Reasons not to consider the foetus human life

[LaMusicaSenior]

If a fetus is not a human being, at what point does it magically become a human being?

Exactly. When the baby is born, it is alive, correct? (Yes, says the friend who is pro-choice.) OK, was the baby alive the day before that? (I guess, says the friend.). Allright, how about the day before that? And a week before that? You would be able to walk them back every day and see that life can only begin at one point. Conception.

If scientists found a cell that divided and grew into a mature being on Mars, science would rejoice becasue LIFE was found. Yet a child who grows from a constant multiplication of cells isn’t life in their eyes.

You can’t pull a baby (becuase that is what it is - a human child) out of a mother’s womb and throw it on a machine and say: “Hey, look at that, our machines can’t support this life” and thus claim that it wasn’t alive to begin with. Everything doesn’t do well outside it’s natural enviroment, esp. if it is developing.

Father in Heaven, heal this broken world.

God Bless you all,
Chloe M.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Exactly. When the baby is born, it is alive, correct? (Yes, says the friend who is pro-choice.) OK, was the baby alive the day before that? (I guess, says the friend.). Allright, how about the day before that? And a week before that? You would be able to walk them back every day and see that life can only begin at one point. Conception.

If scientists found a cell that divided and grew into a mature being on Mars, science would rejoice becasue LIFE was found. Yet a child who grows from a constant multiplication of cells isn’t life in their eyes.

You can’t pull a baby (becuase that is what it is - a human child) out of a mother’s womb and throw it on a machine and say: “Hey, look at that, our machines can’t support this life” and thus claim that it wasn’t alive to begin with. Everything doesn’t do well outside it’s natural enviroment, esp. if it is developing.

Father in Heaven, heal this broken world.

God Bless you all,
Chloe M.

Heal our broken church also.

 

[Catholic80]

In light of the call by Canadian parliamentarian Stephen Woodworth to reexamine section 223 of Canadian criminal code, which states that "a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, " I wondered to myself why anyone would not consider a conceived embryo a human being.

Examine a human embryo and compare it to an adult human - or at least their concepts.

An argument canot be made that an embryo is not genetically human. It shares the same 46 chromosomes adults have.

What about organs, arms, and limbs? Many beings outside of the womb are considered human even though they are missing limbs - or were never born with them - or organs. Some people, literally, are missing their hearts and have artificial ones. Are they not human because they don’t have a natural heart? Nonsense.

What of a brain or intelligence, then? There are many outside of the womb whom are invalids, or mentally incapacitated. Some are not capable of making good choices - or almost any at all. Are they less human? Should we slaughter invalids alongside foetuses? Of course not. Not only would that be barbaric and merciless, but even the mentally retarded are capable of loving others.

What of that, then? Love? There are many adults outside of the womb who choose not to love others - indeed, who choose to be very hateful to others (even if they’re just the neighbor next door and not Stalin, Hitler, or Nero). I might also argue that people in comas are immediately incapable of loving - even if they will wake up eventually. Should we be allowed to kill people who are in comas, even if there is certainty they will wake up?

Of course not.

Any other arguments or counterarguments? I’m trying to wrap my head around what logical reason our pro-choice brothers could possibly have for thinking the embryo is not human. To deny its humanity, it seems they would have to make an argument against some other human life outside of the womb, as well.

That is certainly where it’s headed. And that is how evil works… you justify one evil act, and little by little, the next evil act is justified.

You are absolutely right. If we say that a fetus has no right to life and it’s a “choice” to kill them, then really, what is stopping us from eventually saying that it’s perfectly okay to kill the sick, mentally handicapped and/or mentally ill, those in a coma, the elderly, young children still dependent on their parents, etc. against their will?
People who are in favor of abortion will foolishly laugh at that thought and say, “that’s completely different, that will never happen!” But that’s what they said about the holocaust, and at one point, people thought abortion was pretty horrific and shocking too. For heaven’s sake, a vast majority at one point even agreed that contraception was immoral.

If you let one evil in, you’ve opened the floodgates.

 

[LegoGE1947]

That is certainly where it’s headed. And that is how evil works… you justify one evil act, and little by little, the next evil act is justified.

You are absolutely right. If we say that a fetus has no right to life and it’s a “choice” to kill them, then really, what is stopping us from eventually saying that it’s perfectly okay to kill the sick, mentally handicapped and/or mentally ill, those in a coma, the elderly, young children still dependent on their parents, etc. against their will?
People who are in favor of abortion will foolishly laugh at that thought and say, “that’s completely different, that will never happen!” But that’s what they said about the holocaust, and at one point, people thought abortion was pretty horrific and shocking too. For heaven’s sake, a vast majority at one point even agreed that contraception was immoral.

If you let one evil in, you’ve opened the floodgates.

Actually it DID happen in the case of Terri Schiavo:shrug:

 

[Joe_5859]

If scientists found a cell that divided and grew into a mature being on Mars, science would rejoice becasue LIFE was found. Yet a child who grows from a constant multiplication of cells isn’t life in their eyes.

