So is it or isn't it a human

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timbothefiveth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Timbothefiveth

Guest
I thought this should be an interesting thread. Basicly, is, or isn’t, a fetus a human?

 
A human being is an individual member of the human species, homo sapiens. A new and distinct individual of the human species has its beginning when sperm and egg unite to form a genetically distinct individual, which immediately begins to develop fully until maturity. (Age 21 or so?) That individual retains its unique genetic makeup, distinct from both parents, from conception until death.

What could there be to decide? We know it’s a member of the human species. It’s not the mother, it’s not the father. It’s their child.
 
I have yet to meet the woman who’s fetus turned into a cat. It’s a baby every time. Hmmm…you think there’s anything to that? :rolleyes: Sorry to be so snide…it’s just that it strikes me as such a no-brainer!
 
I have a PhD in Molecular Biology – and I would have been laughed out of university if I had claimed that a human’s fetus is anything but human.

It is disingenuous and blatantly dishonest for anyone to claim that a fetus is not human – At a much earlier stage of development - yes. But human nonetheless.

(and Kristie - I like the way you think, “snide” or not. Your baby vs. cat comment pretty much hits the nail on the head 👍 )

Peace to all,
CLM
 
I thought this should be an interesting thread. Basicly, is, or isn’t, a fetus a human?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/4dsonogram.jpg/120px-4dsonogram.jpg
well that depends. Are we talking about a human fetus? or a cow fetus? or a dog fetus or a dolphin fetus?

Fetus just describes the developmental stage of a mammal in utero, it’s not specific to humans only. But, I’m pretty sure a human fetus developing inside a human woman, that has come into existence by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm, is indeed a unique individual of the human species. What else could it possibly be?
 
well that depends. Are we talking about a human fetus? or a cow fetus? or a dog fetus or a dolphin fetus?

Fetus just describes the developmental stage of a mammal in utero, it’s not specific to humans only. But, I’m pretty sure a human fetus developing inside a human woman, that has come into existence by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm, is indeed a unique individual of the human species. What else could it possibly be?
An illegal alien? lol…could not resist. Yes, indeed it is a human being!
 
What else could it possibly be?
I don’t know. Some people must think it’s something else with all the pro-abortion threads lately.
 
I obviously voted human, but just to make this a little bit interesting, here goes. From a purely biological standpoint, there is no doubt, it is human. Science has taught us that conclusively. From a theological standpoint, it is not quite so clear. A human being is defined as body and soul, so the fetus becomes human at the time of ensoulment. Now, I think I am right, but willing to be corrected on this next point, the church does not definitively say when ensoulment occurs. Most theologians believe it is at the time of conception, but it is an open question in the church.
The church’s prohibition on abortion rests much more on the biological argument and the possibility of ensoulment.
 
I obviously voted human, but just to make this a little bit interesting, here goes. From a purely biological standpoint, there is no doubt, it is human. Science has taught us that conclusively. From a theological standpoint, it is not quite so clear. A human being is defined as body and soul, so the fetus becomes human at the time of ensoulment. Now, I think I am right, but willing to be corrected on this next point, the church does not definitively say when ensoulment occurs. Most theologians believe it is at the time of conception, but it is an open question in the church.
The church’s prohibition on abortion rests much more on the biological argument and the possibility of ensoulment.
You are right, the Church’s position is based on the fact that the embryo and fetus are a new human being from the moment of conception. Ironically, it is the pro-choice side which often throws in the ensoulment argument to introduce doubt.

While the Church does not define the moment of ensoulment, Catholic philosophy defines the soul as the animating principle of a body. If the fetus had no soul, it would not be alive. Since it is alive, it is ensouled.
 
Obviously, it’s a human being. The real question is, should it have any kind of human rights? We don’t give children the same rights that we give to adults, after all. Should fetuses have the same rights that children have? My vote is “Yes, they should.” 🙂
With respect to the most basic right, ie the right to life, do we not give children the legal treatment as adults? Your vote is yes, that is good. But the issue of lesser rights for children can get you on a slippery slope when arguing with pro-abort folks. Many people justify abortion in their mind along this weird logic: as humans get younger, the rights afforded them become less and less, so abortion just falls on that path.
 
Their logic usually fails there too. While they might be okay with aborting a 9 month old fetus, they would not be okay with aborting a 7 month old premature baby.
 
If the question has to be posed then maybe that is where the problem begins…have we come so far that we as humans think that we question the miracle of life…God’s gift…granted I am a not as highly educated as some but this is not above my pay grade…
 
Well, it ain’t a platypus.

I think almost every pro-abort agrees with … well… basic science that a human embryo or fetus is HUMAN. What they disagree with is that it’s a PERSON (with all the rights thereof).
 
I think almost every pro-abort agrees with … well… basic science that a human embryo or fetus is HUMAN. What they disagree with is that it’s a PERSON (with all the rights thereof).
This is the point: the issue is not one of science since the scientific question is settled. What pro-abortion supporters have moved on to is the faux distinction between human and person. Since there can be no argument that even an embryo is human they challenge whether it is a person, which, since that is a word devoid of specific meaning, they can happily quibble about without risk of ever having to debate anything meaningful.

Ender
 
This is the point: the issue is not one of science since the scientific question is settled. What pro-abortion supporters have moved on to is the faux distinction between human and person. Since there can be no argument that even an embryo is human they challenge whether it is a person, which, since that is a word devoid of specific meaning, they can happily quibble about without risk of ever having to debate anything meaningful.

Ender
Why am I suddenly envisioning separate bathrooms, and a fetus being granted 1/3 of a vote? :cool:
 
Why am I suddenly envisioning separate bathrooms, and a fetus being granted 1/3 of a vote? :cool:
Exactly. We already have extensive experience with the consequences of dividing the human race up into those who qualify for full human rights and those who don’t as (especially) blacks, Jews, indians, and orientals can testify. As horrific as were the consequences to those groups who’s humanness at one time or another was simply defined away, the greatest victims of the artificial distinction between fully human and something less is unquestionably that group of humans known as fetuses.

Ender
 
This is the point: the issue is not one of science since the scientific question is settled. What pro-abortion supporters have moved on to is the faux distinction between human and person. Since there can be no argument that even an embryo is human they challenge whether it is a person, which, since that is a word devoid of specific meaning, they can happily quibble about without risk of ever having to debate anything meaningful.

Ender
Personhood is more of a legal construct, so it can serve as a moving goalpost, so to speak. They can freely admit that an embryo is human, but refuse to admit that a human in the embryonic stage of development merits the same consideration as a born infant.

Of course, that presents another moving goalpost: development. When would the pro-abort believe that the human embryo attains personhood? 2nd trimester? 3rd? birth? a year old? They could pick one time or another, but it’s essentially arbitrary and eventually they’ll have to admit that the Catholic position is not only the most logical but also the most humane.
 
I find it interesting that many Christians use science to support that a fetus is a human (I am not disputing this). Despite this being in contradiction to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas who argued that the fetus undergoes several stages of pre-human development. Yet Christians discredit modern scientific thinking when it is used as an argument against Christian teaching.
~(this is not directed at anyone in particular  just a thought on this theme.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top