Is a fetus a Human being?

[AnnaG]

I've been digging a little since dinner. By all appearances, the experts in human development before birth consider human life starts well before birth. The US Congress and the Big O also imply it, because they banned federal embryonic research.

- NIH
Why would they do that for a mushroom?




The most prominent medical dictionary around implies that a human zygote is nothing else than a human zygote:

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” — Langman’s Medical Embryology, 7th edition, 1995




continued here.




- Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics. Patrick Lee is professor of philosophy at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. The New Atlantis » Acorns and Embryos





- Human Embryo Research -- Committee on Pediatric Research and Committee on Bioethics 108 (3): 813 -- AAP Policy




CNSNews.com - Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It

I am bumping my own post because at least 1 poster refuses to acknowledge the science and the law of the US.

 

[AnnaG]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/85676-fetus-human-being-3.html#post1126353

Post #67

 

[Kreskin]

Anna, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[AnnaG]

With the research I just posted several times, I was pointing out that science considers people to be humans before birth. And the US Congress implies it. I thought I was pretty clear on that

 

[Kreskin]

Well we certainly don't give birth to other species so I sure hope it's a developing human.

The supreme courts are what really matters when it comes to the law, or the constitutionality of law.

 

[AnnaG]

Well, I just hope Sir Joey reads what I posted before what I posted gets buried behind 8 pages of petty squabbles in this thread

 

[Machjo]

I Got it! Eureka, I finally got it. At conception, we don't ahve a human but a feotus. At birth, we dont' have a human, but a baby. Then we have a child, then a pre-teen, then a teen, then an adult, then a senior... Hmmm... there's a problem with that. When does the human kick in again?

 

[AnnaG]

Actually, it's zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn.
And the answer to your question is in post #67 up there^

 

[Machjo]

Actually, it's zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn.

Ah, thanks for the corection. It would appeasr then that we transform ourselves into many different kinds of animals all our lives. So I guess the human stage comes only after death?

 

[Cannuck]

Ah, thanks for the corection. It would appeasr then that we transform ourselves into many different kinds of animals all our lives.

Just animals? Joey talked about mushrooms and Terri Schrivo (she could have been classified as a vegetable).

 

[AnnaG]

Could be. After all a dead human being is unmistakably a dead human being.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yes, a fetus is a human being. That's not the issue at all. The issue is, under what circumstances is it permissible to kill a human being? All societies throughout history have accepted that there are such circumstances. War and self defense are only the most obvious ones. Any argument that talks about a woman's right to control her body is fraudulent, it's not a question of rights either, it's about what's possible and practical and justifiable. If a woman actually could control her body the issue of abortion would never arise, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. You can't claim a right to something that's impossible in practical terms, that's just rhetoric that clouds the issue.

 

[Kreskin]

I have no doubt that's your entire issue. Some of us see the bigger picture. Perhaps you should run along and let us continue. If you want to start a thread about pushing and shoving, I'm sure there may be some that are interested.

You don't think the Supreme Courts look at the bigger picture when evaluating constitutional rights? Hopefully they'll pop in here the next time they need to research this topic.

 

[AnnaG]

Quoting Mr. Sinister

Yes, a fetus is a human being. That's not the issue at all. The issue is, under what circumstances is it permissible to kill a human being? All societies throughout history have accepted that there are such circumstances. War and self defense are only the most obvious ones. Any argument that talks about a woman's right to control her body is fraudulent, it's not a question of rights either, it's about what's possible and practical and justifiable. If a woman actually could control her body the issue of abortion would never arise, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. You can't claim a right to something that's impossible in practical terms, that's just rhetoric that clouds the issue.

I tend to agree, however, if anyone should have a say over what happens with a woman's body, it should be no-one else but the woman.Particularly not a bunch of people who base their entire existence on the feasibility of an extremely unlikely maybe. Or, for that matter, should a bunch of old fogeys sitting in some federal institution who may or may not base their decisions on science. But I guess we are stuck with the latter.

 

[Cannuck]

You don't think the Supreme Courts look at the bigger picture when evaluating constitutional rights?

No, they just look at the law and rule on that. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

 

[Cliffy]

Quoting Mr. Sinister

I tend to agree, however, if anyone should have a say over what happens with a woman's body, it should be no-one else but the woman.Particularly not a bunch of people who base their entire existence on the feasibility of an extremely unlikely maybe. Or, for that matter, should a bunch of old fogeys sitting in some federal institution who may or may not base their decisions on science. But I guess we are stuck with the latter.

Or an anonymous bunch of people on a forum. It's a good thing this forum has no influence outside of here. Nothing would ever get done.;-)

 

[AnnaG]

Kind of reminds me of question periods. lol

 

[Kreskin]

No, they just look at the law and rule on that. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Although US, but using it as an example, have you ever read the Row v Wade decision in its entirety?

 

[ironsides]

This may be hard to do, but please try and keep this to the subject. "Is a fetus a human being". Being a conservative, religious right or left, liberal, pro or anti abortion is not the question. Those issues can be taken up with what month you allow or disallow abortion. What was expressed is not an opinion, but scientific fact. "A fetus is a human". Based upon the evidence shown, can that statement be denied with evidence?

 

[ironsides]

That does not make it a human being, Anna.

There is no argument between scientist that a fetus is not a human being. The argument is more a legal issue, when does that fetus (human) get legal rights.