Is a fetus a Human being?
- Thread starter ironsides
- Start date
I couldn't find ONE scientist in the broad field of biology, especially one in embryology, genetics, or any other field specialising in human life development, that says life in humans begins after birth. ALL the ones I found say it begins MUCH before that.
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony
The New Atlantis » The First Fourteen Days of Human Life
ZENIT - The Facts of When Human Life Begins
"Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development.
This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set
of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific
knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed
that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins
at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process
called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being,
from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. "
Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/...life_print.pdf
So the only other issue of ANY importance is the legal one. And the legal people hinge scientific matters upon scientific expertise.
Life in humans begins before birth, and that is the consensus.
I have already responded to this in the other abortion thread, Anna. Let me just copy and paste my response here.
Anna, you should know better than that. Most of these sources are committed, extreme right wing, anti-abortion sources, not unbiased medical sources.
Dr. Wilke has been the president of Right to Life (the biggest anti-abortion organization in USA) for many years now (or at least he was, he may have retired now). Just because Dr. Wilke or Dr. Dobson (Focus on the Family) have a ‘Dr.’ in front of them doesn’t make their opinion unbiased, expert opinion. They still are right wing extremists.
Westchester Institute is a well known right wing think tank. Their opinion isn’t worth the paper it is written on (Except to a right wing extremist).
Show me sources such as AMA, CMA, CMAJ, JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature etc. Then we will talk.
There is absolutely no reasonable argument to deny that the fetus is a human being. We hear some pro-choicers argue that the fetus is part of the woman's body. The fetus is as much a part of the man's body since the man provided the seed.
Other arguments seem to say that it is the woman's right to kill this human being as long as it not past a certain stage in it's growth. That sounds like it is a matter of convenience. It we don't want the baby we can kill it as long as we do it early enough.
Back to the topic: A fetus is a human being. Anything else is nonsense.
Other arguments seem to say that it is the woman's right to kill this human being as long as it not past a certain stage in it's growth. That sounds like it is a matter of convenience. It we don't want the baby we can kill it as long as we do it early enough.
Back to the topic: A fetus is a human being. Anything else is nonsense.
That will never happen, because those organizations have better things to do.
What better things to do, Tonington? This is their job (of AMA, CMA, CMAJ etc.). People look to these people to give them guidance regarding medical matters, and they do indeed provide such guidance. The fact that they have not come out in favor of fetus being a human being since conception tells me volumes.
What are the characteristics of a human being?
That is the question, isn’t it, Tonington? You tell me. I am sure there will be many different definitions as to what makes a human being, and they all will be flawed in some way.
Way to ignore the part about determining if it's living. A living fetus is not a dead body, is not a severed hand, and is not a cancerous growth. It is a living human.
Get your head out of your behind.
Living, perhaps, but living human? That is what the argument is about.
Stop changing goal posts. You said that a biochemical change means it can't be human. That is obviously false. A piece of paper is not what makes something a human being. That is ludicrous.
Nobody is changing goal posts. After birth there is no question, society considers it a human being. So to question humanity of a teenager is red herring.
All of which are not a living whole specimen, which a fetus is, and is carrying human DNA.
Indeed it is, but that does not necessarily make it a human being.
You are really out of your league here, and on this there is consensus. DNA is what directs the growth of a human. If you remove the DNA from an egg and sperm, and join them together, nothing happens. The DNA defines what happens. It defines the cleavage, the formation of germ layers, gastrulation, embryonic development, everything. Don't be so obtuse.
Granted all that, presence of DNA still does not necessarily indicate presence of a human being. I have given several examples where DNA is present, but it is not a human being.
What better things to do, Tonington? This is their job (of AMA, CMA, CMAJ etc.). People look to these people to give them guidance regarding medical matters, and they do indeed provide such guidance. The fact that they have not come out in favor of fetus being a human being since conception tells me volumes.
What are the characteristics of a human being?
That is the question, isn’t it, Tonington? You tell me. I am sure there will be many different definitions as to what makes a human being, and they all will be flawed in some way.
