At what point, from conception does a ''phetus'' become a human being?

[James R]

Human rights and what you're speaking of above about different age groups or being a criminal are unrelated topics. Being recognized a human being are despite such differences. So the right to vote is not like being recognized as human at all.

My point is that a 7 year old child does not have the same rights as an adult. So, why should an unborn foetus has the same rights as an adult?

 

[Arioch]

@Mind Over Matter --

Well, a fetus is definitely human, that much can't be denied without denying all of biology. However to say that they are then all potential persons is a little optimistic. Fully half of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate due to various reasons(the more children a woman has had the more likely this is to occur). Such spontaneous abortions can occur due to embryological imperfections or misteps, or it can be due to a chemical imbalance in the uterine environment, or it can be a genetic "kill" program is mistakenly activated. These spontaneous abortions can occur at any time during the pregnancy(though most occur in the first two months). So to call every zygote a potential person(which is what is meant by the laymen's term "human being") is meaningless as for half of them or more that potential will never be realized.

Besides, we don't class things as people because of their potential(though we do revoke their rights because of their potential in many cases). The word "person" has a specific legal and philosophical definitions, and a fetus in no way fits these definitions.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

So to call every zygote a potential person(which is what is meant by the laymen's term "human being") is meaningless as for half of them or more that potential will never be realized.

Besides, we don't class things as people because of their potential(though we do revoke their rights because of their potential in many cases). The word "person" has a specific legal and philosophical definitions, and a fetus in no way fits these definitions.

If they are not humans, what are they? A fetus is in no way fits the definitions of things and animals (insert joke here if you like) but look at the following slideshow: Fetal Development Month by Month .

http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-fetal-development

 

[Arioch]

@Mind Over Matter --

Straw man argument, and a damn inaccurate one at that. You'll note that I definitively stated that they are human(they have human DNA so they're human, simple as that), I said that they weren't people. There's a big difference.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Straw man argument, and a damn inaccurate one at that. You'll note that I definitively stated that they are human(they have human DNA so they're human, simple as that), I said that they weren't people. There's a big difference.

If it's a straw man then you can state the actual categorization of a fetus? The denial of the fact that the fetus is a person is a time-honored tactic. Throughout history, we see examples of people being denied their personhood.

Philosopher Peter Kreeft presents the arguments commonly used to explain why the unborn child is not a human person and then shows clearly and simply why each of these arguments cannot possibly be true.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0004.html

 

[Mind Over Matter]

My point is that a 7 year old child does not have the same rights as an adult. So, why should an unborn foetus has the same rights as an adult?

Your point is flawed because it misunderstands the word "rights", or more correctly expressed, "human rights". There is what we call "unalienable human rights", which the argument overlooks, which refers to rights that are fundamental to human existence. They are not earned because of intelligence, stature or perceived maturity, but by the simple virtue of the fact that the living organism is human.

 

[wynn]

Your point is flawed because it misunderstands the word "rights", or more correctly expressed, "human rights". There is what we call "unalienable human rights", which the argument overlooks, which refers to rights that are fundamental to human existence. They are not earned because of intelligence, stature or perceived maturity, but by the simple virtue of the fact that the living organism is human.

You are the last one here to talk about "human rights."

Need I remind you what happens, according to Catholic doctrine, to aborted and miscarried babies, and those that died before they were baptized?

 

[wise acre]

So as long as it remains inside the mother, it can be classed as non-human?
jan.

My emphasis.

It? There is not it. The mother's body has become more complicated. It can help us to think of a liver or the nervous system as its, but they aren't really. 'It' is a part of the mother, until 'it' is not.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

You are the last one here to talk about "human rights."

Need I remind you what happens, according to Catholic doctrine, to aborted and miscarried babies, and those that died before they were baptized?

Go ahead. What happened? Only a 12 year-old will defend that specific argument from James R.

No one is arguing that the fetus should have the rights of an adult, but only the right not to be killed. This is a right shared by the seven-year-old child, and by everybody else. Simple.

