Pro choice crowd, when do you consider a fetus to be a human life?

[TomZzyzx]

The same is true for bacteria, moss, algae, and plants, not to mention viruses and tumors. We do not pause to use antibiotics and hand sanitizer, to put chemicals on trees or in a pool to kill moss and algae. We try extra hard to find ways to kill viruses and cancers. These are all at the level of life you are describing.

I think, this is why personhood is necessary.

You are correct, all those things are alive. But those things don't have the same right to life as human beings do. It's not morally wrong to kill those things as it is to kill a human being.

Personhood is the worst way to determine if it's okay to kill another human being. We called blacks from Africa non-persons and we enslaved and killed them. The Jews were considered non-persons and six million of them were killed. And now some consider the unborn to be non-persons and we kill millions of them each year. We should never use personhood to determine if it's okay to kill another human being.

 

[TomZzyzx]

What should we use to determine if it is OK to kill another human being? Why is it not OK to use personhood?

Justification.

No human being should kill another human being without proper justification. The only proper justification I see is defending yourself, your family, your friends, your country or anyone for that matter that is threatened by someone that is trying to do them physical harm.

Since there isn't a definitive definition for personhood (everyone has a different opinion on it ) personhood is the worst way to determine if it's okay to kill another human being.

 

[JGG]

You are correct, all those things are alive. But those things don't have the same right to life as human beings do. It's not morally wrong to kill those things as it is to kill a human being.

Okay, so your concern that an organism that fits your criteria makes it a human being is behind us. Your concern now is that it is a human being because you have declared that it is. So explain to me why at conception this is a human being and not just human tissue.

Personhood is the worst way to determine if it's okay to kill another human being. We called blacks from Africa non-persons and we enslaved and killed them. The Jews were considered non-persons and six million of them were killed. And now some consider the unborn to be non-persons and we kill millions of them each year. We should never use personhood to determine if it's okay to kill another human being.

That's a poor argument. It's using personhood in a different manner. I'm using personhood to determine when we become sentient. They did it to determine who was equal to them.

Personhood tells us when someone is still alive, or a simply a husk. Their heart no longer beats, they have no brain function is absent, their lungs do not function. If these are the types of criteria which we use to determine when we have diseased, why shouldn't we use the kinds to determine when we begin?

 

[Jan Volkes]

Why post? If nobody who doesn't already agree with you will ever be persuaded, why post? If there is nobody who already agrees with you, then you are talking to yourself.

There are people here who have not been as indoctrinated as others so might just take something from what I write,
the hard core religious are sadly on their own and can not be reasoned with by anyone, if their pastor told them he had become an atheist they would just move to another church and carry on as normal.

 

[malvina]

God is justified. He is watching. He will settle the accounts of Sadists and Murderers.

 

[Belk]

Justification.

No human being should kill another human being without proper justification. The only proper justification I see is defending yourself, your family, your friends, your country or anyone for that matter that is threatened by someone that is trying to do them physical harm.

I see "I do not wish to carry this pregnancy to term" as justification. So it seems to me to be the same difference.

Since there isn't a definitive definition for personhood (everyone has a different opinion on it ) personhood is the worst way to determine if it's okay to kill another human being.

Oh. How about if someone is legally brain dead? That seems like the best metric to use. Their body might still be alive but the person is gone and will not be coming back.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Okay, so your concern that an organism that fits your criteria makes it a human being is behind us. Your concern now is that it is a human being because you have declared that it is. So explain to me why at conception this is a human being and not just human tissue.



That's a poor argument. It's using personhood in a different manner. I'm using personhood to determine when we become sentient. They did it to determine who was equal to them.

Personhood tells us when someone is still alive, or a simply a husk. Their heart no longer beats, they have no brain function is absent, their lungs do not function. If these are the types of criteria which we use to determine when we have diseased, why shouldn't we use the kinds to determine when we begin?

Definition of human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. You see, it's not my criteria that makes the unborn a human being, it's science that says the unborn are human beings from conception.

The unborn are whole human entities and human tissue is not. They are distinct living members of the species Homo sapiens.

You can use personhood to determine anything you want, just don't use it to determine when it's okay to kill an innocent human being. Since there isn't a definitive definition for personhood (everyone has a different opinion on it) then personhood should not be used.

Personhood can't tell us when someone is still alive since everyone has a different opinion on personhood.

 

[AirPo]

Justification.

No human being should kill another human being without proper justification. The only proper justification I see is defending yourself, your family, your friends, your country or anyone for that matter that is threatened by someone that is trying to do them physical harm.

Since there isn't a definitive definition for personhood (everyone has a different opinion on it ) personhood is the worst way to determine if it's okay to kill another human being.

Fine. But the key phrase here is not human, or personhood.

The key phrase is proper justification.

And the courts have ruled that a woman's decision with respect to her own body is proper justification up to a certain point of gestation.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I see "I do not wish to carry this pregnancy to term" as justification. So it seems to me to be the same difference.



Oh. How about if someone is legally brain dead? That seems like the best metric to use. Their body might still be alive but the person is gone and will not be coming back.

I don't see "I want to kill an innocent human being because it's inconvenient" as justification. Killing innocent human beings is Immoral.

Pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead is not considered killing them since they are already dead. Has nothing to do with being a person or not. The body is still functioning because we have the technology to keep it going.

 

[Belk]

I don't see "I want to kill an innocent human being because it's inconvenient" as justification. Killing innocent human beings is Immoral.

I don't think a fetus is an "innocent human being" so I disagree.

Pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead is not considered killing them since they are already dead. Has nothing to do with being a person or not. The body is still functioning because we have the technology to keep it going.