Way to ignore the part about determining if it's living. A living fetus is not a dead body, is not a severed hand, and is not a cancerous growth. It is a living human.
Get your head out of your behind.
Living, perhaps, but living human? That is what the argument is about.
Stop changing goal posts. You said that a biochemical change means it can't be human. That is obviously false. A piece of paper is not what makes something a human being. That is ludicrous.
Nobody is changing goal posts. After birth there is no question, society considers it a human being. So to question humanity of a teenager is red herring.
All of which are not a living whole specimen, which a fetus is, and is carrying human DNA.
Indeed it is, but that does not necessarily make it a human being.
You are really out of your league here, and on this there is consensus. DNA is what directs the growth of a human. If you remove the DNA from an egg and sperm, and join them together, nothing happens. The DNA defines what happens. It defines the cleavage, the formation of germ layers, gastrulation, embryonic development, everything. Don't be so obtuse.
Granted all that, presence of DNA still does not necessarily indicate presence of a human being. I have given several examples where DNA is present, but it is not a human being.
Perhaps not to you, Kreskin, but to me, that is very much the issue. If tomorrow scientists tell me (in the form of AMA, CMA, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine etc.) that fetus is indeed a human being since the time of conception, I will change my views regarding abortion.
To me, it matters very much if the fetus is a human being. I haven’t heard any arguments in favor of that so far, at least not from scientists.
I don't care about anything other than the fact that these people are specialists. They are the experts, you aren't. They have the facts, you don't. I found high profile pro-choice sources also that don't even hesitate to admit that abortion takes human lives. I don't give a crap if an expert is a god him/herself, an alien, a fish, etc.; their facts are facts and their opinions are EXPERT opinions regardless. Your opinion is completely baseless.
I don't care.
No. Go find me 1 single expert in the biological fields of human development that refutes that a human is only human AFTER it leaves the mother. Otherwise you are dead f*****g wrong whether you admit it or not. Besides, you CLAIM these people are right-wing extremeists. Prove it, bigmouth. Prove that they can't se5t aside their political opinion enough to state something objectively.
Last edited:
No a fetus is not a human being. It simply has the potential to become one. This is just something religious fanatics came up with to try to keep abortion and if they had their way birth control out of a woman's control and provided at the whim of a male preacher. It is called control or denial of basic rights to about half of our population.
If we outlawed abortion based of the fetus being human, then we would have to outlaw war, which would crash the economy worldwide and would take decades to recover from.
They don’t want to outlaw war, Cliffy. On the other hand, the religious zealots who want to outlaw abortion just love war. The religious right has not come across a war they did not like (except the one in Kosovo, religious right did not like that one because that was started by Clinton).
If you look at any war, the same conservatives, who shed crocodile tears for the death of a fetus (which to them is a human being), usually take the most bellicose position. Thus religious right enthusiastically supported (and still supports) Iraq war.
When Chrétien wisely decided to stay out of Iraq war, Harper and conservatives enthusiastically supported Bush and Iraq war. Indeed, if Harper had been the PM when Bush invaded Iraq, we would be mired in Iraq today.
So conservatives want to outlaw abortion (of course), but war? No way, the same crowd which wants to outlaw abortion (and put doctors and women in prison) loves war.
They don’t want to outlaw war, Cliffy. On the other hand, the religious zealots who want to outlaw abortion just love war. The religious right has not come across a war they did not like (except the one in Kosovo, religious right did not like that one because that was started by Clinton).
If you look at any war, the same conservatives, who shed crocodile tears for the death of a fetus (which to them is a human being), usually take the most bellicose position. Thus religious right enthusiastically supported (and still supports) Iraq war.
When Chrétien wisely decided to stay out of Iraq war, Harper and conservatives enthusiastically supported Bush and Iraq war. Indeed, if Harper had been the PM when Bush invaded Iraq, we would be mired in Iraq today.
So conservatives want to outlaw abortion (of course), but war? No way, the same crowd which wants to outlaw abortion (and put doctors and women in prison) loves war.
