Is a fetus a Human being?
- Thread starter ironsides
- Start date
Anyway Anna, I see you have finally run out of arguments, you are simply posting inane remarks. Well, let me summarize for you the status so far.
The mainstream view in science is that we don’t know when human life begins. Go to any main websites such as JAMA, CMA, AAP etc nowhere you will find it written that human life begins at conception.
Law does not recognize a fetus as a human being, if it did, fetus would be covered by the Charter of Rights protection. It is perfectly permissible to destroy the fetus for whatever reason the woman feels appropriate, because it is not considered a human being.
The belief that a fetus is a human being since conception is a fringe belief, based upon religion, based upon extreme interpretation of the Bible. It is mainly held by Fundamentalist Christians and by extreme right wing Catholic (many Catholics disagree with Pope on this).
And as you have seen here, it is extremely difficult to convince anybody of anything in this issue. If you really believe that a fetus is a human being since conception, you have your work cut out to try to convince others. And there is no way will you convince Canadians at large (you may have better luck in USA, however).
Don’t go by this forum' this forum is dominated by Alberta conservatives, many of whom tend to be on the extreme right wing fringe. This forum is not representative of country at large.
The mainstream view in science is that we don’t know when human life begins. Go to any main websites such as JAMA, CMA, AAP etc nowhere you will find it written that human life begins at conception.
Law does not recognize a fetus as a human being, if it did, fetus would be covered by the Charter of Rights protection. It is perfectly permissible to destroy the fetus for whatever reason the woman feels appropriate, because it is not considered a human being.
The belief that a fetus is a human being since conception is a fringe belief, based upon religion, based upon extreme interpretation of the Bible. It is mainly held by Fundamentalist Christians and by extreme right wing Catholic (many Catholics disagree with Pope on this).
And as you have seen here, it is extremely difficult to convince anybody of anything in this issue. If you really believe that a fetus is a human being since conception, you have your work cut out to try to convince others. And there is no way will you convince Canadians at large (you may have better luck in USA, however).
Don’t go by this forum' this forum is dominated by Alberta conservatives, many of whom tend to be on the extreme right wing fringe. This forum is not representative of country at large.
lol
I think his god is a fellow named "NoitisnnotyoucannotprovethatIamrighteveryoneelseiswrong" and he faithfully sticks with it just like Muslims stick to Allah. Science can't show him enough facts to sway him. lol
Joey.... Please! The dramatics are simply not becoming from a man of such pomposity....
What challenge was that? I missed it, there have been so many posts lately.
Last edited by a moderator:
roflmfao.....It's a good thing he has LW, canuck, and I on ignore.... he'd NEVER be able to keep up if he didn't.
DOES EVERYTHING in life have to be black or white, can't we enjoy a little grey and pink and blue and green?
Thanks, JLM, for quoting the little fellow.
He's dead wrong and isn't man enough to admit it.
Of course, science has a viewpoint and it isn't what Sir Prat says. He cannot find one single bit of evidence from science that supports his position that people magically become human when they are born. And I did post some information from the AMA (I paid $10 for that one) as well as the CMA (free) that he refuses to accept even though he asked for it. So he tries to claim that every bit of the information I provided is done by religious, right-wing fanatics. I mean really..... Princeton U is a religious, right-wing, fanatical institution? That would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Ans absolutely ALL of the embryologists that have written about embryology recently are religious, right-wing fanatics? Sad. And professors who teach at Stanford and Harvard are religious, right-wing fanatics? Ludicrous. The entire American College of Pediatricians, too? And the Mayo Clinic? Yep. Might as well say all the institutions in the USA are fanatical, religious right-wingers.and not one of them can come up with facts. It's all a lie.
And mentioning that the ACP wasn't at the top of Google's list when "pediatrics" and "US" were searched for? Google goes by number of hits on the searches, not by whether a certain institution is a religious, right-wing fanatical institution or not. roflmao
As far as the people of CC are concerned, they aren't dominated by Albertan right-wing conservatives. Karrie's the only one I've seen that lives in Alberta and she's hardly what I would call a religious right-wing fanatic. Take a look at the poll about where people live. What the sad, little guy is saying is just as ridiculous as saying Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton allow religious kooks to teach in their colleges and universities.
The poor, little fellow reminds me of aPAULing Martin on his last legs desperately grasping at the little morsels and shreds of power. Except Sir Prat doesn't have any power here and probably never did.
All he offered in response to my research was his lonely and pitiful little opinion with not even a quote supporting it. I actually felt sad for the little guy. I still do.
BTW, that was only the first 20 hits from google. There were some 3 and a half million hits on my query.
He's dead wrong and isn't man enough to admit it.
