Is a fetus a Human being?

[Kreskin]

To be honest, you're both probably more right than anyone is wrong. Calling a fetus a human being is a subjective term. There's no doubt it has the building blocks of human life, but at conception it is an undifferentiated blob of cells (or cell). No breathing birthed human is a an undifferentiated set of biological material. The argument for embryonic stemcell research is one that the cells are pluripotent and could become just about any human organ. Fetal development goes through many stages, so arguing whether (or not) a fetus is a human being is semantics.

 

[AnnaG]

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.

If it formed by a human interaction and isn't a living being inside a human what is it?
What is the difference?

And about the egg/chicken thing, people... everyone calls them eggs even if they have a chicken inside them instead of a baby chicken for the same reason people don't call themselves hearts, lungs, bones, muscles, ligaments, etc. People don't call them baby chickens for the same reason they don't call a container for a baby bear a baby bear. They call it a bear, maybe a mother bear. IOW, a shell is a shell, not the item within it.

 

[JLM]

This is starting to get very interesting and it's too bad because I predict at any moment Ron is going to show up in fairly high dudgeon. So we better get it all said quick like.

 

[AnnaG]

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.

Actually they waffle between 12 days and 14 days. I think it depends upon the rate of development.

 

[Francis2004]

Actually they waffle between 12 days and 14 days. I think it depends upon the rate of development.

Hello Anna, that was the point I was making when I asked when do we consider it a fetus with my question of the sperm hitting the egg..

Sorry if we got off topic..

 

[JLM]

Getting back to the argument that "what a woman does with her body is her own business"- needs some more looking over. You hear that statement so often that it's more or less become accepted as fact. OK, let's change the scenario a little, it's a woman who is the single mother and only support for six children. So by that reasoning if she wants to spend all her money on crack cocaine and be wired 24/7 with money that should be used to provide for the kids, she has every right to do so because it's her body.

 

[AnnaG]

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.

And viability has been shown to occur at around 500 grams and 20 weeks. And THAT fact negates Porter's nonsensical opinion that it only gains viability as a human after the third trimester.

 

[Kreskin]

And viability has been shown to occur at around 500 grams and 20 weeks. And THAT fact negates Porter's nonsensical opinion that it only gains viability as a human after the third trimester.

I tend to disagree. One of the trimester measures (when trimester is measured by development) really is a guess at when a fetus is potentially viable. That is generally around week 24.

 

[AnnaG]

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.

You're right. Sometimes laws do not make sense. But then look at who makes the laws; politicians. Need I say more? Politicians are hypocrites to the nth degree.
About how a child becomes after birth, we have to trust people that they will raise them responsibly so they don't become drug addicts, drunkards, etc. People are humans; we are not perfect.

 

[MHz]

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

Are you going to claim that miscarriages are the normal progression after conception and coming to full term with a perfectly healthy baby is an abnormal path?

Because someone else could take care of it.

So you can make decisions for the (parent)? How many people want to adopt a crack-heads baby. That is one that will have a life-long struggle that a normal baby does not go through. An adoptive parent will regret ever adopting that baby, at least in some instances.

So abortion is ok only when you say so?

Try reading what I posted, I said the parent's right to termination of life is very short. Why would my opinion carry any weight when I'm not the one who is pregnant?

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

In that case it would be an over 40 man who just never grew up but became a life-long burden on the parents. It like the extreme of being kicked out of the house, in that case it put an end to their ability to be a parasite on the family and/or community.

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

Those same ones mourn all children lost through indiscriminate bombings commissioned by the western allies. How many wedding parties have been bombed to date?
"cave-dwelling screwballs", well that certainly shows how low you can go, what a prick you are. That comment should make your parents cring and reget the day you were born.

 

[AnnaG]

To be honest, you're both probably more right than anyone is wrong. Calling a fetus a human being is a subjective term. There's no doubt it has the building blocks of human life, but at conception it is an undifferentiated blob of cells (or cell). No breathing birthed human is a an undifferentiated set of biological material. The argument for embryonic stemcell research is one that the cells are pluripotent and could become just about any human organ. Fetal development goes through many stages, so arguing whether (or not) a fetus is a human being is semantics.

Wrong. We are definitely human beings by the fetal stage. The zygote and blastocyst stages are debatable except to geneticists. People get too close to the issue and cannot put the whole together. Sort of like picture in picture tv. They only see what is directly in front of their nose and can only focus on that.
Put the facts together: the sperm and the egg unite, they came from humans, the result develops ots own unique DNA, its own organs, its own senses, etc. One can look at each individual occurrence but still keep in mind that they are viewing only a part of a human. The ones that can't accept something as a part of a human see the part as a separate item form anything else in the world.

 

[AnnaG]

Getting back to the argument that "what a woman does with her body is her own business"- needs some more looking over. You hear that statement so often that it's more or less become accepted as fact. OK, let's change the scenario a little, it's a woman who is the single mother and only support for six children. So by that reasoning if she wants to spend all her money on crack cocaine and be wired 24/7 with money that should be used to provide for the kids, she has every right to do so because it's her body.

Ultimately it is a person's right to decide things concerning their own body. We have societal standrads however, that demand that we take responsibilities for having that right; especially if it involves the welfare of other people.

 

[MHz]

You're right. Sometimes laws do not make sense. But then look at who makes the laws; politicians. Need I say more? Politicians are hypocrites to the nth degree.
About how a child becomes after birth, we have to trust people that they will raise them responsibly so they don't become drug addicts, drunkards, etc. People are humans; we are not perfect.

