Is a fetus a Human being?

[Cannuck]

That's just it. Some people think the issue is about whether or not a fetus is human life. It has nothing to do with it at all. That's why it's laughable; the same old senseless debates keep rolling on. Obviously people don't understand the issue, and they have no intention of understanding it.

It would appear that it is you that doesn't get it. Whether a fetus is a human is a key to the issue because defining it as human leads to giving it rights. It entails separating it from "the woman's body". It removes the woman"s right to choose from the discussion.

 

[Kreskin]

It would appear that it is you that doesn't get it. Whether a fetus is a human is a key to the issue because defining it as human leads to giving it rights. It entails separating it from "the woman's body". It removes the woman"s right to choose from the discussion.

Aha, another clueless. Their are two entities vying for control of one domain. Who do you think gets to control it, the woman or the fetus? It ain't both Einstein.

 

[gerryh]

Aha, another clueless. Their is two entities viung for control of one domain. Who do you think gets to control it, the woman or the fetus? It ain't both Einstein.

There wouldn't be any "vying for control" if the woman had not gotten pregnant. As I have said before, she didn't get pregnant out of the blue.

 

[Kreskin]

There wouldn't be any "vying for control" if the woman had not gotten pregnant. As I have said before, she didn't get pregnant out of the blue.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Cannuck]

Aha, another clueless. Their are two entities vying for control of one domain. Who do you think gets to control it, the woman or the fetus? It ain't both Einstein.

Content removed.
Of course it's both Einstein. Two entities have vied for control since the stork retired....or did your mommy not explain this stuff to you.

 

[gerryh]

Which, once again, has nothing to do with anything.

Of course not, because why should anyone expect people to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[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.

During each fiscal year from 1995 to 1999: the US Congress has passed appropriation bills which totally banned all federal government funding of human embryo research. The ban continues as of mid-1999. For example, the 1996/7 appropriation act which funds the NIH included the amendment:

"No federal research funds may be used for the creation of a human embryo for research purposes or for research in which a human embryo is destroyed, discarded or subjected to more than minimal risk." 4

The National Institutes of Health interpreted the 1998/9 appropriation act as follows:

"Section 513 reinstates the current ban that prohibits NIH from using appropriated funds to support human embryo research. Grant, cooperative agreement and contract funds may not be used for:

1. the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
2. research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under...the Public Health Service Act." 5

- 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

For people who advocate the killing of embryonic human beings in the cause of biomedical research, the Holy Grail is an argument that would definitively establish that the human embryo, at least early in its development, is not a living human organism and therefore not a human being at all. The problem for these advocates is that all the scientific evidence points in precisely the opposite direction. Modern human embryology and developmental biology have shown that fertilization produces a new and distinct organism: a living individual of the human species in the embryonic stage of his or her development.

Some proponents of embryo-destructive research are willing to face up to these biological facts. They concede that human embryos are living individuals of the human species, but deny that this gives them the moral status of being persons. According to this argument, not all human beings are equal; not all possess inherent dignity and a right to life. Some, including those at early developmental stages, are not (or are not yet) “persons,” and they may therefore (at least in some circumstances, or in the pursuit of some goals) legitimately be killed.

continued here.

But are human embryos human beings?

Indeed they are, and contemporary human embryology and developmental biology leave no significant room for doubt about it. The adult human being reading these words was, at an earlier stage of his or her life, an adolescent, and before that an infant. At still earlier stages he or she was a fetus and before that an embryo. In the infant, fetal, and embryonic stages, each of us was then what we are now, namely, a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens. Each of us developed by a gradual, unified, and self-directed process from the embryonic into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of human development, and into adulthood, with his or her determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. Although none of us was ever a sperm cell or an ovum—the sperm and ovum from whose union we emerged were genetically and functionally parts of other human beings—each of us was once an embryo, just as we were once infants, children, and adolescents. In referring to “the embryo,” then, we are referring not to something distinct from the human being that each of us is, but rather to a certain stage in the development of each human being—like saying “the teenager” or “the five-year old.”

- 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 embryos are defined as human organisms derived by fertilization from 1 or more gametes or diploid cells.

- 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

 

[Kreskin]

Of course it's both Einstein. Two entities have vied for control since the stork retired....or did your mommy not explain this stuff to you.

Well if both are vying for control, one gets to win and one gets to lose. There are two possible outcomes if push comes to shove, but I'll give you three guesses at which one gets to win.

 

[gerryh]

Well if both are vying for control, one gets to win and one gets to lose. There are two possible outcomes if push comes to shove, but I'll give you three guesses at which one gets to win.

at this point in time, in Canada, the selfish one get's to "win".

 

[Cliffy]

People have sex for any number of reasons but mostly the process is hormonal and under the influence of hormones, very fear people are logical, rational or emotionally stable. Saying that getting pregnant is a choice is an over simplification of the human condition. It shows a definite lack of understanding of human psychology. Perhaps in a perfect world your assertions might hold water but the reality is, very few choose to get pregnant. If it was a matter of choice very few would ever have sex. Amnesia is what women have that allows them to have sex after birth. If they remembered the pain of birth very few of us would be here today.

 

[Cannuck]

Well if both are vying for control, one gets to win and one gets to lose. There are two possible outcomes if push comes to shove, but I'll give you three guesses at which one gets to win.

Yes, if push comes to shove. Fortunately, due to advances in medicine, that is rarely the case. Besides, that's a red herring. I'm sure you could do much better if you put your mind to it.

 

[Kreskin]

at this point in time, in Canada, the selfish one get's to "win".

Why selfish? Are you pushing values again? Yours?

 

[AnnaG]

Fine, keep posting your childish squabbles and ignore and bury my research into the previous pages.

 

[Kreskin]

Yes, if push comes to shove. Fortunately, due to advances in medicine, that is rarely the case. Besides, that's a red herring. I'm sure you could do much better if you put your mind to it.

A red herring? It's the entire issue. The only that actually counts for anything. But if you want to talk about what an embryo is then go ahead, although please be aware it has nothing to do with what really matters in the abortion debate.

 

[gerryh]

Why selfish? Are you pushing values again? Yours?

I call it selfish because it is a person putting their own "comfort" above the life of a baby.

 

[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.

 

[gerryh]

Fine, keep posting your childish squabbles and ignore and bury my research into the previous pages.

Anna, I saw the research, and you did a h*ll of a job. It appears at this time though, that sjp is the only one with his eyes closed concerning this part of the issue.

 

[Cliffy]

Fine, keep posting your childish squabbles and ignore and bury my research into the previous pages.

This is not about logic or reason or truth. It is about winning an unwinable debate. It is a bunch of children pissing on each other in a sand box. Sit back and watch the show.;-)

 

[Cannuck]

A red herring? It's the entire issue. The only that actually counts for anything.

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.

But if you want to talk about what an embryo is then go ahead

Thanks, that was kinda what we were doing until you stepped in with your childish name calling.

although please be aware it has nothing to do with what really matters in the abortion debate.

I'll take your misguided and ill informed ramblings under advisement. Thanks for coming.

 

[AnnaG]

This is not about logic or reason or truth. It is about winning an unwinable debate. It is a bunch of children pissing on each other in a sand box. Sit back and watch the show.

No. I am posting in reference to the topic of the thread, not their squabbles.