• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is a fetus a human being?

scottm123

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not a biology major or anything, but I'm pretty sure fetuses are what make babies and babies are human beings. People think getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy should be a person's right, but I don't see how taking away someone else's chance at life could be a right. Doesn't the person that the fetus will eventually become have rights. With how concerned everyone is for equal rights, equal rights for women, equal rights for minorities, equal rights for gays, I don't see how people care so little about the rights of the person a fetus will become.
 

scottm123

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some people think that just because a fetus hasn't developed past a certain point it is not fully a human so it is ok to destroy it.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
scottm123 said:
I'm not a biology major or anything, but I'm pretty sure fetuses are what make babies and babies are human beings.
If you're defining a human being as any entity with human DNA, then yes, a fetus is a human being. But in this sense, I think human means something slightly different. Are all entities with human DNA equally entitled to the right to life? I think not. The question I often ask anti-abortionists is this: What exactly are we trying to preserve when we protect human life? The most common, logically-consistent answers are that we are trying to protect their "thoughts," or their "personality," or their "capacity for rational thinking." This is, after all, the only trait humans have that the animals we routinely kill do not have.

However, a fetus does not have these traits. It's still unclear exactly at what point in development these traits develop, but the evidence suggests that (for the most part) they don't develop until well after birth. That's not to say that infanticide should be legal, because we do need a legal cutoff point for the right to life. We can set the cutoff point at the moment of birth, and still be allowing for plenty of err on the side of protecting human life.

scottm123 said:
People think getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy should be a person's right, but I don't see how taking away someone else's chance at life could be a right. Doesn't the person that the fetus will eventually become have rights. With how concerned everyone is for equal rights, equal rights for women, equal rights for minorities, equal rights for gays, I don't see how people care so little about the rights of the person a fetus will become.

But a fetus is NOT that person yet. Just like we don't allow a child to vote simply because he will eventually turn 18, a fetus isn't entitled to a right to life just because it would otherwise eventually become a human being.
 

scottm123

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Your right we don't allow children to vote just because they will eventually turn 18, but we don't walk up to a child and say you will never be able to vote, children are allowed to grow up, mature, and then vote when they are old enough, don't fetuses deserve this same chance?. Just because a fetus does not yet have a personality doesn't mean that it won't one day.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
scottm123 said:
Your right we don't allow children to vote just because they will eventually turn 18, but we don't walk up to a child and say you will never be able to vote, children are allowed to grow up, mature, and then vote when they are old enough, don't fetuses deserve this same chance?.
Not at the expense of the woman.
Just because a fetus does not yet have a personality doesn't mean that it won't one day.
And just because the woman DOES have a personality, you obviously have no problem reducing her to the status of a slave, of chattel.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not just about the personality, sh!t-for-brains. The fetus has not been born yet, it is not alive. It is still a part of the womans's body.


Duke
 

ravens24

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes A Fetus Is Living Though Dependant On Its Mother. Fetuses Will Become Humans.if You Are Reading This Then Thank Your Mom For Not Having An Abortion. If You Wish Your Mom Had An Abortion Then Go Commit Suicide Please.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ravens24 said:
Yes A Fetus Is Living Though Dependant On Its Mother. Fetuses Will Become Humans.if You Are Reading This Then Thank Your Mom For Not Having An Abortion. If You Wish Your Mom Had An Abortion Then Go Commit Suicide Please.
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on this subject...and I've read a lot of dumb opinions.
 

Ethereal

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The fetus has not been born yet, it is not alive.
The fetus is most definitly alive. Ask me why...

It is still a part of the womans's body.
Afraid not.

An excerpt from Peter Kreeft's essay, "Human personhood begins at conception."

...if the fetus is only a part of the mother, a hilariously absurd consequence follows. The relation of part to whole is what logicians call a transitive relation: If A is part of B and B is part of C, then A must be part of C. If a wall is part of a room and the room is part of a building, then the wall must be part of that building. If a toe is part of a foot and a foot is part of a body, then the toe is part of the body. Now if the fetus is a part of the mother, then the parts of the fetus must be parts of the mother. But in that case, every pregnant woman has four eyes and four feet, and half of all pregnant women have penises! Clearly, the absurd conclusion came from the false premise that the fetus is only part of the mother.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ravens24 said:
Yes A Fetus Is Living Though Dependant On Its Mother. Fetuses Will Become Humans.
Not if they are aborted.
if You Are Reading This Then Thank Your Mom For Not Having An Abortion. If You Wish Your Mom Had An Abortion Then Go Commit Suicide Please.
GAWD, not that idiotic and stupid stuff AGAIN.:roll: :doh
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
Afraid not.

