Is a fetus a Human being?

[SirJosephPorter]

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?

Indeed, VanIsle, try telling that to prolife, religious right nuts in this forum (Anna and several others). They know that a fetus is a human being since conception, that any woman who gets an abortion deserves to be put in prison for life (the current penalty for murder) and that is that.

Bringing these children into the world is just wrong.

Bringing any child in the world that mother doesn’t want is wrong. And since science and the law does not consider a fetus to be a human being, that is (and shod be permitted).

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.

Not only that, but sometimes a woman is not ready to have a child for economic, educational, personal reasons etc. That should be her choice. And most Canadians do agree with at. It is only the religious right nuts, Alberta conservatives (this forum seems to be full of them) who claim otherwise.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

The two are closely linked, Anna. Religious right nuts like yourself claim that fetus is a human being (in spite of the fact that it is a viewpoint not accepted by science and law). That is a first step, second step is to call for a ban on all abortions, demand life without parole for the woman and the doctor involved.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In the end, it's all the same anyway.

Quite right, VanIsle. Religious right has been making this argument in USA since Roe vs. Wade was handed down. They have been claiming that fetus is a human being since conception. Why, out of some philosophical, metaphysical considerations?

There is a very sinister agenda behind all this, the hidden agenda that Paul Martin spoke about. That agenda is outlined by the American College of Pediatricians website that Anna mentioned. Part of that agenda is to ban all abortions (another part is to ban homosexuality). A pre-requisite for that is to convince the unwashed masses that fetus is a human being since conception. Claiming that homosexuality is a choice is a prerequisite to banning homosexuality.

Harper saw the wisdom in ditching the religious right agenda; he saw that he had to adopt common sense policies in order to get elected. Evidently some of his extremist followers (Anna and others) still cling to the same extremist agenda.

 

[Tonington]

SJP, I'm an atheist and this is probably the only time I've been accused of being a right wing nut.

Moreover, the accounts of abortion rights are not just constrained by the person- non-person as you would call-it present in the woman's womb. There is also the fact that no person, living or dead, can be compelled to have their body used to sustain another life. A dead person's organs cannot be taken from them to save a life. A man can't be forced to give blood or an organ to save a family member. A woman can't be forced to have her body used to sustain the life growing inside of her.

This fact of the law would not change, even if people accept the obvious that it is indeed a human being inside the woman.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Is a human fetus a human? As opposed to a cat? :roll:

A fetus is human; it is not a human being. As the pro choice website I mentioned yesterday said, prolifers purposely try to confuse the two.

Incidentally, unforgiven, did you read my response to you in the thread about urine? I noticed that you abruptly went quiet in that thread after my comments.

 

[JLM]

"Bringing any child in the world that mother doesn’t want is wrong. And since science and the law does not consider a fetus to be a human being, that is (and shod be permitted)."

And if that mother is of unsound mind and only interested in her own self-interests?

 

[ironsides]

That doesn't make sense, ironsides. What opening message, and how does it prove that fetus is human?

From the 1st message.

A fetus developing inside a human mother has DNA. It also has a metabolism. Therefore it is a living organism.

Since that DNA is consistent with that of Homo Sapiens (Human Beings), it can't possibly be any other species.

Since the fetus has DNA which is unique to itself, it cannot be anything other than an individual homo sapiens (human being).

Some would bring up the argument of "viability". That is to say that a fetus can't survive on its own outside the womb. To that I would ask, how well can a neonate or infant (or even a toddler) survive on it's own?

Are these statements true, if not where do they go wrong.

 

[JLM]

From the 1st message.

A fetus developing inside a human mother has DNA. It also has a metabolism. Therefore it is a living organism.

Since that DNA is consistent with that of Homo Sapiens (Human Beings), it can't possibly be any other species.

Since the fetus has DNA which is unique to itself, it cannot be anything other than an individual homo sapiens (human being).

Some would bring up the argument of "viability". That is to say that a fetus can't survive on its own outside the womb. To that I would ask, how well can a neonate or infant (or even a toddler) survive on it's own?

Are these statements true, if not where do they go wrong.

Bingo Ironsides, now we are getting somewhere.

 

[Unforgiven]

A fetus is human; it is not a human being. As the pro choice website I mentioned yesterday said, prolifers purposely try to confuse the two.

Human and human being are the same thing.

Incidentally, unforgiven, did you read my response to you in the thread about urine? I noticed that you abruptly went quiet in that thread after my comments.

Yes I did and I responded. Much to the forums detriment I am sure, I do have a life outside of this place. Sometimes I have to do something other than what it is I do here.

