So is it or isn't it a human

[Ender]

The uterus is the private property of the woman, and no one is allowed to use it against her will, even to sustain it’s life.

If there is a more selfish conception of ones rights it is hard to imagine what it could be. Having cooperated in the creation of human life it is asserted here that a woman may destroy that life as a matter of property rights. In this twisted hierarchy it is apparent that property rights trump human rights. Again, this argument is not changed if the word uterus is replaced with the word house as a house is surely private property that no one is allowed to use against the owner’s will. There is no logical reason, if this argument held, that you couldn’t invite someone into your house and then decide to terminate that person if you decided he was using your private property against your will. For that matter it would seem consistent that you could shoot the next person who arrived uninvited at your door. Clearly, however, we are not debating logical arguments.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No, there are two definitions for the two terms that are distinct. Simple logic tells us “human” must mean something different from “human being”.

There may be a difference between the two terms but there is no difference between the thing they denote other than what is arbitrarily invented. There is no scientific distinction. This is a word game unless you want to assert that, aside from having different developmental stages, there is a fundamental event that occurs some time after conception that allows for a valid distinction to be made between a human and a human being. If that’s your position, make a case for it.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

Saying there’s no “scientific distinction” is diverting from the point.
Linguistically, “human” must mean something different from"human being", otherwise there would just be the one term.
The zygote from the beginning is human, which is a matter of certain biological traits.
A human being connotes certain other properties that are less tangible, like sentience. The definition of a human being is probably not on topic. There are various definitions - like the emergence of sentience for example.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The woman owns her her own uterus… she has a right to decide who resides in her uterus and pulls resources from her body to sustain itself.

The woman does not own her own uterus; she doesn’t even own her own life. She absolutely does not have the “right to decide who resides in her uterus and pulls resources from her body to sustain itself.” She does have the right to not engage in behavior which results in a child being conceived.

CCC 2280:
“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.** We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.”** [bolding mine]

When I read what you have written in the above quote I thought about tapeworms. Tapeworms “pull resources”. Tapeworms are parasites. Human beings are not tapeworms. Human beings are loved creations made in God’s image. To kill an unborn human being is murder.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Tamsulosin]

The infant did not appear at the woman’s uterus by itself. Therefore it is not an intruder but someone that was caused by the woman and the father’s actions with full knowledge that pregnancy could happen.So that was their “choice” to go ahead… After that,they should take responsibility for the inocent baby that resulted. Responsibilty for their lack of control or thought.(Unless it is a rare case of rape.Nonetheless the baby is innocent)
I find it ironic that if a criminal kills a pregnat woman it is considered a double murder after Lacy Peterson case, but if a pregnant woman kills her fetus by aborting it,
it is not murder.Go figure the law.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

As some others here have stated (and well, too, I might add ) a fetus is indeed a human. A new human is formed at conception and has DNA unique in that it is not the same as either parent’s DNA. Every single human being on the planet started their life this way.

It’s such an easy question, but I suppose some here will start with their semantic games in an effort to take the focus off-topic.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Saying there’s no “scientific distinction” is diverting from the point.
Linguistically, “human” must mean something different from"human being", otherwise there would just be the one term.
The zygote from the beginning is human, which is a matter of certain biological traits.
A human being connotes certain other properties that are less tangible, like sentience. The definition of a human being is probably not on topic. There are various definitions - like the emergence of sentience for example.

Uh, perhaps to you the term “human being” connotes “certain other properties that are less tangible” but this is your own personal take on the term. It is not universally accepted. Have you ever heard of synonyms? If “human” is used as a noun (which it certainly can be), it is a synonym of “human being” (which is also a noun).

If “human” is used as an adjective then it denotes something belonging to a human being, as “human” tissue, “human” brain, etc.

Here are some dictionary definitions (maybe this will help):

Definition of human being (noun):
member of human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong.
person: a person, viewed especially as having imperfections and weaknesses.

Synonyms: person,** human**, being, individual, creature, homo sapiens, hominid
See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary

bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+human+being&FORM=DTPDIA
[bolding mine]

Definition of human (noun):
Same as ** human being**

Definition of human (adjective):

of people: relating to, involving, or characteristic of** human beings**
made up of people: composed of people
compassionately kind: showing kindness, compassion, or approachability
Synonyms: humanoid, hominid, hominoid, anthropological, anthropoid, social, mortal

bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+human&FORM=DTPDIA

[bolding mine]

I believe, in this particular thread, the word “human” is being used as a noun; ergo, it is a synonym of “human being.”

Hope this helps!

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A child inside your home will not automatically die if you leave it with someone else. A fetus will stop developing into a child if separated from a woman’s womb. No one is under any obligation to finish that process.
The uterus is the private property of the woman, and no one is allowed to use it against her will, even to sustain it’s life.
the embryo’s location makes all the difference. Two entities residing within the same body cannot have equal rights. One will always have more right to determine how the body is used than the other. Since the two entities reside within the woman’s body, the woman is the one whose rights should take precedence.

Why should the woman’s “rights” take precedence?