An excerpt from Peter Kreeft's essay, "Human personhood begins at conception."
And we should give a rip?
...if the fetus is only a part of the mother, a hilariously absurd consequence follows. The relation of part to whole is what logicians call a transitive relation: If A is part of B and B is part of C, then A must be part of C. If a wall is part of a room and the room is part of a building, then the wall must be part of that building. If a toe is part of a foot and a foot is part of a body, then the toe is part of the body. Now if the fetus is a part of the mother, then the parts of the fetus must be parts of the mother. But in that case, every pregnant woman has four eyes and four feet, and half of all pregnant women have penises! Clearly, the absurd conclusion came from the false premise that the fetus is only part of the mother.
A load of BS Sophistry. Amazing that PL can only debate through deception and misrepresentation. How sad and lame.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
Afraid not.

An excerpt from Peter Kreeft's essay, "Human personhood begins at conception."

...if the fetus is only a part of the mother, a hilariously absurd consequence follows. The relation of part to whole is what logicians call a transitive relation: If A is part of B and B is part of C, then A must be part of C. If a wall is part of a room and the room is part of a building, then the wall must be part of that building. If a toe is part of a foot and a foot is part of a body, then the toe is part of the body. Now if the fetus is a part of the mother, then the parts of the fetus must be parts of the mother. But in that case, every pregnant woman has four eyes and four feet, and half of all pregnant women have penises! Clearly, the absurd conclusion came from the false premise that the fetus is only part of the mother.
This guy is such a joke. He's some professor of Philosophy at Boston College who puts out tons of pro-God books. He definantly attempts to use logic to come to absurd results, but they really aren't that absurd. This logic that he uses is just fine, and withstands the reductio ad absurdum test.

Although it sounds funny because the general human population has two eyes and two feet etc., but really, it comes down to what we possess.

Yes, she has 4 eyes, 4 feet, and 20 toes within her skin.

A common arguement is that he doesn't have the control of the baby's functions.

But if control were to be it, do we control much of our own body? We don't control how our hair grows, we don't control our appendicies, we don't control the hormones that are released. We have many things that we don't have any control over. We cannot will things to work or not work. So if control were to determin possession, then that would leave a large hole there...

Is it a dependency on our actions? Because if so, babies in womb are dependant on their carriers for their survival.

Is it a connection? Because the baby is connected to the mother at all times the the umbilical cord.

Anyways, it's 5:10 now. Work's over and I'm ready to go home. Later folks :)
 

thapcballa

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Location
Port Clinon, Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
If you're defining a human being as any entity with human DNA, then yes, a fetus is a human being. But in this sense, I think human means something slightly different. Are all entities with human DNA equally entitled to the right to life? I think not. The question I often ask anti-abortionists is this: What exactly are we trying to preserve when we protect human life? The most common, logically-consistent answers are that we are trying to protect their "thoughts," or their "personality," or their "capacity for rational thinking." This is, after all, the only trait humans have that the animals we routinely kill do not have.

However, a fetus does not have these traits. It's still unclear exactly at what point in development these traits develop, but the evidence suggests that (for the most part) they don't develop until well after birth. That's not to say that infanticide should be legal, because we do need a legal cutoff point for the right to life. We can set the cutoff point at the moment of birth, and still be allowing for plenty of err on the side of protecting human life.
Kandahar said:
Not trying to be mean, but some retards and people considered vegatable, or someone in a coma don't have those traits. So by what you said we can kill those people to.
 

Ethereal

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And we should give a rip?
When citing a source it's usually appropriate to mention its title and authour.

A load of BS Sophistry. Amazing that PL can only debate through deception and misrepresentation. How sad and lame.
Feel free to validate your claim by pointing out the innacuracies within the text. Oh, wait. You can't do anything except cry because you know he's right.

By the way I'm sorry to see you've scampered off from our other debate. Typical pro-choicer. Whether it's a pregnancy or a debate you just have trouble committing.
 

Ethereal

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This guy is such a joke. He's some professor of Philosophy at Boston College
A professor of philosophy at Boston College? What a loser!

who puts out tons of pro-God books.
And you mention this because?

He definantly attempts to use logic to come to absurd results, but they really aren't that absurd.
Good sentence. Very logical.

Although it sounds funny because the general human population has two eyes and two feet etc., but really, it comes down to what we possess.
I emboldened those words in order to highlight the redundancy of your statement, i.e., you're comparing what we have with what we posses, which is basically the same thing.



Yes, she has 4 eyes, 4 feet, and 20 toes within her skin.