Last edited:
Quite right, taxslave. We have had our disagreements before, but it is good to see at least one kindred soul here.
Anna, I goaded you? You sound like the Trolls I have put on ignore who claim that I goaded them into using personal insults, personal abuse towards me. They used plenty of invective, f—words, s—words, plenty of epithets towards me and claimed it was my fault (that they used insulting language). That is why I put them on ignore.
Learn to take responsibility for your actions. If you were swearing, that was because you wanted to swear, nobody made you swear. I did not stand besides you, hold a gun to your head and say ‘swear or else’.
You are responsible for your actions, nobody else.
Look, Porter, I didn't say anyone else was responsible, did I? I even apologized. If I thought YOU were responsible for it I would have asked YOU for an apology, but I didn't did I? Grow up and be a man.
I am done with you. You are on ignore.
I am done with you. You are on ignore.
Strange that. By your account, I'm a right-wing conservative, yet opposed the Iraq War from the beginning if it could not get UN approval and be UN-led, and was even uneasy about the Afghan War being a NATO-led war, preferring from the very outset of the war that it be UN-led if it is to be fought at all.
So it would seem you're contradicting yourself here. Am I a right-wing conservative or not? And if so, then are all right-wing conservatives war-mongers?
Considering that even the Liberal Party was more in favour of a NATO-led war in Afghanistan, then I guess by your standards, you're to the right of me!8O
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.
Anna, get your facts straight, nobody has ever banned embryonic stem cell research in USA. What they did was ban the use of federal government money for embryonic research. That was an ideological position, of the Republican Party, it had nothing to do with science. But hre research could still go ahead without federal money.
As soon as Obama came to power, he lifted the ban and as of now, federal money can be used for embryonic stem cell research.
Anna, get your facts straight, nobody has ever banned embryonic stem cell research in USA. What they did was ban the use of federal government money for embryonic research. That was an ideological position, of the Republican Party, it had nothing to do with science. But hre research could still go ahead without federal money.
As soon as Obama came to power, he lifted the ban and as of now, federal money can be used for embryonic stem cell research.
You may be an exception, Machjo. But do you remember the debate when Bush invaded Iraq and Chrétien decided to stay out of it? Harper publicly said that he supported the Iraq war and scolded Chrétien for not participating.
The conservative position at that time was to enthusiastically support Iraq war. Seeing how much of a disaster it turned out to be, they may have changed their position by now, I don’t’ know.
Also, in USA religious right (which wants to outlaw all abortions) enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, and still does. No doubt there may be a few (like yourself) who oppose abortion because they abhor violence, are against war, against death penalty etc. But a great majority of conservatives want to ban abortion and they just love was, love the death penalty, love violence of any kind (e.g. many of them are gun enthusiasts). But obliviously there are exceptions to any rule.
Just another point. I know at least one CPC MP who adheres to the Consistent Life theory (i.e. pro-life, opposed to the death penatly, vegetarian, etc.).Now how he reconciles that with the Afghan War though, I'm not sure. He is known for voting against his party though, but I don't know how he'd voted on the war front. One possibility I could think of is that he joined the party for strategic reasons? I don't know, though I do know he's libertarian-leaning overall, so perhaps he just saw the CPC as the closest to his beliefs among the major parties (i.e. strategically joining whichever party comes closest to your beliefs among the major parties). But it does show that not all CPC members necessarily support the death penalty, etc.
No, I don't adhere to the consistent-life theory myself, nor am I a member of the CPC, but just to point out that there is just as much diversity of opinions on the right as on the left.
Even Elizabeth May acknowledges the moral dilemma of abortion, opposing criminalization only on pragmatic grounds, not because she saw no moral issue with it. Same with decriminalizing drug use too, by the way.
No, I don't adhere to the consistent-life theory myself, nor am I a member of the CPC, but just to point out that there is just as much diversity of opinions on the right as on the left.
Even Elizabeth May acknowledges the moral dilemma of abortion, opposing criminalization only on pragmatic grounds, not because she saw no moral issue with it. Same with decriminalizing drug use too, by the way.