• 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?

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Duke said:
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
Ease up on that fermented pineapple juice, Duke, and open a biology book. You will find that a fetus, which is a Latin word meaning, "little one", is a living, growing, developing human being separate and distinct from its mother, in whose womb it is residing.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Ah. So purely because of the Latin root of a word, that obviously makes it a human life equal to yours or mine?
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Again, you've completely sidestepped the arguements. Everyone who reads this knows it too.

Oh my God. I've sidestepped nothing. Just because you're incapable of debate or reading comprehension doesn't mean I'm trying to stay away from the issues. I'll debate anything you want, anytime.

I find it funny that when you're called names, you're allowed to get angry and become inappropriate.

I don't get angry. At least not at people on an internet forum. What's the point?

Inappropriate? How so?

But when you use derogatory remarks, others who get offended are labeled as "so sensitive."

The term gay is derogatory? How about the term hateful, biggoted, mysogynyst liar? Is that derogatory?

Moving on...

Since you're having trouble sniffing out the issues I'll humour you and point them out as clearly as I can manage, but something tells me you won't get it and that this pointless conversation will continue.



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!

This is called sarcasm. Somebody who is a professor of philosophy at Boston College is obviously not a joke.

who puts out tons of pro-God books.


And you mention this because?

Do I really have to interpret this for you?

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

Good sentence. Very logical.

This is also sarcasm. He's using logic to come to absurd results that aren't really that absurd? Either you need help with your grammar or you just don't understand the nature of debate.

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.

All I'm doing here is pre-empting your attempt to form a basis for future points you will attempt to make by refering back to said statement. You're trying to say that what the human population has somehow differs from what they possess, and that this somehow has relevance to our current debate, which it doesn't, since I was able to point out that both words mean practically the same thing and can be used interchangingly.

But if control were to be it

But control is not it. It's the absurdity of a transitive relationship between mother and fetus.

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.

I neglected to adress these points (not including the italisized words) since they were formed on the basis that has and possess are truly different, which I rendered inutile.

Now I really don't care for this style of debate since it is totally redundant. So, if we can just use the usual copy, paste, quote, respond format instead of this silly quote myself and explain myself needlessly then that would be just super.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
You will find that a fetus, which is a Latin word meaning, "little one",
No, it isn't. There you go again, claiming falsehoods to be facts. Are you ever going to stop doing that?
is a living, growing, developing human
Yes,
No, it isn't. Your claim is incorrect. And it doesn't fit the biological, scientific use of the terminology, which per your insistence of discussing biology, makes you outright lying here. That is unfortunate.
separate and distinct from its mother,..
Also not true. Please cease all those false, aboslutist claims. Your portrayal of your wishful thinking as facts is dishonest. You are insulting us with your dishonesty.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
vergiss said:
Ah. So purely because of the Latin root of a word, that obviously makes it a human life equal to yours or mine?
I'm glad to see that you finally understand what goes on in the womb of an expectant mother. The name, itself is not important. Every language has a different word with the same meaning.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
No, it isn't. There you go again, claiming falsehoods to be facts. Are you ever going to stop doing that?
Yes,
No, it isn't. Your claim is incorrect. And it doesn't fit the biological, scientific use of the terminology, which per your insistence of discussing biology, makes you outright lying here. That is unfortunate.
Also not true. Please cease all those false, aboslutist claims. Your portrayal of your wishful thinking as facts is dishonest. You are insulting us with your dishonesty.
You claim expertise in biology but your statements ring hollow.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
You claim expertise in biology but your statements ring hollow.
Ah, another "because I say so" unsubstantiated postulation. Yes, I know you want to claim that you use biological arguiments because that is what you have staked your credibility on, and I understand that unless you challenge when your lies are pointed out, your deception and dishonesty might be exposed.

But I had hoped that you would have a little shred of credibility and would be able to admit it when you are caught in lies. But I guess not.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
Ah, another "because I say so" unsubstantiated postulation. Yes, I know you want to claim that you use biological arguiments because that is what you have staked your credibility on, and I understand that unless you challenge when your lies are pointed out, your deception and dishonesty might be exposed.

