Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[ubicaritas]

You're placing a miscarried human being on the same level as a deceased dog? Seriously? How dare you invalidate the feelings of these mothers who have lost a child!? That is pure evil and until you have to deliver and see the face of your dead child, keep your mouth shut as to how they should mourn.

I’ve heard before that a miscarriage can redefine a person’s stance on abortion. As someone who saw a heartbeat on the ultrasound at 8 weeks, and nothing at 11, I can respect that. For me, though, my miscarriage reaffirmed my conviction that so-called pro-life rhetoric is antithetical to supporting life. The very same anti-choice policies that antagonize women who choose to abort their pregnancies prey on those who pray for healthy pregnancies too.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/05/23/miscarriage-taught-texas-fetal-burial-legislation/

 

[Phil 1:21]

But giving a Christian burial to things that were once merely alive is not exactly a dignified use of a sacred rite. Some people make fun of how some Episcopalians, for instance, perform church funerals for dogs, and perhaps rightly so.

You can stop now. You've hit bedrock.

 

[brinny]

You can stop now. You've hit bedrock.

BIG TIME.

 

[redleghunter]

If fetuses are persons, why do most people not have funerals after a miscarriage?

Many do bury their miscarried children and even name them. However, to answer your question it has more to do with a culture which keeps telling women (and men) that unless a child is born they are not human and don't have the same worth. That is secular mankind's influence.

The whole notion of an embryo being a person goes against our experience of the world

As you note 'personhood' is a subjective and in some cases a legal term and matters not in determining if one is a human being. That is handled by the obvious fact we are all human beings at conception.

And I beg to differ that embryonic personhood is a naked fact of science, it isn't.

Mincing words again shifting from the muddy waters of subjective philosophical terms. Do you deny the embryo is a human being and as such not a fact? Several (including yours truly) have pointed out the biology text books and embryologists who do confirm this is a settled science.

Therefore, if your argument is an embryo is not a human being even though the parents are human beings, then please posit your alternative science here.

If your argument is the embryo is not a person, then define personhood and when one achieves this personhood and why your definition is valid.

Personhood is a legal concept, and its widely recognized there is no constitutional recognition of embryonic or fetal personhood.

On legal personhood. Minors under a certain age are not considered legal persons, nor are those who are mentally handicapped. Are these children under the age of 16 in most states not fully persons because of an arbitrary legal definition?

Then there is the term moral person: A moral person conforms to the accepted rules and standards of his/her society. Morality refers to all people as human being.

As it goes even a zygote fits the above definition of moral person.

However, you want to stick with legal personhood. I don't think you are grasping what you are truly advocating:

In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.

A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.

Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in United States courts are "persons" entitled to institute a suit for treble damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.).

Illegitimate children are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person)

The phrase interested person refers to heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries, and any others having a property right in, or a claim against, a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward, or protected person. It also refers to personal representatives and to fiduciaries.​

There goes 'legal person' unless you truly think God gives souls to corporations like Amazon and Google.

What you are seeking is a philosophical definition of 'personhood.' One which where anyone gets to define when they think human life begins or a human being begins. As pointed out the settled science is conception.

 

[BraveJoan14]

https://rewire.news/article/2017/05/23/miscarriage-taught-texas-fetal-burial-legislation/

The law is a requirement of Texas healthcare facilities to bury or cremate the bodies of miscarried or aborted babies. It's a minimum standard of human dignity to at least deal with the body in a respectful way. Oh, right. But it's "cheaper" to throw away a dead baby in a dumpster in a biohazard bag. Whatever's most "convenient" for ya. Well, by all means, America, keep sacrificing your children on the altar of convenience. Convenience and efficiency have become more important than justice and morality. It's sickening.

 

[ubicaritas]

Many do bury their miscarried children and even name them. However, to answer your question it has more to do with a culture which keeps telling women (and men) that unless a child is born they are not human and don't have the same worth. That is secular mankind's influence.


As you note 'personhood' is a subjective and in some cases a legal term and matters not in determining if one is a human being. That is handled by the obvious fact we are all human beings at conception.


Mincing words again shifting from the muddy waters of subjective philosophical terms. Do you deny the embryo is a human being and as such not a fact? Several (including yours truly) have pointed out the biology text books and embryologists who do confirm this is a settled science.

Therefore, if your argument is an embryo is not a human being even though the parents are human beings, then please posit your alternative science here.

If your argument is the embryo is not a person, then define personhood and when one achieves this personhood and why your definition is valid.



On legal personhood. Minors under a certain age are not considered legal persons, nor are those who are mentally handicapped. Are these children under the age of 16 in most states not fully persons because of an arbitrary legal definition?

Then there is the term moral person: A moral person conforms to the accepted rules and standards of his/her society. Morality refers to all people as human being.

As it goes even a zygote fits the above definition of moral person.

However, you want to stick with legal personhood. I don't think you are grasping what you are truly advocating:

In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.

A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.

Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in United States courts are "persons" entitled to institute a suit for treble damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.).

Illegitimate children are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person)

The phrase interested person refers to heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries, and any others having a property right in, or a claim against, a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward, or protected person. It also refers to personal representatives and to fiduciaries.​

There goes 'legal person' unless you truly think God gives souls to corporations like Amazon and Google.