*Edit: Now pro-choice individuals may respond to this and say "but a fetus isn't human. It has the potential to be human". Such argument is spurious as well because it presupposes that scientists are infallible on what is and isn't life. However, history shows that scientists have changed their opinion on what constitutes life. Even today, different scientists have different opinions on what is and isn't life. Who's right? Who's wrong? At least by the assumption that life begins at conception, we can remedy all of this confusion, and therefore save lives that may have been unnecessarily killed because they weren't deemed "human" by other "humans".

 

[wynn]

Go ahead. What happened? Only a 12 year-old will defend that specific argument from James R.

No one is arguing that the fetus should have the rights of an adult, but only the right not to be killed. This is a right shared by the seven-year-old child, and by everybody else. Simple.

*Edit: Now pro-choice individuals may respond to this and say "but a fetus isn't human. It has the potential to be human". Such argument is spurious as well because it presupposes that scientists are infallible on what is and isn't life. However, history shows that scientists have changed their opinion on what constitutes life. Even today, different scientists have different opinions on what is and isn't life. Who's right? Who's wrong? At least by the assumption that life begins at conception, we can remedy all of this confusion, and therefore save lives that may have been unnecessarily killed because they weren't deemed "human" by other "humans".

According to the doctrine of your church, aborted and miscarried babies, and those that died before they were baptized burn in hell for all eternity; or, as a later amendement states, spend considerable time in purgatory.

So how is that for arguing for the right not to be killed?

You believe in a god that will torment the majority of his supposeldy beloved children in hell for all eternity. And you dare talk about the right not to be killed?!

Shame on you.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

According to the doctrine of your church, aborted and miscarried babies, and those that died before they were baptized burn in hell for all eternity; or, as a later amendement states, spend considerable time in purgatory.

So how is that for arguing for the right not to be killed?

You believe in a god that will torment the majority of his supposeldy beloved children in hell for all eternity. And you dare talk about the right not to be killed?!

Shame on you.

The Catholic Church doesn't necessarily teach that aborted and miscarried children go to Hell. The Church actually has no "official" idea on where aborted and miscarried children go to in the afterlife. What the Church does is entrust aborted and miscarried children to God's mercy. Some Catholic theologians have also speculated that there is a place called "Limbo" where aborted/miscarried children go to. Other Catholic theologians speculate that aborted/miscarried children go to a paradise-like place, but do not enjoy the Beatific Vision (seeing God face-to-face) as those who are in Heaven.

 

[wynn]

You believe in a god that will torment the majority of his supposeldy beloved children in hell for all eternity.
You have no business talking about the right not to be killed.

 

[James R]

There is what we call "unalienable human rights", which the argument overlooks, which refers to rights that are fundamental to human existence. They are not earned because of intelligence, stature or perceived maturity, but by the simple virtue of the fact that the living organism is human.

What's so special about humans?

Why aren't there equivalent "cow rights" or "dog rights" or "dolphin rights" or "tree rights"?

No one is arguing that the fetus should have the rights of an adult, but only the right not to be killed. This is a right shared by the seven-year-old child, and by everybody else. Simple.

And your argument is that these rights follow from mere membership of a particular species.

Is that not totally arbitrary, and self-serving besides?

*Edit: Now pro-choice individuals may respond to this and say "but a fetus isn't human. It has the potential to be human".

Anybody making that argument is also wrong. A potential X is not an X. Prince Charles is a potential King of England, but that doesn't mean that he has all the rights of the King of England now.

Usually we see this argument from the pro-lifers, in fact. They argue that a foetus deserves protection because it is a "potential adult human". The obvious point is that it is not now an adult human, and that makes a difference.

At least by the assumption that life begins at conception, we can remedy all of this confusion, and therefore save lives that may have been unnecessarily killed because they weren't deemed "human" by other "humans".

The "human" argument is misleading and irrelevant. Mere membership of a species is no basis for a general right to life, or anything else, because membership of a particular species is a pure accident of birth. Why no dolphin "right to life"? Why no snail "right to life"? Just because the snail wasn't lucky enough to be a member of the human race?

 

[visceral_instinct]

May I point out that not even born, grown humans have the right to use anyone's body against their will.

What makes an embryo so special that it gets a right no one else has?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

What's so special about humans?