But I had hoped that you would have a little shred of credibility and would be able to admit it when you are caught in lies. But I guess not.
Is there a biological fact lurking in there?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
Is there a biological fact lurking in there?
The biological facts are there when I post them. they are not there when you post your lies, so obviously, when I call you on your lies, it is per your lack of biological facts.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
The biological facts are there when I post them. they are not there when you post your lies, so obviously, when I call you on your lies, it is per your lack of biological facts.
Just as I suspected. You have no facts. Just your incessant "moles".
 

MCcorno89

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Most people don't know that they are pregnant until about 3 weeks, so havinbg said that the fetus has had little time, but a sufficient amount to develop into what we would describe as the begining of a new life, even with a beating heart.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
MCcorno89 said:
Most people don't know that they are pregnant until about 3 weeks, so havinbg said that the fetus has had little time, but a sufficient amount to develop into what we would describe as the begining of a new life, even with a beating heart.
Huh?? :confused: :confused:
 

lori palmer

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hes saying that by three weeks the baby is alot more "human" than people assume. and NOBODY knows exactly what that baby is feeling. ya know people are interesting. 200 years ago most people thought it was acceptable to torture slaves because they didnt consider them to be human.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
lori palmer said:
hes saying that by three weeks the baby is alot more "human" than people assume.
Really? And how much does people "assume"? And, of course, "baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth, not at 3 weeks.
and NOBODY knows exactly what that baby is feeling.
Your claim is false. We know that until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, it feels absolutely NOTHING, because the conncetion between the sensory nerves and the brain's cortex have not connected. So your claim has no bearing in reality. In fact, reality directly contradicts your claim. We know for sure that at 3 weeks, there is no feeling or thought of any kind whatsoever. therefore, prolifers claims once again are shown to be all emotional hyperbole and no facts.
yet ya know people are interesting. 200 years ago most people thought it was acceptable to torture slaves because they didnt consider them to be human.
Well, that is news to me. Not "human"? Are you sure of that claim?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
You understand exactly what is being said.

You agreed earlier that at three weeks, a "muscle" is contracting. That, of course, is the early stage of the heart. It's "beating" is separate and distinct from the heartbeat of the mother. This indicates there are two hearts beating.

At three weeks, the mother isn't even aware that she is pregnant, yet she is. Within her is a live, unborn child in its embryonic stage. Left undisturbed, it will continue to grow, develop, and on its own schedule, pass through the birth canal and take its rightful place among us.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
We know for sure that at 3 weeks, there is no feeling or thought of any kind whatsoever.
What difference does this make? We are dealing with an unborn human child in an early stage of development. Its humanity is not at all dependent upon being able to pass a "test".

It will be further developed and larger at 26 weeks, but no more human than it is at 3 weeks.

Refute that, if you can.
 

lori palmer

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Really? And how much does people "assume"? And, of course, "baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth, not at 3 weeks.
Your claim is false. We know that until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, it feels absolutely NOTHING, because the conncetion between the sensory nerves and the brain's cortex have not connected. So your claim has no bearing in reality. In fact, reality directly contradicts your claim. We know for sure that at 3 weeks, there is no feeling or thought of any kind whatsoever. therefore, prolifers claims once again are shown to be all emotional hyperbole and no facts.
Well, that is news to me. Not "human"? Are you sure of that claim?
steen,
#1 people have the tendancy not to respect life not as advanced as they are.(life not capable of comunicating and feeling the same as themselves. and yes, I use the term baby and will continue to do so. I never once referred to my daughter as my fetus while I was pregnant. I am also a homosapien but i preffer to be called Lori.
#2 I will take your word about the 26 weeks. I researched for a while and couldnt find that exact topic. however, when I made the statement about the child at 3 weeks, I was not using the word feeling in the way you interpreted. What I meant was not that a baby at 3 weeks development is feeling the way you and I do, but that life occurs on many different scales. it is a complex event and just because its not using brainwaves and nerve endings doesnt mean there is no sense of being. now I didnt say that there Is a sense of being. but how can you say there isnt.
#3 as for people not considering slaves to be human,there are probably still a few grandfathers out there who refuse to acknowledge african americans as anything but monkies.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
MCcorno89 said:
Most people don't know that they are pregnant until about 3 weeks, so havinbg said that the fetus has had little time, but a sufficient amount to develop into what we would describe as the begining of a new life, even with a beating heart.