A common arguement is that he doesn't have the control of the baby's functions.

But if control were to be it, do we control much of our own body? We don't control how our hair grows, we don't control our appendicies, we don't control the hormones that are released. We have many things that we don't have any control over. We cannot will things to work or not work. So if control were to determin possession, then that would leave a large hole there...

Is it a dependency on our actions? Because if so, babies in womb are dependant on their carriers for their survival.

Is it a connection? Because the baby is connected to the mother at all times the the umbilical cord.

Anyways, it's 5:10 now. Work's over and I'm ready to go home. Later folks :)
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
When citing a source it's usually appropriate to mention its title and authour.
That is not why I was asking if we should care. Should we care about this person's position, as all he spew is a bunch of deceptive and misrepresenting "because I say so" falsehoods.
Feel free to validate your claim by pointing out the innacuracies within the text. Oh, wait. You can't do anything except cry because you know he's right.
For one the inanely stupid attempt at comparing the woman with a house, as if her body is merely an inorganic, inactive shell. So yes, ther very premise of this stupid argument is unrealistic, not to mention as misogynistic as anything that fundie prolife theocrats spew in their demeaning hate mongering against women.
 

Ethereal

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Should we care about this person's position
No. Considering I didn't mention his position. Are you really that neurotic?

as all he spew is a bunch of deceptive and misrepresenting "because I say so" falsehoods.
Lovely grammar. Bravo!

Anyway, I like the way you put quotes around "because I say so" as if he actually said that. Pills wearing off?

For one the inanely stupid attempt at comparing the woman with a house, as if her body is merely an inorganic, inactive shell.
I think you're confusing an anology with a literal interpretation. You see an anology is defined as, "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

In an attempt to demonstrate the simalarity of part to whole relationships between two things that are otherwise dissimilar Kreeft uses a house and woman in his example.

How about we use an example that would suite you better.

If a woman has a parasite in her stomach (which, for people like you, is basically the same thing as a fetus) then according to part to whole relationships the woman must also have two nervous systems.

So yes, ther very premise of this stupid argument is unrealistic, not to mention as misogynistic as anything that fundie prolife theocrats spew in their demeaning hate mongering against women.
Some cheese with that wine?
 
Last edited:

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I noticed that you are so much of a coward that you decided to pick at my grammar instead of dealing with the issues I raised. I am not surprised, as prolifers frequently display such cowardice.:roll:
 

Ethereal

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I noticed that you are so much of a coward that you decided to pick at my grammar instead of dealing with the issues I raised. I am not surprised, as prolifers frequently display such cowardice.
I'm not going to get into some gay little p!ssing contenst with you. All I'm going to say is that you display remarkable hypocrisy when it comes to debating. You ran away from our last debate about functionality because you were losing hands down, then instead of adressing and subsequently disproving any of Peter Kreeft's points you state,

A load of BS Sophistry. Amazing that PL can only debate through deception and misrepresentation.
which proves absolutely nothing. All you've done is waste valuable bandwith with a post that is tadamount to the "liar liar pants on fire" argument.

Then after I post this...


Should we care about this person's position

No. Considering I didn't mention his position. Are you really that neurotic?



as all he spew is a bunch of deceptive and misrepresenting "because I say so" falsehoods.

Lovely grammar. Bravo!

Anyway, I like the way you put quotes around "because I say so" as if he actually said that. Pills wearing off?


For one the inanely stupid attempt at comparing the woman with a house, as if her body is merely an inorganic, inactive shell.
I think you're confusing an anology with a literal interpretation. You see an anology is defined as, "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

In an attempt to demonstrate the simalarity of part to whole relationships between two things that are otherwise dissimilar Kreeft uses a house and woman in his example.

How about we use an example that would suite you better.

If a woman has a parasite in her stomach (which, for people like you, is basically the same thing as a fetus) then according to part to whole relationships the woman must also have two nervous systems.

So yes, ther very premise of this stupid argument is unrealistic, not to mention as misogynistic as anything that fundie prolife theocrats spew in their demeaning hate mongering against women.
Some cheese with that wine?
The only point you choose to adress is this one...

Lovely grammar. Bravo!
And then you have the nerve to accuse me of dodging the issues? You suck at debating. Plain and simple. What you can't prove or disprove you cry about, and when you start to lose you run away or resort to name-calling.

I don't debate neurotic hypocrits. So start acting your age or find someone else to debate, because you're not even worth my time.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
What you can't prove or disprove you cry about, and when you start to lose you run away or resort to name-calling.

....