 

[Kreskin]

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.

You won't find an embryologist that says one is carrying a human life in the first two weeks of traditionally measured pregnancy. I can definitely prove that.

 

[Kreskin]

This topic is popping up all over the place, so I thought it could use it's own thread. This premise I came across should get some feedback.

We can start with this:A fetus is a human being. That’s a scientific fact.

BIG BLUE WAVE: A fetus is a human being. That’s a scientific fact

A fetus developing inside a human mother has DNA. It also has a metabolism. Therefore it is a living organism.

Since that DNA is consistent with that of Homo Sapiens (Human Beings), it can't possibly be any other species.

Since the fetus has DNA which is unique to itself, it cannot be anything other than an individual homo sapiens (human being).

Some would bring up the argument of "viability". That is to say that a fetus can't survive on its own outside the womb. To that I would ask, how well can a neonate or infant (or even a toddler) survive on it's own?

As one of Anna's links so eloquently pointed out, a fetus attached to a mother by an umbilical cord is different from a birthed infant who can be cared for by anyone. A fetus draws its nutrients straight out of the mother.

Is a father forced to feed his birthed child? I don't mean the Ministry of Family requiring him to catch up on overdue payments. Literally, is he forced to feed and nurture his child? No, he can walk away from it and choose to never see it again. Many do, and they aren't murderers. Both parents can leave the baby to be a ward of the court. A pregnant mother can't. At least not until it is viable.

 

[lone wolf]

A fetus is human; it is not a human being. As the pro choice website I mentioned yesterday said, prolifers purposely try to confuse the two.

Incidentally, unforgiven, did you read my response to you in the thread about urine? I noticed that you abruptly went quiet in that thread after my comments.

You must be a prolifer because you have the two confused ... or extremely obtuse and thrilled because you found some vague definition that supports your silliness. Now it can become a Porter fact of life....

 

[VanIsle]

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? Sorry SJP but I feel the choice to terminate a pregnancy should be limited to specific reasons.

Indeed, VanIsle, try telling that to prolife, religious right nuts in this forum (Anna and several others). They know that a fetus is a human being since conception, that any woman who gets an abortion deserves to be put in prison for life (the current penalty for murder) and that is that.

Bringing these children into the world is just wrong.By your own volition, calling people things like "religious right nuts" is name calling and is also wrong.

Bringing any child in the world that mother doesn’t want is wrong. And since science and the law does not consider a fetus to be a human being, that is (and shod be permitted). You are wrong here. If the Mother doesn't want a child (other than rape or medical reasons) she should be more careful. If she has not been careful, she should carry the child to term and adopt it out.

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.

Not only that, but sometimes a woman is not ready to have a child for economic, educational, personal reasons etc. That should be her choice. And most Canadians do agree with at. It is only the religious right nuts, Alberta conservatives (this forum seems to be full of them) who claim otherwise.

Now you are name calling too? Come on. It's time for you to quit as well.

 

[MHz]

A fetus is human; it is not a human being. As the pro choice website I mentioned yesterday said, prolifers purposely try to confuse the two.

From the moment of conception a new person would draw breath if nature was allowed to run it's course.
If a woman has the right to decide if an abortion is going to happen then why is that right taken away from her after birth, it is still her child. Serious birth defects might be one reason to spare the child a life of suffering. What about the child who grows up to be just a drunkard and glutton. why is the mother's right to decide taken away when that child is nothing but an unasked for burden on the whole family. The OT certainly allowed for the parents to bring that sorry excuse for a human before the authorities for punishment, death by stoning.

The west thinks nothing of killing millions in wars for material things that benifit only them. Not like they ever face any courts for justice.

 

[Cannuck]

SJP, I'm an atheist and this is probably the only time I've been accused of being a right wing nut.

That's Joey's standard response when he has no argument. He just labels the opposition "religious right" as if that is supposed to mean something.

Moreover, the accounts of abortion rights are not just constrained by the person- non-person as you would call-it present in the woman's womb. There is also the fact that no person, living or dead, can be compelled to have their body used to sustain another life. A dead person's organs cannot be taken from them to save a life. A man can't be forced to give blood or an organ to save a family member. A woman can't be forced to have her body used to sustain the life growing inside of her.

This fact of the law would not change, even if people accept the obvious that it is indeed a human being inside the woman.

Yup. I give you a greenie. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response from Joey though...at least not a reasoned one.

 

[Kreskin]

From the moment of conception a new person would draw breath if nature was allowed to run it's course.

That is not correct. A high percentage of pregnancies result in miscarriage for many reasons.