How amusing,At 3 weeks you aren't even overdue.In Fact, implantation might not have occured!
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There is an excellent article by the scientist Carl Sagan and his Wife that I feel sheds light on this topic.....here is an excerpt:

We recognize that specifying a precise moment will overlook individual differences. Therefore, if we must draw a line, it ought to be drawn conservatively--that is, on the early side. There are people who object to having to set some numerical limit, and we share their disquiet; but if there is to be a law on this matter, and it is to effect some useful compromise between the two absolutist positions, it must specify, at least roughly, a time of transition to personhood.

Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The momentous meeting of sperm and egg generally occurs in one of the two fallopian tubes. One cell becomes two, two become four, and so on—an exponentiation of base-2 arithmetic. By the tenth day the fertilized egg has become a kind of hollow sphere wandering off to another realm: the womb. It destroys tissue in its path. It sucks blood from capillaries. It bathes itself in maternal blood, from which it extracts oxygen and nutrients. It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus.

# By the third week, around the time of the first missed menstrual period, the forming embryo is about 2 millimeters long and is developing various body parts. Only at this stage does it begin to be dependent on a rudimentary placenta. It looks a little like a segmented worm.

# By the end of the fourth week, it's about 5 millimeters (about 1/5 inch) long. It's recognizable now as a vertebrate, its tube-shaped heart is beginning to beat, something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail. It looks rather like a newt or a tadpole. This is the end of the first month after conception.

# By the fifth week, the gross divisions of the brain can be distinguished. What will later develop into eyes are apparent, and little buds appear—on their way to becoming arms and legs.

# By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeteres (about ½ inch) long. The eyes are still on the side of the head, as in most animals, and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be.

# By the end of the seventh week, the tail is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be discerned (although both sexes look female). The face is mammalian but somewhat piglike.

# By the end of the eighth week, the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human. Most of the human body parts are present in their essentials. Some lower brain anatomy is well-developed. The fetus shows some reflex response to delicate stimulation.

# By the tenth week, the face has an unmistakably human cast. It is beginning to be possible to distinguish males from females. Nails and major bone structures are not apparent until the third month.

# By the fourth month, you can tell the face of one fetus from that of another. Quickening is most commonly felt in the fifth month. The bronchioles of the lungs do not begin developing until approximately the sixth month, the alveoli still later.

So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood? When its face becomes distinctly human, near the end of the first trimester? When the fetus becomes responsive to stimuli--again, at the end of the first trimester? When it becomes active enough to be felt as quickening, typically in the middle of the second trimester? When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air?

The trouble with these particular developmental milestones is not just that they're arbitrary. More troubling is the fact that none of them involves uniquely human characteristics--apart from the superficial matter of facial appearance. All animals respond to stimuli and move of their own volition. Large numbers are able to breathe. But that doesn't stop us from slaughtering them by the billions. Reflexes and motion are not what make us human.

Other animals have advantages over us--in speed, strength, endurance, climbing or burrowing skills, camouflage, sight or smell or hearing, mastery of the air or water. Our one great advantage, the secret of our success, is thought--characteristically human thought. We are able to think things through, imagine events yet to occur, figure things out. That's how we invented agriculture and civilization. Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

And the Link:


http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Elektra said:
How amusing,At 3 weeks you aren't even overdue.In Fact, implantation might not have occured!
Mocking?