I don't debate neurotic hypocrits.
Oh, the irony! :roll:
So start acting your age or find someone else to debate, because you're not even worth my time.
Well, as long as you lie and are deceptive, you are not worth anybody's time, of course.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
A professor of philosophy at Boston College? What a loser!
And you mention this because?
Good sentence. Very logical.
I emboldened those words in order to highlight the redundancy of your statement, i.e., you're comparing what we have with what we posses, which is basically the same thing.

Wow, you're an angry individual :\

Or do you just get off on nitpicking other people's posts? Get an erection from it?

Anyways, I will go thru my post to clarify anything that you might not have gotten :)

IValueFreedom said:
This guy is such a joke.{here is a period, it means the end of the thought} He's some professor of Philosophy at Boston College who puts out tons of pro-God books.{this is to discredit him as an academic. What I'm getting at is that he's a professor who finds a solution, and then views the problem so that it fits his solution instead of someone who looks at the problem, then finds the solution to it. His works are all slanted to his pro-God readers. That's not bad in everyday life, but in the academic community, it has no business there. That's why he's a joke.} He definantly attempts to use logic to come to absurd results, but they really aren't that absurd.{he follows real logic in this excerpt to get absurd conclusions, but the conclusions that he gets aren't necessarily absurd, therefore leaving his argument empty.} This logic that he uses is just fine, and withstands the reductio ad absurdum test.

Although it sounds funny because the general human population has two eyes and two feet etc., but really, it comes down to what we possess.{ When my argument deals with what it means to "possess" something, yes, "have" or a derivative of is quite different than possess. I realize that they're used interchangably in everyday life, but I'm approaching this from a philisophical and logical angle, therefore proper usage of their jargon is appropriate.}

Yes, she has 4 eyes, 4 feet, and 20 toes within her skin.

A common arguement is that he doesn't have the control of the baby's functions.

But if control were to be it, do we control much of our own body? We don't control how our hair grows, we don't control our appendicies, we don't control the hormones that are released. We have many things that we don't have any control over. We cannot will things to work or not work. So if control were to determin possession, then that would leave a large hole there...

Is it a dependency on our actions? Because if so, babies in womb are dependant on their carriers for their survival.

Is it a connection? Because the baby is connected to the mother at all times the the umbilical cord.

Anyways, it's 5:10 now. Work's over and I'm ready to go home. Later folks :)
Now if you'd actually like to debate the issues that I've brought up instead of acting like a jack*** to everyone in this thread who's opinions differ from yours, that would be good.

Oh, and homophobic remarks aren't cool. Grow up.
 
Last edited:

Ethereal

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wow, you're an angry individual :\
It's often easy to confuse sarcasm with anger.

Or do you just get off on nitpicking other people's posts?
You call it nitpicking, I call it pointing out fallicies and innaccuracies.

Get an erection from it?
Why? Does that interest you?

Anyways, I will go thru my post to clarify anything that you might not have gotten :)
No. I got it. It seems you didn't get my post, which I will not take the time to explain since it is fairly straightfoward and debatable.

Now if you'd actually like to debate the issues that I've brought up
That's precisely what I did, and for some reason you became offended.

instead of acting like a jack*** to everyone in this thread who's opinions differ from yours, that would be good.
What are you talking about? Is your skin really that thin? I'm impolite to steen because he made various assumptions about me that were totally unsubstaniated and innacurate and called me a deceptive, lying, biggoted misogynyst. All I did was offer up an opinion that differed from his and he couldn't handle it.

Oh, and homophobic remarks aren't cool. Grow up.
Jeez. So sensitive.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Again, you've completely sidestepped the arguements. Everyone who reads this knows it too.

I find it funny that when you're called names, you're allowed to get angry and become inappropriate. But when you use derogatory remarks, others who get offended are labeled as "so sensitive."

Ethereal said:
No. I got it. It seems you didn't get my post, which I will not take the time to explain since it is fairly straightfoward and debatable.
Okay... so now that I've gone thru and attempted to clarify my position to what I thought your arguments were, I would like some help.

Please quote your original arguments again, and clarify please so that I may have a chance to retort them as well.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ethereal said:
It seems you didn't get my post, which I will not take the time to explain since it is fairly straightfoward and debatable.
So you are AGAIN taking the coward's retreat. Once again, we note your inability to discuss the issues brought up in response to your post. How lame and pathetic.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
thapcballa said:
Not trying to be mean, but some retards and people considered vegatable, or someone in a coma don't have those traits. So by what you said we can kill those people to.
I've already addressed this point in the thread "Does Functionality Define Humanity?"
 
Top Bottom