That’s a good image that is sadly true.

 

[markeverett49]

That is certainly where it’s headed. And that is how evil works… you justify one evil act, and little by little, the next evil act is justified.

You are absolutely right. If we say that a fetus has no right to life and it’s a “choice” to kill them, then really, what is stopping us from eventually saying that it’s perfectly okay to kill the sick, mentally handicapped and/or mentally ill, those in a coma, the elderly, young children still dependent on their parents, etc. against their will?

Yup, that’s the trend. Whereas the fetus may be declared “pre-personal” (-that is, genetically human but not a person and only persons have rights, so…) the demented may be declared “post-personal” (-still human but no longer persons, so they have no rights.) Those born deformed can be deemed “pre-personal” and may be “allowed to die”.

It’s awful. I remember—because I’m a near-geezer–when predictions of “sex-selective abortions” were met with scorn: “That could NEVER happen here. You’re just trying to scare people!” Now it cannot be denied and pro-choice advocates say it is regrettable, but hey, it’s the woman’s choice…

 

[manualman]

…Allowing a woman to get an abortion is in essence saying she owns the child in her womb. Pro-choice advocates essentially are saying this in a round a bout way when they say “its the woman’s body”. They are claiming the child is owned by her, and thus she has a right to do with the child as she wishes. People who say they believe abortion is wrong but is necessary are the same as those who said they believed slavery was wrong but necessary for society to function.

Doesn’t that just make you rip your hair out in frustration? The first black president in our history holds as his most protected political priority the safeguarding of the legal status of women to own their unborn children as “chattel property.” We really learn nothing from history.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Exactly. When the baby is born, it is alive, correct? (Yes, says the friend who is pro-choice.) OK, was the baby alive the day before that? (I guess, says the friend.). Allright, how about the day before that? And a week before that? You would be able to walk them back every day and see that life can only begin at one point. Conception.

The egg is alive before conception. The egg has been alive for the entire life of the mother, in fact.

The question for pro-choice and pro-life alike is not “is the egg/embryo/fetus/person alive” but “when is it morally unacceptable to terminate the life of the egg/embryo/fetus/person?”

Some people extend the same question to non-human life, in certain circumstances. Killing a dog for fun is often considered morally unacceptable but killing it out of pity is widely accepted.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

It also strikes me that the initial question is ill-posed. For the purpose of legal convenience, laws often define the terms that they use differently than philosophers, businesspeople, scientists, or theologians do. The Canadian law is saying when it refers to a human being, it means someone that has been born alive. It is neither a scientific nor a theological document and cannot define what a human being is, outside of the context of the law.

Of course it’s questionable whether this definition was provided for any legitimate legal purpose, or whether it is some form of political payoff or grandstanding. I’m not an expert on Canadian law, so I can’t answer that.

 

[manualman]

The egg is alive before conception. The egg has been alive for the entire life of the mother, in fact.

The question for pro-choice and pro-life alike is not “is the egg/embryo/fetus/person alive” but “when is it morally unacceptable to terminate the life of the egg/embryo/fetus/person?”

Nobody questions whether a fetus is alive. Abortion defenders like to pretend it is not really human or is just a part of the mother’s body. The egg is unquestionably simply a cell of the mother’s body. It has her DNA and ONLY her DNA. If it dies, there is no more concern than if a skin cell dies, big deal.

You’re correct that people are increasingly starting to conflate concern about dogs dying with persons dying. I never thought I’d live to see a world where human beings are considered no more special than a dog or a dolphin. In some cases LESS. It’s illegal in America to kill an unborn endangered species, but fully legal to kill a human one. It’s sad.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Nobody questions whether a fetus is alive. Abortion defenders like to pretend it is not really human or is just a part of the mother’s body. The egg is unquestionably simply a cell of the mother’s body. It has her DNA and ONLY her DNA. If it dies, there is no more concern than if a skin cell dies, big deal.

I would avoid falling into the trap of genetic essentialism. After all, my identical twin has my DNA and only my DNA – unquestionably simply a mass of cells of my body. If he dies, there is no more concern than if a skin cell dies.

Moreover an egg cell is haploid and doesn’t have the same DNA as the mother. During meiosis it recombines to be a completely different expression of genes than the mother has.

 

[manualman]

I would avoid falling into the trap of genetic essentialism. After all, my identical twin has my DNA and only my DNA – unquestionably simply a mass of cells of my body. If he dies, there is no more concern than if a skin cell dies.

Moreover an egg cell is haploid and doesn’t have the same DNA as the mother. During meiosis it recombines to be a completely different expression of genes than the mother has.

DNA is an extremely objective determination tool. I’ll admit that it may be hard to define the moment given our current science when the single child splits into two identical twins, but that doesn’t mean science won’t be ABLE to find that moment someday. We know by secondary measures that twins are distinct organisms, but that doesn’t negate the absolute usefulness of DNA for making a negative distinction between two organisms. In other words, it appears that it can in very rare cases fail to distinguish two entities from one another, but if it DOES show a difference, it’s basically indisputable that the two entities are distinct.