The reason that one becomes "overdue" is because something has happened after the completion of the last period which prevents the next period from occurring. It's the child's non-verbal way of announcing its presence.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
You understand exactly what is being said.
I don't get the point if his disjointed and silly remark.
You agreed earlier that at three weeks, a "muscle" is contracting.
Well, muscle tissue, actually.
That, of course, is the early stage of the heart. It's "beating" is separate and distinct from the heartbeat of the mother. This indicates there are two hearts beating.
There really isn't an actual heart at 3 weeks.
At three weeks, the mother isn't even aware that she is pregnant, yet she is. Within her is a live, unborn child in its embryonic stage.
I understand that you again see the need to resort to prolife revisionist linguistic hyperbole and thus end up spewing nonsense.
Left undisturbed, it will continue to grow, develop, and on its own schedule, pass through the birth canal
And if aborted, then not. So what?
and take its rightful place among us.
Ah, you are a prophet? You know what the rightful place of a zygote is? Amazing narcissism you display.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
What difference does this make? We are dealing with an unborn human child in an early stage of development. Its humanity is not at all dependent upon being able to pass a "test".
It is of human origin, that is its species designation if that's what you are talking about?

And it still is no more an "unborn child" than you are an undead corpse.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
lori palmer said:
steen,
#1 people have the tendancy not to respect life not as advanced as they are.(life not capable of comunicating and feeling the same as themselves. and yes, I use the term baby and will continue to do so.
Unfortunately, "baby" is the developmental stage beginning at birth. It is no more realistic to characterize the fetus as a "baby" than it is to characterize you or me as a corpse. Use of terms refering to a different developmental stage can only cause confusion, with its misapplication. And unfortunately, prolifers have been known to deliberately and dishonestly trying to push that blurring of developmental stages. As such, you should expect that using the word "baby" as a descriptor for embryo or fetus in a debate over abortion will immediately get you branded as and accused of being a liar, of being willfully deceptive.

Are you a corpse? Is it valid to use stage descriptors that actually refer to other stages? Or is it dishonest and deceptive? "Lori, the Corpse"?

(I trust you see my point?)
I never once referred to my daughter as my fetus while I was pregnant. I am also a homosapien but i preffer to be called Lori.
Ah, but H. sapiens would be a correct descriptor as well. "baby" is not, in the context prolifers apply it to pre-birth developmental stages. So your remark about H. sapiens really isn't analogous. The issue of "corpse" is, however.
#2 I will take your word about the 26 weeks. I researched for a while and couldnt find that exact topic. however, when I made the statement about the child at 3 weeks, I was not using the word feeling in the way you interpreted. What I meant was not that a baby at 3 weeks development is feeling the way you and I do, but that life occurs on many different scales. it is a complex event and just because its not using brainwaves and nerve endings doesnt mean there is no sense of being.
Really? How so? How is it possible to have a sense of anything when you have absolutelky no input?
now I didnt say that there Is a sense of being. but how can you say there isnt.
Because the brain is receiving absolutely no input. It does no more processing than your computer when nit is turned off.
#3 as for people not considering slaves to be human,there are probably still a few grandfathers out there who refuse to acknowledge african americans as anything but monkies.
"probably"? That's a copout.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is a fetus a human being??????

Is an Egg a Chicken?

We shouldn't eat eggs because they could grow up to be chicken, which is much tastier and more filling than eggs are! Imagine, a way to feed the starving and hungry!
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Want to know my opinion on this whole matter??
Men shouldn't have the right to speak about this.
The decision to abort a baby rests solely on the mother under our current system right?
Then why do men sit around and argue over it all the time? We don't belong in that discussion.

Want to know my opinion? I'm pro choice.
If you don't like the idea of getting an abortion... DON'T GET ONE!
Otherwise, its none of your ****ing business.
Why is it none of your business? Because its not your body and its not your life, and its not your life they are taking, neither is it the life of your child.
If your the father of the baby an' yer ole lady wants an abortion.. thats between you two, you should be able to convince your woman its a bad idea, you don't need a law restricting the choices of the entire US just incase you get put in that situation.
 
Top Bottom