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The woman owns her her own uterus… she has a right to decide who resides in her uterus and pulls resources from her body to sustain itself.

I notice that you describe yourself as Catholic. You are, of course, aware that any woman who procures an abortion or anyone who aids a woman in procuring an abortion automatically excommunicates himself/herself.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/catechismonabortion.htm

[italics appear in my copy of the Catechism and have been added by me]

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Little Soldier - most synonyms are not exact matches, and as I said before, if “human” the noun described the state, why would we then add human the adjective to “being” to make a synonym unless there was a subtle difference? Even if we accept they mean exactly the same thing, then I would submit that we still attribute more to a human than simply the biological tangible attributes, we are not just human animals.

 

[HickmanJosh]

we are not just human animals.

No we arnt animals, we all have unique minds and personalitys.

where are you going with the Human Vs Human Being thing?

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, it is a human! There ought not to be any doubt about this in the minds of anyone!

 

[Lethe]

I don’t know. Some people must think it’s something else with all the pro-abortion threads lately.

That’s not the issue, I dont think. I’m pro-choice (ish) but obviously the foetus is human. The question is not its species but its rights vs. the mother’s rights, and how much the foetus is aware of, how much it can feel, at the time of abortion.

 

[Biggie]

First, the question is phrased incorrectly. “It” is an improper pronoun because it creates a presumption. The noun, in this case “embryo” or even “zygote” should be used.

Second, those who argue that membership in the human family occurs at some time other than at conception are faced with the consequence of defining at what other time that membership occurs. That membership then must be defined based on some observable quality of the being - size, ability, quality of life, stage of existence. Taken to logical conclusions, any such beginning point is revealed as utterly arbitrary and results in large swaths of the acknowledged human family found to have no humanity at all. In fact, to find that humanity does not begin at conception is to find that humanity has no meaning and no value.

The humanity of a being is not scientifically, but only philosophically demonstrable because humanity is not a scientific, but rather a metaphysical construct. To try to prove or disprove it scientifically, in itself denies the value of the concept.

 

[Biggie]

That’s not the issue, I dont think. I’m pro-choice (ish) but obviously the foetus is human. The question is not its species but its rights vs. the mother’s rights, and how much the foetus is aware of, how much it can feel, at the time of abortion.

Pardon the interruption, but how does “feeling” (sentience, painology,if you will) become the measure of humanity? You are assuming that your subjective assessment of what another being “feels” determines whether or not the other being has a right to live.

And if rights do not accrue at conception with the humanity of the child, then rights must not be based on the child’s humanity. And so on what condition are the rights based?

 

[Ender]

[T]hose who argue that membership in the human family occurs at some time other than at conception are faced with the consequence of defining at what other time that membership occurs. That membership then must be defined based on some observable quality of the being - size, ability, quality of life, stage of existence. Taken to logical conclusions, any such beginning point is revealed as utterly arbitrary and results in large swaths of the acknowledged human family found to have no humanity at all. In fact, to find that humanity does not begin at conception is to find that humanity has no meaning and no value.

The humanity of a being is not scientifically, but only philosophically demonstrable because humanity is not a scientific, but rather a metaphysical construct. To try to prove or disprove it scientifically, in itself denies the value of the concept.

Well said.

Ender

 

[miguel]

Saying there’s no “scientific distinction” is diverting from the point.
Linguistically, “human” must mean something different from"human being", otherwise there would just be the one term.
The zygote from the beginning is human, which is a matter of certain biological traits.
A human being connotes certain other properties that are less tangible, like sentience. The definition of a human being is probably not on topic. There are various definitions - like the emergence of sentience for example.

Before the emergence of sentience (which is kind of difficult for an external observer to nail down IMO), it would be precise to say non-sentient human being. After the emergence of sentience, it would be precise to say sentient human being. Still human being though, before and after.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Biggie, given that the Church has singularly failed to define vir, that’s an interesting criticism. Actually distinctions could be made on a non-arbitrary basis.
I think most Catholic’s definition of “human” would be found wanting if examined.

 

[Biggie]

Biggie, given that the Church has singularly failed to define vir, that’s an interesting criticism. Actually distinctions could be made on a non-arbitrary basis.
I think most Catholic’s definition of “human” would be found wanting if examined.

This is curious and requires expansion. What on earth are you proposing the “Church” has failed to define? And what distinction could actually be established that is non-arbitrary? The Church’s definition of human is not lurking in the backwaters of thought and has clearly been “examined”, this an understatement. What is wanting is an openness to life, which the Church has taken great pains to defend.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Little Soldier - most synonyms are not exact matches, and as I said before, if “human” the noun described the state, why would we then add human the adjective to “being” to make a synonym unless there was a subtle difference? Even if we accept they mean exactly the same thing, then I would submit that we still attribute more to a human than simply the biological tangible attributes, we are not just human animals.

And that is your opinion. I question why you are posting the way you are in this and at least one other thread on abortion.

The question that the OP asked is perhaps poorly worded but I think we all (with the exception of you) know what it means. I’m puzzled as to why you seem to be unable to understand the OP’s question when nobody else seems to have a problem.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.