Why aren't there equivalent "cow rights" or "dog rights" or "dolphin rights" or "tree rights"?

Are you attempting to equate a child with an animal?

It's an evolutionary trait that each specie will want to ensure that their species' lives are guarded. Dogs do not kill dogs. Dolphins do not kill dolphins. So why should humans, who are more intelligent than these, kill their very own -- to kill fellow human beings?

Anybody making that argument is also wrong. A potential X is not an X. Prince Charles is a potential King of England, but that doesn't mean that he has all the rights of the King of England now.

Usually we see this argument from the pro-lifers, in fact. They argue that a foetus deserves protection because it is a "potential adult human". The obvious point is that it is not now an adult human, and that makes a difference.

Your have misunderstood my point. Some rights are unalienable to all human beings. One unalienable right is the right to life. Every human has the right to life regardless of their age. Even pro-choicers can not deny this fact, so they proceed into denying that fetus' are human. But fetus' are indeed human, or at least should be assumed as such, because scientists aren't infallible on what is and isn't life. To use a scientific study to purport that life begins at XYZ months is to make the assumption that scientists are gods unto themselves - that they are free from error. At least by the claim that life begins at conception, we can remove all confusion that scientists have on the question of "when life begins?" At least from the claim that life begins at conception, we can save lives that would have unnecessarily been killed because of a mistake by contemporary scientists on when exactly life begins.

Gandhi once remarked that we could judge a civilisation by how it treated his animals. But he was living in an era slightly more moral than the one we live in now. We can judge a civilization based on how it treats the most vulnerable of society - including the disabled, the elderly, and the unborn.

The "human" argument is misleading and irrelevant. Mere membership of a species is no basis for a general right to life, or anything else, because membership of a particular species is a pure accident of birth. Why no dolphin "right to life"? Why no snail "right to life"? Just because the snail wasn't lucky enough to be a member of the human race?

Yes, it is a membership to a general right to life. Dogs do not kill dogs and dolphins do not kill dolphins. So why should humans, who are smarter than these animals, kill their own? If dolphins had the equivalent capacity to reason, they would not kill dolphins. This is an evolutionary fact: Every species ensures that its species can continue on living in the future.

 

[Enmos]

So why should humans, who are more intelligent than these, kill their very own -- to kill fellow human beings?

Excuse me, humans kill other humans non-stop. And they kill even more other animals.
By the way, humans ARE animals.

 

[visceral_instinct]

One unalienable right is the right to life.

Yes. This right however does not give others unlimited duties towards anyone else.

If I see someone having a heart attack, and I don't bother calling an ambulance, that's a crime.

If however I hear that someone has renal failure, and I choose not to donate my own kidney, that is not.

Again, even if you label a fetus a person, why does it get rights no one else does?

 

[Jan Ardena]

May I point out that not even born, grown humans have the right to use anyone's body against their will.

What makes an embryo so special that it gets a right no one else has?

To use something against a will requires intention.
What is the intention of the unborn child?

jan.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Excuse me, humans kill other humans non-stop. And they kill even more other animals.
By the way, humans ARE animals.

Humans do indeed kill other humans, but that's in an exceptional circumstance called "war". And as I'm sure many know, there are just wars, and unjust wars. That's a different debate entirely; humans do not (or at least, should not) kill their fellow human beings, even more so their own children!

Your argument supporting abortion is incredibly, incredibly weak.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Yes. This right however does not give others unlimited duties towards anyone else.

If I see someone having a heart attack, and I don't bother calling an ambulance, that's a crime.

If however I hear that someone has renal failure, and I choose not to donate my own kidney, that is not.

Again, even if you label a fetus a person, why does it get rights no one else does?

Well, in all fairness, the kidney argument comes straight out of our own Supreme Court. The logic being that if someone cannot be compelled to donate a kidney to save somebody, why should a woman be made to "donate" the use of her body to a fetus for nine months.

The difference, of course, is that in the kidney case, the victim will die naturally if nothing is done; conversely, the fetus will live to be born if not actively killed.

It's the difference between your not leaping into the sea to save a drowning man, versus putting your foot on his head.