It has everything to do with them not being a person. Their body is still alive and if the kerfuffle over Teri Schiavo is any indication many consider that to be still alive.

 

[Willtor]

God is justified. He is watching. He will settle the accounts of Sadists and Murderers.

The measure you use will be measured to you.

 

[JGG]

Definition of human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. You see, it's not my criteria that makes the unborn a human being, it's science that says the unborn are human beings from conception.

Yes, but genus homo has certain characteristics: not the least of which are arms, legs, lungs, hearts, and advanced brains. At conception it does not have any of these characteristics, and thus the definition can be used against you. My liver, is also of genus homo. It is alive, and a human liver, it is human tissue, but it is not a human being. So what would make it a human being, and not just human tissue?

The unborn are whole human entities and human tissue is not. They are distinct living members of the species Homo sapiens.

Again, let's look at your criteria: exhibits irritability (a reaction to stimuli ), metabolism (converting food to energy), and cellular reproduction (groth) is alive. My stomach fits that criteria as well. Would my stomach be considered human tissue, or a human being?

You can use personhood to determine anything you want, just don't use it to determine when it's okay to kill an innocent human being. Since there isn't a definitive definition for personhood (everyone has a different opinion on it) then personhood should not be used.

The thread clumsily asks when I believe a fetus is human life. I answered why I think the question is off base, when I think that life should be protected, and why. You have only proclaimed your superior opinion. Why is your opinion the correct opinion, while mine is wrong? Yours is equally arbitrary. Why can I not use personhood to answer the question. Because you say so?

Personhood can't tell us when someone is still alive since everyone has a different opinion on personhood.

Great. Let's find agreement and understanding and put the debate behind us.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I don't think a fetus is an "innocent human being" so I disagree.



It has everything to do with them not being a person. Their body is still alive and if the kerfuffle over Teri Schiavo is any indication many consider that to be still alive.

OK let's break this down.

Science says that the unborn are human beings from conception and the unborn has done nothing worthy of death, making it innocent. That makes you 0 for 2, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Belk]

OK let's break this down.

Science says that the unborn are human beings from conception and the unborn has done nothing worthy of death, making it innocent. That makes you 0 for 2, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Show me the peer reviewed study that says the unborn is a human being.

Show me were something that is not capable of thought is innocent. Is a rock innocent? How about a tree?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Yes, but genus homo has certain characteristics: not the least of which are arms, legs, lungs, hearts, and advanced brains. At conception it does not have any of these characteristics, and thus the definition can be used against you. My liver, is also of genus homo. It is alive, and a human liver, it is human tissue, but it is not a human being. So what would make it a human being, and not just human tissue?



Again, let's look at your criteria: exhibits irritability (a reaction to stimuli ), metabolism (converting food to energy), and cellular reproduction (groth) is alive. My stomach fits that criteria as well. Would my stomach be considered human tissue, or a human being?



The thread clumsily asks when I believe a fetus is human life. I answered why I think the question is off base, when I think that life should be protected, and why. You have only proclaimed your superior opinion. Why is your opinion the correct opinion, while mine is wrong? Yours is equally arbitrary. Why can I not use personhood to answer the question. Because you say so?


Great. Let's find agreement and understanding and put the debate behind us.

You are confusing parts with wholes. Arms, legs, livers, hearts and brains are parts of a human being and not a whole human being. The unborn on the other hand are whole human beings from conception. It's also looks like you left off the second part of the definition (on purpose maybe). Since parts of a human being are not whole human beings they can not be members of species Homo sapiens whereas the unborn are whole human beings and therefor are members of the species Homo sapiens.

Of course your stomach fit the criteria for life, it is alive. But that is the criteria for something that is alive not for something that is a human being. Why would you ask if your stomach is a human being?

Next, you're misrepresenting what the OP originally said. He didn't say when do you believe a fetus is human life. He said "when do you consider a fetus to be a human life". you missed the A. When people say "a human life" they don't mean tissue or a heart or a brain they mean "a human being". So the question is when do you consider a fetus to be a human being.

My opinion is no more valid than yours. It's the scientific facts that state that the unborn are human beings from conception that are true.

We as a human race will never fine agreement on when someone becomes a person. Most if not all pro-life advocates definition for Person is: all human beings from conception till death. Do you want to agree with us? See what I mean.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Show me the peer reviewed study that says the unborn is a human being.

Show me were something that is not capable of thought is innocent. Is a rock innocent? How about a tree?

If it's not a human being then what kind of being is it? A dog, a cat, maybe an elephant? And if starts out as a different kind of being then please tell me when and how it changes into a human being. Remember human beings only reproduce other human beings. It is a distinct entity and it is human.

 

[Jan Volkes]

God is justified. He is watching. He will settle the accounts of Sadists and Murderers.

When?

 

[Belk]

If it's not a human being then what kind of being is it? A dog, a cat, maybe an elephant?

It is human, it is not a being yet. "Human being" is a synonym for "Person". If One is not useful to determine if something should live or die then the other is not either.

Do you have no peer reviewed evidence that the unborn are "Human beings"?

And if starts out as a different kind of being then please tell me when and how it changes into a human being. Remember human beings only reproduce other human beings. It is a distinct entity and it is human.

I take it you concede that to call something incapable of self actualization innocent is incorrect?

 

[AirPo]

OK let's break this down.

Science says that the unborn are human beings from conception and the unborn has done nothing worthy of death, making it innocent. That makes you 0 for 2, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Science doesn't say that.

 

[AirPo]

Show me the peer reviewed study that says the unborn is a human being.

Show me were something that is not capable of thought is innocent. Is a rock innocent? How about a tree?

If a tree falls on a rock ...