Parents start to lose control over how their kids turn out at about the age of 6. From that time society in general has some affect on how the child turns out in the later years. That applies to the richest (that does not mean the most honest and most law-abiding) to the poorest (again honesty and integrity are not exclusive to this group). Addictds and drunks can come from any family, not just the ones who have those members in their circle already although the percentage is greater.

How far back in your own past would you say you can go and call yourself a life-form? That does not mean independently able to care for yourself, it means the beginning of your growth to the point that you are not dependent (you can feed yourself). The moment 2 cells are 4 cells is the start of that journey, it doesn't matter if you are aware of your life or not.

 

[AnnaG]

Hello Anna, that was the point I was making when I asked when do we consider it a fetus with my question of the sperm hitting the egg..

Sorry if we got off topic..

Yeah. Embryologists dicker over the 12-14 day thing and say after that is when people are human beings. Geneticists think its from the first second when the first cell splitting because it has developed its own unique DNA.
My personal view is that a child is a child from when the sperm digs its way into the egg, but that is only a personal view. My objective view follows the science of embryology view, that life as a human starts at 12 to 14 days. A viable human life starts at about 20 weeks.

 

[Kreskin]

Wrong. We are definitely human beings by the fetal stage. The zugote and blastocyst stages are debatable except to geneticists. People get too close to the issue and cannot put the whole together. Sort of like picture in picture tv. They only see what is directly in front of their nose and can only focus on that.
Put the facts together: the sperm and the egg unite, they came from humans, the result develops ots own unique DNA, its own organs, its own senses, etc. One can look at each individual occurrence but still keep in mind that they are viewing only a part of a human. The ones that can't accept something as a part of a human see the part as a separate item form anything else in the world.

Again, it's playing semantics. By the fetal stage we're "developing humans". Prove that term wrong. Anyone could argue it and I wouldn't apologize for having a differing opinion. Your answer would be no more right than mine. Words and phrases are subjective. We have the same genetic makeup as a one hour old embryo as we do when full grown, but there are obvious distinctive differences between a one-hour old embryo and a birthed bay or one that is 32 weeks along.

 

[Kreskin]

Yeah. Embryologists dicker over the 12-14 day thing and say after that is when people are human beings. Geneticists think its from the first second when the first cell splitting because it has developed its own unique DNA.
My personal view is that a child is a child from when the sperm digs its way into the egg, but that is only a personal view. My objective view follows the science of embryology view, that life as a human starts at 12 to 14 days. A viable human life starts at about 20 weeks.

I viable human life doesn't start at 20 weeks. The chance of it being viable is probably in the millions to one. That wouldn't be sufficent for me to be denying people the right to act, especially at that time when someone may JUST be getting amnio results.

 

[AnnaG]

I tend to disagree. One of the trimester measures (when trimester is measured by development) really is a guess at when a fetus is potentially viable. That is generally around week 24.

Oh goody, I am discussing this with someone who didn't read any of the info I posted.
I can't remember which dictionary it was, but maybe it was this one:

Parity: "The condition of having carried a pregnancy to a point of viability (500g birth weight or 20 weeks' gestation)" - Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (19th Ed)
Maybe it was Langham's dictionary. Doesn't matter which really, though.

 

[AnnaG]

Parents start to lose control over how their kids turn out at about the age of 6. From that time society in general has some affect on how the child turns out in the later years. That applies to the richest (that does not mean the most honest and most law-abiding) to the poorest (again honesty and integrity are not exclusive to this group). Addictds and drunks can come from any family, not just the ones who have those members in their circle already although the percentage is greater.

How far back in your own past would you say you can go and call yourself a life-form? That does not mean independently able to care for yourself, it means the beginning of your growth to the point that you are not dependent (you can feed yourself). The moment 2 cells are 4 cells is the start of that journey, it doesn't matter if you are aware of your life or not.

I am a separate life form from the moment my Dad's sperm penetrated my Mum's egg and the result started to develop. Why are you telling me what I know already?

 

[Kreskin]

Are you going to claim that miscarriages are the normal progression after conception and coming to full term with a perfectly healthy baby is an abnormal path?


So you can make decisions for the (parent)? How many people want to adopt a crack-heads baby. That is one that will have a life-long struggle that a normal baby does not go through. An adoptive parent will regret ever adopting that baby, at least in some instances.


Try reading what I posted, I said the parent's right to termination of life is very short. Why would my opinion carry any weight when I'm not the one who is pregnant?



In that case it would be an over 40 man who just never grew up but became a life-long burden on the parents. It like the extreme of being kicked out of the house, in that case it put an end to their ability to be a parasite on the family and/or community.



Those same ones mourn all children lost through indiscriminate bombings commissioned by the western allies. How many wedding parties have been bombed to date?
"cave-dwelling screwballs", well that certainly shows how low you can go, what a prick you are. That comment should make your parents cring and reget the day you were born.

You are a prime example of why talking to religious people about this topic is a kin to chatting with a loaf of bread.

 

[Kreskin]

Oh goody, I am discussing this with someone who didn't read any of the info I posted.
I can't remember which dictionary it was, but maybe it was this one:

Parity: "The condition of having carried a pregnancy to a point of viability (500g birth weight or 20 weeks' gestation)" - Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (19th Ed)
Maybe it was Langham's dictionary. Doesn't matter which really, though.

Well your source is complete nonsense. Show me anyone who survived at 20 weeks.