As for the egg cell, you may know bigger words than I do, but you aren’t fooling anybody. The egg simply has a half strand of DNA from the mother. The DNA it does have is 100% sourced from her body up to and NOT beyond the moment of combination with a sperm cell.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

As for the egg cell, you may know bigger words than I do, but you aren’t fooling anybody. The egg simply has a half strand of DNA from the mother. The DNA it does have is 100% sourced from her body up to and NOT beyond the moment of combination with a sperm cell.

This is really inaccurate. The egg does not have a “half-strand” of DNA – such a thing would be useless and rather unstable anyway. What it has is half the usual complement of chromosomes, but the content of these chromosomes are different than the mother’s. We are not just clones of our parents spliced together – otherwise all children of a pair would be genetically identical.

Secondly, all of the material–including the DNA–in an embryo/fetus/newborn is “100% sourced” from the mother. There’s nowhere else the matter can come from. Sperm doesn’t magically make half of a baby appear. It doesn’t even make half of the chromosomes appear.

That being said, by your own criterion an egg cell is genetically distinct from the mother and is objectively indisputable that it is a distinct organism from its mother. So your earlier argument ad absurdum can be continued prior to fertilization.

edit: apologies, it was someone else’s argument ad absurdum.

 

[Newbie2]

Generally speaking, the determination of when or a fetus, embryo or whatever one terms a yet unborn human becomes a human person is not a matter of science; it is a matter of philosophy/theology.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Generally speaking, the determination of when or a fetus, embryo or whatever one terms a yet unborn human becomes a human person is not a matter of science; it is a matter of philosophy/theology.

But my point is that it’s not even the question that needs to be answered.

Unless one is an absolute pacifist, clearly it is morally acceptable to kill human beings. To many (most?) people it is morally unacceptable to kill certain nonhumans, depending on circumstance.

The question then becomes when, if ever, is it morally acceptable to kill a human embryo or fetus. The “is a fetus a human being?” question is a red herring that doesn’t need to be answered – or can even be granted in the affirmative – to support different answers in the abortion question.

 

[Joe_5859]

Sperm doesn’t magically make half of a baby appear.

According to your view, when exactly does the baby “magically” appear?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

According to your view, when exactly does the baby “magically” appear?

I’m a religious naturalist, so it’s either all magic or no magic depending on my mood.

But observationally there is almost no matter from the father involved. All of the copies of the DNA in every cell of the growing fetus are created from the nutrients and material provided by the mother’s body.

The context of my remark was to respond to the idea that the DNA in the egg is “100% sourced” from the mother’s body, but this is hardly remarkable. The entire baby is “100% sourced” from the mother’s body, including all of the DNA. The sperm’s contribution is to help determine what DNA to copy, not the DNA itself.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m a religious naturalist, so it’s either all magic or no magic depending on my mood.

But observationally there is almost no matter from the father involved. All of the copies of the DNA in every cell of the growing fetus are created from the nutrients and material provided by the mother’s body.

The context of my remark was to respond to the idea that the DNA in the egg is “100% sourced” from the mother’s body, but this is hardly remarkable. The entire baby is “100% sourced” from the mother’s body, including all of the DNA. The sperm’s contribution is to help determine what DNA to copy, not the DNA itself.

So your answer to when a human person appears is “I don’t know”?

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

The egg is alive before conception. The egg has been alive for the entire life of the mother, in fact.

The question for pro-choice and pro-life alike is not “is the egg/embryo/fetus/person alive” but “when is it morally unacceptable to terminate the life of the egg/embryo/fetus/person?”

Some people extend the same question to non-human life, in certain circumstances. Killing a dog for fun is often considered morally unacceptable but killing it out of pity is widely accepted.

Do you believe there is ever a morally acceptable reason to terminate the life of an innocent child? (You did call it a person.) God grants life. God takes it away. It should never be the goal of the creation to undo what the Creator has granted.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

So your answer to when a human person appears is “I don’t know”?

I’ll just repeat myself to spare you the need to read:

The question for pro-choice and pro-life alike is not “is the egg/embryo/fetus/person alive” but “when is it morally unacceptable to terminate the life of the egg/embryo/fetus/person?”

But if you really want me to chase the red herring around for a bit, I’d say a “human person” appears when brain activity begins. As I understand it, this is around forty days gestation – which is the same figure that ancient civilizations often used for a time of ensoulment.

However, this has nothing to do with the moral acceptability of abortion. It might still be unacceptable to abort an embryo younger than that (since it is undeniably alive and it is sometimes unacceptable to kill nonhuman life), or it might be acceptable to abort a fetus older than that (since it is sometimes acceptable to kill human life.)

So you can’t say “ah! a human person begins at conception!” and expect the argument to be won, nor could I say “ah! a human person begins at 6 weeks!” and expect the argument to be won, nor could someone else say “ah! a human person begins at birth!” and expect the argument to be won.

It’s a profound waste of time, morally speaking.