• 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?

Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
No one is saying it's not their fault. Fault is irrelevant, however. You also cannot say you are punishing the child since no "child" exists. You aren't talking about a rationally autonomous, sapient, or even sentient being. You are talking about a mindless parasite.

It doesn't matter because we know at a later time the child will exist, so why deny it the right to live?



Ahh ok. So forced pregnancy and birth isn't immoral just so long as the government says it's needed. Gotcha! Let's que up some of those Nazi birthing programmes where women were baby factories.

Well, Europe does have negative birth rates but I would never advocate something like that. BUT if we were faced with extinction, we would have to do something to survive.
 
I say it does because we have plenty of evidence to suggest that it will be a human in the near future.

And I say so what if it will be later? It's not now, and it has never been yet, so it doesn't matter. YOu cannot base rights on beings which don't exist. A fertilized egg can very well one day be a full human. It's absurd to give it equal rights to one. The individual isn't losing anything, because in order to lose something, you have to have it in the first place. The fetus cannot even comprehend the concept of personhood. IT doesn't understand itself as a continuous being. It has no preferences. You cannot violate preferences that don't exist.

It's concievable that you can make even early stage infantacide ethical, since self-awareness in that sense doesn't exist then either.

A seed can very well one day become a full grown plant. It's absurd to say it's just as valuable as one.
 
George_Washington said:
I say it does because we have plenty of evidence to suggest that it will be a human in the near future.

Again.. Why does something that "WILL BECOME" get the properties of that of which it will become when it isn't yet. Thats a ridiculous argument.

Thats like saying a child "will become" 21 years old and able to drink alcohol.
So because the child will become 21 years old in the future, it should have the right to drink alcohol now? No.....
 
Again.. Why does something that "WILL BECOME" get the properties of that of which it will become when it isn't yet. Thats a ridiculous argument.

Thats like saying a child "will become" 21 years old and able to drink alcohol.
So because the child will become 21 years old in the future, it should have the right to drink alcohol now? No.....

Damn it! How dare you snatch that good example I was going to make sometime in the future! I a priori had that!
 
Last edited:
George_Washington said:
I'm looking at the results of abortion in nations, not the world as a whole. Yes, we're over populated but if you look at the result of abortion in countries, it tends to lead to negative birth rates. You need to go read, "The Death of the West" by Pat Buchanan. He talks about this stuff in it.

If you don't want a child, just give it for adoption. Don't deny it the right to live, a right that you have been given.

If you were speaking of nations then why did you say H U M A N R A C E!!!
everyone in the world is a human, period.
 
spend more time on reducing the oil consumption and less time worrying about what other peoples RIGHTS are and wether or not their morals or less then yours
5% of the poeple of the world using 25% of the oil !

perhaps more attention to things that really mean something would be wise
levees broken
and people spend time and money trying to thrust their ideals
 
Caine said:
Again.. Why does something that "WILL BECOME" get the properties of that of which it will become when it isn't yet. Thats a ridiculous argument.

Thats like saying a child "will become" 21 years old and able to drink alcohol.
So because the child will become 21 years old in the future, it should have the right to drink alcohol now? No.....

I agree. Touche.
 
Caine said:
Thats like saying a child "will become" 21 years old and able to drink alcohol.
So because the child will become 21 years old in the future, it should have the right to drink alcohol now? No.....

But that child has the right that at the age of 21 he or she can legally drink--that little child has that "right" at the age he is right now as a member of the human race existing in the United States--it applies to him...

So that embryo has the right that at the age of viability to be born--that embryo has that "right" at the age he is right now as a member of the human race existing in the world--it applies to him...
 
But that child has the right that at the age of 21 he or she can legally drink--that little child has that "right" at the age he is right now as a member of the human race existing in the United States--it applies to him...

So that embryo has the right that at the age of viability to be born--that embryo has that "right" at the age he is right now as a member of the human race existing in the world--it applies to him...

1. Something doesn't get the right to something untill it exists as an entity. prior to existing, there is nothing to which you must give rights. Since there's nothing to which you can give rights, there is nothing from which you cannot take. A 21 year old is already a being with moral personhood. A blob of cells isn't. You cannot assign an embryo rights that you would attach to persons, because that makes the concept of personhood pointless; that's a silly thing to do.

If and only if you hold Humans valuable because of X reason, then humans without X shouldn't be considered valuable as humans with X. You cannot say, "in the future, he will have it!" That's just not proper.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
1. Something doesn't get the right to something untill it exists as an entity. prior to existing, there is nothing to which you must give rights. Since there's nothing to which you can give rights, there is nothing from which you cannot take. A 21 year old is already a being with moral personhood. A blob of cells isn't. You cannot assign an embryo rights that you would attach to persons, because that makes the concept of personhood pointless; that's a silly thing to do.

If and only if you hold Humans valuable because of X reason, then humans without X shouldn't be considered valuable as humans with X. You cannot say, "in the future, he will have it!" That's just not proper.


