama has no issue with this stuff... he has decided for us and you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pir-etUBKKU

Watch that and tell me you don't care.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Conky
Despite my objections to abortion on a purely scientific level(I will leave my religious opinion at the door) I still abhor proponents of third term abortions and ESPECIALLY partial birth abortions. Obama has no issue with this stuff... he has decided for us and you.

Right. Obama just revels in the concept of aborted late-term fetuses squirming unattended on soiled linens, left to slowly die. Obama couldn't possibly oppose "born-alive baby" laws for principled reasons; it just has to be that he's an unfeeling, uncaring brute.

I just hope 50.1% of the electorate aren't is stupid as you are.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
then the doctor can remove the fetus and sever the umbilical cord. There is no need to euthanize the fetus..

later-term abortions requiring a doctor's approval and perhaps even the approval of a medical review board in extremely late-term cases.

Since the fetus has no rights by law and is considered part of the woman's body by law, how would a doctor or medical group establish "imminent domain" to go into her body against her will and do what they please with what they remove, at any point during the pregnancy up to and including 1 second before birth?

So if a tapeworm grows to a certain size/age inside her stomach, then it gains rights to remain there and/or be removed without being killed? A squatter is a person occupying another person's territory. Are you saying that a fetus should be granted personhood at a certain size/age? How about the tapeworm?