What you are seeking is a philosophical definition of 'personhood.' One which where anyone gets to define when they think human life begins or a human being begins. As pointed out the settled science is conception.

Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.

 

[Aldebaran]

But giving a Christian burial to things that were once merely alive is not exactly a dignified use of a sacred rite. Some people make fun of how some Episcopalians, for instance, perform church funerals for dogs, and perhaps rightly so.

A funeral is to help people have closure. If it helps a grieving mother to have a funeral for a baby in her womb that was alive and now is dead, and then was delivered as stillborn, then I don't see anything wrong with it. As for dogs, well I don't know if it's considered a funeral or not, but a family will often bury their dog and have some sort of "ceremony" in the process to help them cope if the dog was special to them. That's pretty much what a funeral for a human being is for, to help the survivors cope with their loss.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.

And who voted you our spokesman?

 

[ubicaritas]

A funeral is to help people have closure.

This isn't even a Christian explanation of the rite so much as modern 20th century folk religion saturated with therapeutic and sentimental language. It lacks anything of sacred character in its description.

Christian burial is about treating the body of a human person in a dignified manner in the hope of the resurrection of the dead. It is not a political or philosophical statement about human tissue or animal life, nor is it merely therapeutic.

 

[ubicaritas]

And who voted you our spokesman?

Emotional manipulation is part-and-parcel of the "pro-life" crowds playbook. I'm just pointing out some of us don't fall for it.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course but why does that require a funeral? It's potentially politicizing a sacred rite.

No it's not. Even secular mental health professionals recommend grieving parents hold a memorial service or funeral for their miscarried child to help deal with the sorrow and to bring closure to a life that ended too early.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Emotional manipulation is part-and-parcel of the "pro-life" crowds playbook. I'm just pointing out some of us don't fall for it.

No, you're presuming to speak on behalf of an entire group of people. And quite honestly, given the fact that you keep doubling and tripling down on attacking a grieving couple who lost a son in utero, I'm not sure many people would want you speaking for them anyway.

 

[Aldebaran]

Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.

Suppose there came a time and place when disabled people are considered to be a burden on society and too costly to maintain, and should be eliminated to make room for those who have more ability and can contribute more to society. What would you think of those who would say, "But a disabled person is a human being too and should be allowed to live!" Would they be personalizing and sensationalizing the issue? Would people be simply manipulating you into their cause?

 

[ubicaritas]

No it's not. Even secular mental health professionals recommend grieving parents hold a memorial service or funeral for their miscarried child to help deal with the sorrow and to bring closure to a life that ended too early.

I think the sort of thing that some Catholics do is more appropriate, which is to give space for people to memorialize their loss due to miscarriage or abortion (for instance, there is a shrine to St. Joseph in southern California for this, as well as smaller shrines elsewhere). A funeral has traditionally a very specific religious meaning that a mere memorialization does not.

 

[redleghunter]

At least I don't get my sense of decorum about grief from some Catholic manualist from the 17th century. I believe in letting humans be humans, and not having to reframe their whole religion around being anti-choice.

This is the most puzzling of all your comments.

If you believe in letting humans be humans then you would be opposed to their premediated termination on demand.

Oh, and abortion is a pillar and sacrament for the liberal left and D Party.

 

[redleghunter]

I think the sort of thing that some Catholics do is more appropriate, which is to give space for people to memorialize their loss due to miscarriage or abortion (for instance, there is a shrine to St. Joseph in southern California for this, as well as smaller shrines elsewhere). A funeral has traditionally a very specific religious meaning that a mere memorialization does not.

Roman Catholics as well as other Protestant denominations will baptize a miscarried child. Where do you stand on that?

 

[brinny]

This isn't even a Christian explanation of the rite so much as modern 20th century folk religion saturated with therapeutic and sentimental language. It lacks anything of sacred character in its description.

Christian burial is about treating the body of a human person in a dignified manner in the hope of the resurrection of the dead. It is not a political or philosophical statement about human tissue or animal life, nor is it merely therapeutic.

anything of sacred

Speaking of "sacred", LIFE is sacred.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is the most puzzling of all your comments.

If you believe in letting humans be humans then you would be opposed to their premediated termination on demand.

Oh, and abortion is a pillar and sacrament for the liberal left and D Party.

Indeed! Have you noticed that after Trump made his announcement as to his pick for the next SCOTUS justice, those on the Left only focus on how it will affect Roe VS. Wade? It's as if it's their core issue as a political party.

 

[redleghunter]

And clearly, what is best for man, woman, child, baby in utero or not,
is
what God says clearly , with no ambiguity,
and
it doesn't matter what a woman opposed to Yahweh (or a man) says.

What's interesting is having children in the times of the OT and NT was a blessing and in some cases a matter of survival. The more children the more hands you had to work the land and livestock.

 

[ubicaritas]

Roman Catholics as well as other Protestant denominations will baptize a miscarried child. Where do you stand on that?

Reformed don't do this, however. Calvin expressly forbid it even though many midwives in Geneva tried to do so secretly, out of habit.

I am not in favor of baptizing a miscarriage. There is nothing in Lutheranism that says it is appropriate to baptize the dead. We can pray for the dead and trust their care to God in his mercy but to baptize the dead is a misuse of the sacrament.