>Not really, that's the point. It is so long as you define a human as having a certain level of brain activity. >Severe mental disabilities such as completely

>Not really, that's the point. It is so long as you define a human as having a certain level of brain activity. >Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain? I mean severe autism or something like that. >Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human. I looked into it a bit. First, it is quite dangerous for the woman so removing it would be acceptable in every state. I don't have an issue with this. Second, some of the situations there is no embryo tissue. I don't have a problem calling it dead in this case. Third, I am not sure about a partial one. I think it is a malformed human, but I am not really knowledgeable about this. Just because somebody has a chromosomal issue doesn't mean they are not human. Down syndrome people have chromosomal issues but are still humans. Just because there is a difference in viable doesn't change the humanness of the person. You may have justification to remove it from the uterus to protect the mother though.