Are "human" embryos identifiably of the human species?
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant Concern. It doesn't matter what species you are, only the stage at which you have moral personhood.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Irrelevant Concern. It doesn't matter what species you are, only the stage at which you have moral personhood.

It's not "irrelevent" and here's why....



The answer to the above question is obviously..."yes."

Next question: Do individual members of the human species have a "right to life?"

I mean...I am a member of the human species....Joe Blow can't come along and at his whim deprive me of my life--even for some very good reasons he might give concerning why I'm a plague on his life...My right to life is protected because I am of the human species--it's called a "human rights issue"....

Therefore: If "human" embryos are members of the human species...they have the right to have their life protected too.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Irrelevant Concern. It doesn't matter what species you are, only the stage at which you have moral personhood.

It's only irrelevant cause you claim it is. It all just boils down to women like you not wanting to take personal responsiblity for their actions. You can try to mask it with a thousand words but that's pretty much what it boils down to.
 
Felicity said:
It's not "irrelevent" and here's why....



The answer to the above question is obviously..."yes."

Next question: Do individual members of the human species have a "right to life?"

I mean...I am a member of the human species....Joe Blow can't come along and at his whim deprive me of my life--even for some very good reasons he might give concerning why I'm a plague on his life...My right to life is protected because I am of the human species--it's called a "human rights issue"....

Therefore: If "human" embryos are members of the human species...they have the right to have their life protected too.


The problem is, a fetus has no individuality until after it has been born. It cannot be given the rights of an individual when it is unable to live like an individual.

this "human species" I hear alot has nothing to do with human rights. Humans have rights. Just because you are a member of the "human species" doesn't give you rights. You have to be a human first. A fetus is not a human, thats why we call it a fetus. And a ball of cells, well, thats just stupid to try to protect the rights of something that has not even grown to be the size of a grain of rice.
 
Caine said:
The problem is, a fetus has no individuality until after it has been born. It cannot be given the rights of an individual when it is unable to live like an individual.

this "human species" I hear alot has nothing to do with human rights. Humans have rights. Just because you are a member of the "human species" doesn't give you rights. You have to be a human first. A fetus is not a human, thats why we call it a fetus. And a ball of cells, well, thats just stupid to try to protect the rights of something that has not even grown to be the size of a grain of rice.

A fetus is the beginnings of human life, therefore it is human. How can you be a member of the human species but yet not be a human? That doesn't make the least bit of sense.
 
George_Washington said:
A fetus is the beginnings of human life, therefore it is human. How can you be a member of the human species but yet not be a human? That doesn't make the least bit of sense.

Of course it does.
Is a ball of rapidly dividing cells a human? Should it honestly be given the rights of a human when it isn't larger than a grain of rice and barely if at all visible to anyone if outside the mother.

Like Technocratic said, an unwanted fetus has less value than that of a chickens egg. Because then it merely becomes a parasite.
 
Caine said:
Of course it does.
Is a ball of rapidly dividing cells a human? Should it honestly be given the rights of a human when it isn't larger than a grain of rice and barely if at all visible to anyone if outside the mother.

Yes, it absolutely should.


Like Technocratic said, an unwanted fetus has less value than that of a chickens egg. Because then it merely becomes a parasite.

You guys just aren't understand that it doesn't matter if the fetus is, "wanted" or NOT. Who cares? The child can still live a full life apart from it's mother and accomplish many great things.
 
George_Washington said:
Yes, it absolutely should.




You guys just aren't understand that it doesn't matter if the fetus is, "wanted" or NOT. Who cares? The child can still live a full life apart from it's mother and accomplish many great things.

Can't live apart from its mother when it is a ball of cells or a still developing pile of slime that contains an underdeveloped heart and no brain.
 
George_Washington said:
So what? The woman isn't going to have to carry it that long, really.

why waste her time?
 
George_Washington said:
Because she knew she could get pregnant before having unprotected sex, so now make her take responsiblity.

Again, my plan I stated earlier allows the right to an abortion, but puts limitations on it.

Besides, men should have no say in rights that affect women only.

I think a panel of 9 non-religious woman should get together in the case that a decision HAS to be made, Men should'nt make the decision for women.

And these religious crazies who think thier religious moral values should be a part of our government should have no say as well.
 
Caine said:
Again, my plan I stated earlier allows the right to an abortion, but puts limitations on it.

Besides, men should have no say in rights that affect women only.

I think a panel of 9 non-religious woman should get together in the case that a decision HAS to be made, Men should'nt make the decision for women.

And these religious crazies who think thier religious moral values should be a part of our government should have no say as well.

You know, it's not really about religion. If I were an atheist, I would still be pro-life. Of course men should have say in it because we're talking about things that involve morality. And I mean morality apart from religion. We're talking about terminating life and I believe that's immoral. I believe there is a universe sense of morality apart from religion, although not neccessarily contradictory to.
 
Back
Top Bottom