The "reasons" you've pointed out that the human inside the womb is not a human being seem to be left wanting. We know that there is both flesh and blood by 11 weeks so that doesn't seem to work.
I'm still not sure why you mark birth as the moment the fetus miraculously turns into a human.
It can't be the acquisition of flesh and blood because that happens inside the womb. Breathing doesn't seem to work because preemies at times can't breathe on their own if they're born too premature. It can't be development because sometimes babies in the womb that are born late are more developed than babies born early.
Autonomy doesn't make sense because I'm pretty sure that if you're a parent (are you?) you would recognize that newborns are just as dependent, if not more on other people to survive.
As for the soul, I don't want to get too side tracked. I think it's enough for this discussion to simply say that possessing a soul is an integral part of being a human. We are both physical and spiritual in nature.
Thus, if as you suggest we aren't human beings until birth, then it would logically follow that humans in the womb do not possess a soul.
This then leads back to my question regarding the mother who is 2 weeks past her due date deciding to have an abortion. If you were consistent then you shouldn't hesitate to say that there would be nothing immoral about that mother aborting the human inside her because according to you no fetus possesses inherent moral worth.
So why birth?
Thanks for the reply SPF. (You could maybe do like David ("St Worm 2) and give a first name to address you by. It's up to you.)
There are a number of problems in what you say in this post. The one most obvious to me involves "a human." First you refer to "the human inside the womb... ." Later "humans in the womb," etc. Your second paragraph with "turns into a human" does not really make sense when you have already called it "the human" in your first sentence.
What is necessary, so as not to claim what is not yet argued for (by merely substituting some words for others that are very similar), is to call what is in the womb what we know FOR SURE it is, and not begin with the conclusion that you may want but needs to be established.
In other words, it is necessary to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "HUMAN" as in composed of
human flesh or having human DNA,
"human" the adjective, AND "A HUMAN" OR "A HUMAN BEING" (noun). "A person" is the latter, and of course it is a human person, rather like saying a human human (using both the adjective and the nominative).
Point is, we can very correctly speak of what is in the womb as "human," the cells are human cells just like the cells of a human cancer are human cells. That is what we know for sure, what you and I should certainly be able to agree on.
The point of contention is whether it is
a human being, a person, so to call it "a human" or "the human" in the context of this discussion is to ASSUME your conclusion rather than prove it. To correct some of what you said in this regard, I would suggest that you should add a noun like "substance" after the first "human" in your first sentence, so it reads: "The 'reasons' you've pointed out that the human
substance inside the womb is not a human being..." Otherwise you are essentially saying "the human is not a human" which does not make sense; I imagine you think my position does not make sense but I WOULD NEVER SAY "THE HUMAN IS NOT A HUMAN BEING." (Which is how your first sentence reads.)
It's great we at least have the knowledge of English that we do. Any who ...
BIRTH IS NOT SOME
MIRACULOUS TURNING, as though some hidden essence were added (how you use soul maybe?); it is in no way arbitrary, is precisely and well recognized. And there is not much mystery about what happens at birth. One may not notice everything in witnessing an actual birth, but one can think through what it involves. And certainly birth is not one simple thing.
About preemies sometimes not breathing, I don't think that's true, although they certainly may have
assistance breathing. Are there machines that give oxygen to blood in much the same way a woman does to the fetus, with a placenta barrier - I don't think so. They can pump air (oxygen) in and force it back out, I suppose. (Glancing at Wiki I see there can be problems with undeveloped lungs and a need for oxygen supplementation.) But no, like with
everyone (born!), no breath means death.
So BREATHING, I would venture to say, is very much a fact of any actual birth (including preemies), and humans have noticed and known this for thousands of years. I already pointed out once to you that this is one very important aspect of that "autonomy" that you want to be so dismissive of. And like we just noticed, A VITAL THING, breath. Without it
everyone is
dead.
AUTONOMY is
not a simple matter of greater independence; it is part of what makes an
organism a distinct member of a species. MOBILITY is part of that, the fact that
real animals can move from place to place distinguishes them from plants, etc. EATING and DIGESTING distinguish the real animal from its surroundings and are part of what maintains it in those surroundings.
Consider all the constraints the fetus is under,
how unlike a real baby it is. Entirely in the dark,
NO GOD'S KINGDOM OF LIGHT THERE. With USELESS EYES (no vision) and USELESS MOUTHS (no eating let alone speaking);USELESS LUNGS, USELESS DIGESTIVE SYSTEMS, all this only starts
actually working at birth. If the fetus were a human being, it would have to be considered A TOTALLY USELESS, unable to even begin to maintain its self, "ANIMAL." However, that is not what animals are, TOTALLY IMPRISONED, sealed from the world, certainly not in the world and of the world.
Just to have open eyes that register light is a far different reality than tethered inside like a parasite.
I could look up what I said before but I think you can catch the drift. It is
no small matter, birth. Very totally consequential.
On your persistent question I told you I couldn't answer, I can say this,
if a fetus IN ITSELF possessed no moral worth (I don't really understand what your "moral" adds, or I might say it did possess such, because for instance there are those who would buy and use fetal parts, so it has value in that sense), I would think there are many moral questions about it, about sustaining it to birth, that could be answered based on how able prospective parents are, whether the world needs more children, etc., etc.
A thing one might notice about this is that AS ITS SELF, AS A FETUS, the fetus is
of no value to anyone, not wanted by anyone. As a fetus.
ONLY BIRTH GIVES IT VALUE - birth, that event you try to say does not mean much, is the thing of greatest value for the pro-lifer, the one thing many are MOST CONCERNED to see happen.
).
).
