Hi, new here
Welcome!
I’m sorry but the view that the embryo is a human being from the point of conception or fertalization is a flawed one. If we were to consider this the case then what do we make of the number of fertalized eggs that are evacuated from the system during a womans regular menstration because they havent had enough time for uptake into the uterine wall?
Fertilized ova that fail to attach to the uterine wall are still human beings. Their lives are short. It is not a
regular menstruation if a fertilized ovum is flushed from the woman’s body. It is a spontaneous abortion. The fact that some fertilized ova fail to implant does not negate the fact that each fertilized ovum is a product of two separate individual human beings and is itself a separate individual human being with a full complement of genetic information. Why is it acceptable to say that something is not a human being because of her size, location, or ability to function independently of others?
Then of course there are embryos used in IVF pregnancies, where generally more then one embryo is produced and fertalized but only one is implanted and allowed to come to term. The remaining embryos are then destroyed, an action that constitutes murder from your perspective.
Of course this is murder. An innocent human being, an embryo, is killed intentionally.
The genetic composition of a cluster of cells does not a make it a human being, it doesnt even make it a “being”. It is a living organisim and human tissue much like the rest of the cells that make up my body or yours, however to say that a collection of living liver tissue is a human being because of its genetic make up, or that a stem cell despite its capacity to develop into a human bieng is a being in itself is an over extension.
I am confused here. You state that it is not a “being” and in the next sentence you say it is a living organism. Are you referring to an embryo? It’s difficult for me to understand exactly what you are trying to say here. Each fertilized ovum, from the moment of conception has enough genetic information to guide it through the rest of its life. How can a living organism not be a “being?”
I don’t think that anyone would call a cluster of liver cells a “living organism.” The liver cells of the mother are different from the liver cells of the developing embryo she is carrying in her womb. And of course they are different, for the information carried in the genes of the embryo result from the contributions of both mother and father. It is
not human tissue much like the rest of the cells that make up your body. It has
unique DNA which will guide it through the rest of its development from the point of conception to death. An embryo is not a liver, not a heart, not a brain. But at six and a half weeks past conception the embryo has a liver, heart, brain, has all the internal organs that other human beings have. She has a mouth, lips, the beginning of milk teeth. She has had decipherable brain waves present since 40 days after conception.
You can’t get brain waves from a liver no matter how hard you try. Not even a liver that has been present in a human being for fifty years. Livers dont “do” brain waves. Brains do. So can you compare an embryo to a brain? No, because brains don’t produce bile. Livers produce bile. An embyo can’t be compared to the tissue of any other human being. That’s because she is a human being, too.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of abortions in the US and Canada take place in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy long before the fetus is anything more then a cluster of cells, and most of the images used to shock and outrage are of late term abortions done out of medical neccessity rather then common practice.
I think I’ve already responded to most of this. I didn’t realize that a “cluster of cells” could frown. A twelve week old embryo can and does. She also smiles, swims, urinates, kicks, and bends and spreads her toes.
From 12 weeks on nothing new starts to function. During the rest of the pregnancy the child grows and matures. But every organ already exists, including the liver.
I have seen many photos of aborted humans. I have seen photos of late term and partial birth abortions and these
do shock me. But I am also shocked by the photos I have seen of humans aborted at earlier stages. And what does this have to do with whether an unborn child is a “person” anyway? Of what significance is your statement to the topic of this thread? Ditto on your comment that most late term abortions are done out of medical necessity. What bearing does that have on “personhood?” You are still killing an innocent child. It may be necessary to save the mother’s life, but it is still
killing a human being and a person.
The question of when a fetus “becomes” a human being is a valid one and worthy of exploration. I feel the line must be somewhere in and around the time the fetus becomes able to support itself outside of the mother, which is in the 21-24 weeks range. Once a fetus has reached this stage and can develop on its own into a complete and functional human being I think it is fair to say it is a 'human being" and in truth I cant see a logical reason for aborting a fetus past that stage when it can be simply removed and allowed to develop.
Using the “21-24 weeks range” does not make sense. Can a baby born at 24 weeks gestational age really support itself outside the mother? If you take this baby and leave her on a table she will
die. As medical science progresses unborn children at younger and younger gestational age are being saved. Why don’t you tell the child who was born at 19 or 20 weeks gestational age that he is not a human being?
Space restraints, welcome again!
)