At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

Question

This question was asked to both Obama and McCain at the Saddleback Church debate.

In a short answer, how would you answer?

Answer 1

When it's capable of sustaining life independently of its mother.

PS: Did someone just bring up murdering a pregnant *panda* down there? LMAO

Answer 2

Short answer...birth.

Answer 3

At the point of viability.  Meaning, where the baby could survive outside the womb, with modern neonatal interventions.  

Answer 4

At conception.

"Look at it this way, if someone were to break into a zoo, and kill a pregnant panda, they would be arrested for along time, shouldn't the same happen if that was human baby?"~Charles Medlocke

A criminal can kill an unborn baby, and get 40 years for it, so doesn't that mean the courts are serious enough to say that it was alive to put a man away for 40 years, so if the courts consider it alive, shouldn't you?

I expect women to say in this question "The govenment shouldn't tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.", thats an excuse to have an abortion, saying it is "their body", NO IT ISN'T, it is the LIFE of the baby inside a woman, not just something that isn't alive in your body until it's born.

After a certain period of time, when women get ultra-sounds, do they not see the heart beating?

To say that it a womens right to do what she wants with her body, under that same logic, wouldn't pro-choicers also think that tatoos at any age, prostitution, and suicide as a "right"?

The thing that bothers me the most about abortions, is when women just use them as another form of birth-control, that is wrong... period.

As the liberal media (and Obama) has been saying that a pro-life President does not and will not lower the number of abortions, just as GWB didn't, that is simply not true, and statistically proven so. Abortions has been at it's all time low since 1981. It's sad that 40,000 is an all time low...

They (the unborn baby) has every right to live, just as you do, so why take that right away, saying it's your right to abort him/her?

Edit; to the first answerer; "When it's capable of sustaining life independently of its mother."

Under that logic, would you also say that the elderly that depend on people that help them in nursing homes don't have human rights? Or people that can only live if they have medical attention each day (life support for example), do they loose that human rights.

You pro-choicers arguement is all the same, an arguement that doesn't hold water, one point always contradicts another.

They may say how is making it illegal going to stop abortions, women are still going to do it, but that logic, again contradicts their ever so enthuiseism of banning guns, if you ban guns, criminals will still get them.

To Thnxbai: Yes, I did, as wild as that seems, it is true, if someone killed the life inside a pregnant animal of an indangered species, they would go to prison for a long time, so if an indangered animals baby has rights before birth, shouldn't a human. Just pointing out the rediculousness of the fact only shows how rediculous it is that an unborn indangered animal has more rights than an unborn human baby, but thats if your smart enough to realize a panda is an indangered species, and I was using that as an example in the first place.

You have yet to reply to my response to your first point, by the way.

Answer 5

well at least you all have answers..obama didn't cuz it was "above his pay grade"

Answer 6

At conception.

Answer 7

Conception...God Bless

Answer 8

According to Obama even if someone tries to abort a baby late term and they survive, they do not have human rights. Therefore they are allowed to be left in soiled utility rooms waiting sometimes for hours to die.

Answer 9

3rd trimester, then birth.  

Answer 10

It helps to be born...or at least capable of surviving outside a womb