• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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?

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Fantasea said:
Your answer, while admittedly lengthy, is totally unresponsive. I ask for fact and you spew forth unfounded opinion. Simply a regurgitation of the same old nonsense.

Have you any equally qualified sources who can refute what these doctors have to say? I think not.

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

The argument of personhood works quite well for the anti-rights campaign when it states this OPINION. However, when any other conclusion is drawn, then it becomes nonsense.

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

and what comes between the ... in the statement above. Forgive me for being so mistrustful, but the pro-lie penchant is to spin everything they spew. I have also noted that Bongiovanni's credits are in glandular research. He is not qualified to make such profound statements...and a weasley statement at that..."I am not prepared to say..." Doesnt get more wishy washy than that.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Donkey1499 said:
My first sentence was directed at the law that says women don't need to let the father know if they're having an abortion. Which is wrong, the father owns the fetus just as much as the mother does. It takes two to make one in this case.
The father doesn't own any right to force a woman to do anything with her body. She is not his slave.
The fetus inside the woman is NOT her body, but a seperate entity.
Not until the umbilical cord is cut. Until then, it is no different from any bodily organ.
It's not her body that she's dealing with, but another being.
It most certainly is her body, and the embryo is tissue, not a being.
Pregnancy against one's will is a tough one to decide. But really, it's not the child's fault, so why should it suffer?
The developmental stage "child" doesn't begin until aftre birth.
I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm only making reccomendations and saying that people need to approach this topic with some common sense.
And prochoice have already done that. Now, if you are the prolife ilk would do so, yes it would be much easier than your emotional, factless rantings.
"There is no kid until birth"? That is only speculation. Even scientists can't all agree.
SO? Before birth, the developmental tages are embryo and fetus (And a few earlier ones as well).
But nonetheless, it is still another being in the womb.
There is no "being" without independent bodily function, which won't happen unbtil birth.
I take it from a Christian point of view. Leviticus 17:11 states "The life of every living thing is in the blood.... Blood, which is life...". Now, blood doesn't begin to circulate in the fetus until the 18th day after the "encounter". So thus, abortion BEFORE the 18 day cutoff is fine, in my opinion. The fetus becomes a being once the blood circulates. That is my stance.
So blood transfusions are wrong?
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Iriemon said:
You say people need to approach this with some "common sense" and in the next paragraph base your position on abortion based on the conclusion that "blood is life" stated in a text that was written 5000 years ago? LOL!

If "blood is life", you are committing murder every time a blood sample is taken.

Dammit. You caught me.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
The father doesn't own any right to force a woman to do anything with her body. She is not his slave.
Not until the umbilical cord is cut. Until then, it is no different from any bodily organ.
It most certainly is her body, and the embryo is tissue, not a being.
The developmental stage "child" doesn't begin until aftre birth.
And prochoice have already done that. Now, if you are the prolife ilk would do so, yes it would be much easier than your emotional, factless rantings.
SO? Before birth, the developmental tages are embryo and fetus (And a few earlier ones as well).
There is no "being" without independent bodily function, which won't happen unbtil birth.
So blood transfusions are wrong?

So even tho the man HAD to help make the "fetus", he has no say in it's fate? Even tho it is half his? That's a little one sided, don't you think?

"Independant bodily function", babies do kick in the womb you know.

Blood transfusions aren't wrong. You're taking it out of context. Everyone knows that blood carries oxygen and other stuff throughout the body, right? So what happens when you bleed out all of your blood? You die. Without blood, you cannot live. Plain and simple.

And what's wrong with emotions? We all have them, unless you're a Borg or some kind of super Vulcan.
 
Top Bottom