If a woman has the right to decide if an abortion is going to happen then why is that right taken away from her after birth

Because someone else could take care of it.

Serious birth defects might be one reason to spare the child a life of suffering. What about the child who grows up to be just a drunkard and glutton.

So abortion is ok only when you say so?

why is the mother's right to decide taken away when that child is nothing but an unasked for burden on the whole family. The OT certainly allowed for the parents to bring that sorry excuse for a human before the authorities for punishment, death by stoning.

Sounds pretty pro-life, that death by stoning of the birthed.

The west thinks nothing of killing millions in wars for material things that benifit only them. Not like they ever face any courts for justice.

Those cave-dwelling screwballs in Afghanistan are sure pro-life eh?

 

[AnnaG]

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?

Indeed, VanIsle, try telling that to prolife, religious right nuts in this forum (Anna and several others). They know that a fetus is a human being since conception, that any woman who gets an abortion deserves to be put in prison for life (the current penalty for murder) and that is that.

Get a grip, Peewee. If you think I am a religious right nit, then you really need years of therapy about your problem. No, I don't think people need to be put in prison for murder. Find a post where I said that. You are a straight out and out LIAR. I stated my stand on abortion and you read it. I think the ONLY reason for abortion is for a good medical reason, no other is reasonable. The alternatives to using abortion as birth control, being afraid of the responsibilities of parenthood, afraid of how one would look, money problems, is NOT abortion, it is education, contraception, and adoption.

Bringing these children into the world is just wrong.

Bringing any child in the world that mother doesn’t want is wrong. And since science and the law does not consider a fetus to be a human being, that is (and shod be permitted).

Wrong again. Science is of the opinion currently that fetuses are human. PROVE DIFFERENTLY. Find info and links that counter the ones I provided. You can't, because there are none from reputable scientists.

[quote[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.

Not only that, but sometimes a woman is not ready to have a child for economic, educational, personal reasons etc. That should be her choice. And most Canadians do agree with at. It is only the religious right nuts, Alberta conservatives (this forum seems to be full of them) who claim otherwise.[/quote]Look at the demographics indicated in Kreskins "Where do you live" poll. It sure isn't overloaded with Albertans. You are mistaken again. And abortion is the last resort women should take. The first is not to have a child in the first place. The second is adoption or have a relative take the responsibility.

 

[AnnaG]

The two are closely linked, Anna. Religious right nuts like yourself claim that fetus is a human being (in spite of the fact that it is a viewpoint not accepted by science and law). That is a first step, second step is to call for a ban on all abortions, demand life without parole for the woman and the doctor involved.

Sure they are linked. Ask a mod to merge the threads or stick to the topic.

You are the religious one here, Peewee. Not me. You are the one arguing that science has a different viewpoint than the one it really has. You are not man enough to admit your error so you dig your heels in in the face of the evidence and spit at it. Find where I said anything about criminal charges against women who choose to abort. You can't, so you are lying again.
You must be really desperate to lie in an attempt to prove your erroneous point.
I have shown what scientists' viewpoints are. Yopu haven't, it's as simple as that. Put your evidence where your mouth is, please.
And where did I say anything about banning abortion. You're lying again.

 

[AnnaG]

Quite right, VanIsle. Religious right has been making this argument in USA since Roe vs. Wade was handed down. They have been claiming that fetus is a human being since conception. Why, out of some philosophical, metaphysical considerations?

There is a very sinister agenda behind all this, the hidden agenda that Paul Martin spoke about. That agenda is outlined by the American College of Pediatricians website that Anna mentioned. Part of that agenda is to ban all abortions (another part is to ban homosexuality). A pre-requisite for that is to convince the unwashed masses that fetus is a human being since conception. Claiming that homosexuality is a choice is a prerequisite to banning homosexuality.

Harper saw the wisdom in ditching the religious right agenda; he saw that he had to adopt common sense policies in order to get elected. Evidently some of his extremist followers (Anna and others) still cling to the same extremist agenda.

Now I want homosexuality banned? You little lying weasel. I am bisexual. Nor I do not want abortion banned. I want it used sensibly. Using weak excuses like your appearance, lack of money to raise a child, lack of willingness to take the responsibility of raising a chile, being too young to raise one, etc, are pretty pathetic reasons for ending a life. As I pointed out, there is a choice to begin with, a choice not to get pregnant in the first place and a choice to give the child up for adoption afterwards.

 

[JLM]

Now you are name calling too? Come on. It's time for you to quit as well.

"Bringing any child in the world that mother doesn’t want is wrong."- OH, who's opinion would that be? A mother who has children through adoption?