Of course, science has a viewpoint and it isn't what Sir Prat says. He cannot find one single bit of evidence from science that supports his position that people magically become human when they are born. And I did post some information from the AMA (I paid $10 for that one) as well as the CMA (free) that he refuses to accept even though he asked for it. So he tries to claim that every bit of the information I provided is done by religious, right-wing fanatics. I mean really..... Princeton U is a religious, right-wing, fanatical institution? That would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Ans absolutely ALL of the embryologists that have written about embryology recently are religious, right-wing fanatics? Sad. And professors who teach at Stanford and Harvard are religious, right-wing fanatics? Ludicrous. The entire American College of Pediatricians, too? And the Mayo Clinic? Yep. Might as well say all the institutions in the USA are fanatical, religious right-wingers.and not one of them can come up with facts. It's all a lie.
And mentioning that the ACP wasn't at the top of Google's list when "pediatrics" and "US" were searched for? Google goes by number of hits on the searches, not by whether a certain institution is a religious, right-wing fanatical institution or not. roflmao
As far as the people of CC are concerned, they aren't dominated by Albertan right-wing conservatives. Karrie's the only one I've seen that lives in Alberta and she's hardly what I would call a religious right-wing fanatic. Take a look at the poll about where people live. What the sad, little guy is saying is just as ridiculous as saying Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton allow religious kooks to teach in their colleges and universities.
The poor, little fellow reminds me of aPAULing Martin on his last legs desperately grasping at the little morsels and shreds of power. Except Sir Prat doesn't have any power here and probably never did.
All he offered in response to my research was his lonely and pitiful little opinion with not even a quote supporting it. I actually felt sad for the little guy. I still do.
BTW, that was only the first 20 hits from google. There were some 3 and a half million hits on my query.
Last edited:
Science and law do have a somewhat graduated scale of development to work with, thus the differentiation between an embryo and a human being in status. For example, I believe that an embryologist can research with and manipulate an embryo but it cannot stay in vitro for more than 14 days old. Neither would allow 14 days of destructive research on a person, so there is differentiation.
I think most embryologists strike a very balanced approach with respect to all matters in their line of duty. They understand that patients have a wide range of ethical and emotional issues differing from one patient to the next. They also have to respect the Assisted Human Reproduction Act which is very specific about what they can and can't do and the processes that need following when doing them.
I think most embryologists strike a very balanced approach with respect to all matters in their line of duty. They understand that patients have a wide range of ethical and emotional issues differing from one patient to the next. They also have to respect the Assisted Human Reproduction Act which is very specific about what they can and can't do and the processes that need following when doing them.
More pro-choicers admit that fetuses are humans. I guess they must be fanatical, right-wing, religious kooks, too, right?
"Are You Prochoice Because of the Fetus?"
"Are You Prochoice Because of the Fetus?"
I didn't look at the link but it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks the fetus is. The issue is about her rights not fetal rights, particularly in the first two trimesters.
The status is mostly a legal matter. Science is concerned with the biological status and the ethics of the research. As I pointed out, I couldn't find a single google hit where the people that should know what biologically constitutes a human doesn't agree with all the medical dictionaries, the embryologists, a large number of pro-choicers, reputable universities and medical ass'ns, the geneticists, MDs, etc. thinks that human life doesn't begin in the womb. Not 1 hit.
Yes. They aren't outside the law.
Thank you. That is exactly what it is about. Why does anyone here think they have the right to make a choice for a woman as to whether or not she will give birth to the child she is carrying? Under certain circumstances she not only has the right, in some cases she should almost be obligated to abort. No severely dis-abled child should have to come into this world to be put into a home for someone else to care for because no one wants the child. It is a rare person who can and will do this and these children seldom live very long anyway. Once again I am speaking of those who do not have brain function other than to know how to breathe. Bringing these children into the world is just wrong. Looking after dis-abled children is stressful even when they are only slightly dis-abled. Able bodied children with things like ADD can be stressful to care for but at least they have a life. Children with CP also have a life but again - for their parents, life can be stressful and that stress becomes the childs stress but again, they can function and in many cases, they function well.
Sorry, but the topic of the thread is about whether a fetus is human or not. The female's right of choice is the other thread.
Anyway, can we get back to the topic? I still cannot find any other than a sound medical reason to abort a child simply because I am convinced that people are human before birth, if not any other reason. If the biological evidence swung around and provided a different view than it does now, I would reconsider.
Not only from a moral stand point, but also from a financial stand point, VanIsle. There is already far too much strain put on our resources just to manage the health system alone and the cost of providing for profoundly disabled People (vegetables) could be far better spent helping the marginally disabled to be self sufficient people. This saving a "life" at all costs, both financial and human can't continue forever.