By this same definition, those who are asleep are no longer sentient.
How about those for whom mind functions have ceased, or are unconscious, perchance in a coma? Would they be sentient according to your definition?
As you can see, I find this definition of 'sentient' rather lacking. Most especially in regard to, not only babies in the womb, but our most least fortunate, if I may be so bold as to deem them [disabled persons] so.
Sleep is certainly an altered state of consciousness, whether it is a loss of self awareness is debateable. I'll certainly agree that someone anaesthetised or in a coma is not self aware. However, you'll note I also mentioned "community acceptance" going into personhood. i.e it isn't just that you yourself consider you to be a person, but that also you presumeably have friends, family, workplace, debts, debtors, responsibilities and so on that continue even when consciousness ceases. Further, a person going to sleep or into a coma has previously experienced self awareness, and their sentience on regaining consciousness is a continuation of what existed before, it is not something new.
Disabled people are a bit of a grey area in my own mind. They are the reason my beliefs changed from personhood depending purely on self awareness to the community recognition bit. A severely disabled person may not have any sense of self, however, if their family, friends, associates, or whatever consider them a person, and value them accordingly, then that still counts for something.
I contend that a foetus lacks these elements, at least an early stage foetus. Now, I know you are about to say that many parents and families feel they are bonding with the unborn before its born, and that is true. But I would contend that the people who feel they have a bond with the unborn are not the same people likely to seek an abortion.
Breathing is recieving of oxygen is it not?
Inhale, exhale?
You are aware that babies in the womb respirate. Very good. praise God!
It took me weeks to scour the web to find that information, but God told me it was there, and I kept searching 'till I found it.
Again, let's look at this from an alternative perspective;
What of those [lets say adults, for the sake of arguement] who are on respirators?
They are not 'breathing' per say, but rather, as is the case with babies in the womb, recieving oxygen through a means and, as well, exhale via alternate means, rather than via the natural functions of thier bodies under thier own power.
Are they [these persons on respirators, unable to breath on thier own], no longer human beings either?
OK... first of all, allow me to get technical for a minute.
"Breathing", is PART of the respiratory process. Breathing is, specifically, the inhalation and exhalation of gasses by the lungs to facilitate oxygenation, waste disposal and pH buffering of the body by the lungs. In utero babies don't, technically, do this. A foetus does, of course, "respire", as do all aerobic organisms, but in the case of an in utero foetus, all respiration is enabled by blood exchange with the mother, so technically, while both mother and baby "respire", it is only the mother who "breaths".
OK, thats the technical bit out of the way...
Now... personally, I think it quite likely that a foetus has some basic level of self awareness, and thus can be considered a person, from about 24 weeks gestation onwards. I didn't make up the "not a person until it draws breath" thing, as I've been saying all along, that is an ancient belief of the Jewish people, built on the foundation of a passage in the book of Exodus. I'm not arguing that a foetus isn't a person until it draws breath, because I don't actually believe that. What I am arguing, is that the "God" or "the Bible says abortion is murder" argument is false, because it quite plainly doesn't, as evidenced by the "not a person until a breath" thing. Sorry, I know it sounds trite, but I'm not the person to argue this point with here... its sort of one of those things you need to take up with the author of Exodus.
As to people on respirators, thats a really good question, I'd be interested to know what the strict position of orthodox Jewdaism is on that point. However, since people on a respirator can and frequently do maintain their sentience (and their community recognition) I fully believe they are a person.
Just because you don't believe it, does not mean it doesn't happen, surely?
Question is;
Could it?
IS it possible?
Sure it COULD happen. I fully admit that my beliefs about when, where and how we get a soul is just that, my belief. It is not based in any way on any sort of empirical evidence. I have what I believe is a sound basis for believing as I do, but I also freely admit may be mistaken. You will notice I never actually state that a foetus/embryo/fertilised ova DOESN'T have a soul, merely that I don't believe it does, and that the authors of the Bible seem to agree with me. Finally, I might ask others why they believe that something that is less self aware than a goldfish has a soul, and how that works, exactly, but I almost never get a direct answer to that question.
What makes you say it is not being human?
Surely it is being itself, which is human, no?
This is one of those times when the English language is a little less than precise, but I'll try.
In this case "human" means "human material, biologically something that is generated by or part of an human organism". "Human BEING" means a person, a self aware entity. If you can see the distinction.
So, a foetus (especially an early stage one);
Human? Check. Definitely something generated by an human organism.
Living? Check. Metabolic processes going on, respiring, producing waste, growing, consuming, doing all the things necessary to be considered alive. No question.
Human being/person? No. Until it has at least a basic awareness, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with the idea that a thing that simply has no sense of "self" as being a person.
You understand that this universally recognised idea is one of philoshopical origins?
Absolutely. And like I just said, I don't actually believe this idea, I believe a foetus can and should be considered a person LONG before birth and the first breath. The only reason I'm including this whole bit about the first breath in the discussion is to show those people who want to say "God calls abortion murder" that it just ain't so. I believe it's important to be precise about serious issues, so thats why I'm going so all out trying to explain this point. I have no problem with people thinking abortion is wrong, evil, bad, wicked, selfish, arrogant or a whole bunch of other negative words. But when someone says something I know is mistaken, well, I have this incredible urge to try to show them their mistake.
Just so there's no offense taken.
Absolutely none taken! And I sincerely hope you aren't taking offence at anything I'm saying either! Having a contrary point of opinion should never offend anyone, when I get offended is when people refuse to listen to another person's POV, or are straight out rude, offensive or dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them, purely BECAUSE they disagree with them.
And also you, sister