When is an embryo/fetus a human life?

[buttercup]

OhPleaseJustQuit - why did you thumb down post #110?

What did I say that you disagree with?

 

[BackAgain]

I'm not convinced that it is a human life from the moment of conception (given that it doesn't have a brain, for example), but at some point during pregnancy, I believe it qualifies as a human life.

If people are merely arguing that it is a "potential life" from the moment of conception, then preventing a potential life from coming into existence obviously isn't the same as taking a life from existence. (If that was true, then if a person only has 2 children when they have the ability to have 5 means they should be charged with 3 counts of murder, and we know that is absurd).

So? You’re not convinced.

But you can’t ask a question by rejecting the correct answer at the outset.

Life does begin at conception.

 

[Grumblenuts]

A person is a living human being.

Even the dictionary says that:

PERSON Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

PERSON definition: a human being, whether an adult or child. See examples of person used in a sentence.

www.dictionary.com

It says a person is a lot of things. The first two (out of 14):

1. a human being, whether an adult or child.
   
   The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

The first doesn't mention zygotes, fetuses, fertilized, etc.. which may be unsurprising.
The second, however, is sad. Of course human beings (and persons) are animals (not things). Distinct in some ways from other animals, sure, but not so much from other mammals.

 

[buttercup]

It says a person is a lot of things. The first two (out of 14):

The first doesn't mention zygotes, fetuses, fertilized, etc.. which may be unsurprising.
The second, however, is sad. Of course human beings are animals (not things). Distinct in some ways from other animals, sure, but not so much from other mammals.

I was going by the first definition. Human being.

And the part you don't seem to get is that there are many stages in the life of a human being. Zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc. In ALL those stages is a living human being.

 

[buttercup]

 

[Eman623]

At conception.

It was a rhetorical question. Everyone will have their own answer.

 

[Eman623]

You brought up personhood. You said: "The question for me is not when human life begins but when personhood does."

And I gave you the definition of person. That is what I believe, but it's also what the dictionary says.

So I honestly don't know what you mean by "that was all you and it did not go unnoticed."

Are you saying there's a difference between personhood and person? If that's your point, then here is the definition of personhood:

1. the state or fact of being a person.

Which leads back to the word person, which we already went over.

Words like human and living have scientific definitions. Person and being do not.

What is a being?

 

[buttercup]

Words like human and living have scientific definitions. Person and being do not.

What is a being?

The word being has a number of different definitions.

But if we're still talking about human beings (which is what this thread is about) then it's just another way of saying a person. A living human being.

I understand where you're coming from....But what I've been saying is that a person is a living human being. We are living human beings from Day One of our existence. And when I say our existence, I don't mean when our head pops out of the womb. Day One is the day we were conceived.

I think the following excerpts will explain it in a better and more clear way. There are two excerpts below. Please read them the whole way through. Especially the second one.



Personhood: Developmental or a constant?

Since the human body is a thing that develops and grows, many people assume that therefore, so does personhood. The fact is, however, personhood is not developmental; it's a constant.

If personhood were developmental, then the right not to be killed (commonly called the right to life) would have to be developmental, too. But how can this right be developmental? Think of it this way: A human being cannot be partially killed and partially not killed. To be a person is to have the right not to be killed. This right cannot be put on a scale of degrees; it is an either/or, just as alive or dead is an either/or.

A "developmental" approach to personhood makes no sense. If the so-called "potential person" may be killed at whim, it is simply a non-person. If it is a person, we may not choose to kill it on a whim. A potential, partial, or lesser individual right not to be killed that can be set aside is, in effect, a non-right. A being is a person or not; there is no in-between moral, or even logical, class of beings.


_______


No "moral in-betweeners"

Anyone who denies that conception is Day One for personhood has the burden of pinpointing when Day One is. And they must show why it is this day rather than one day earlier, or one day later. Our need for exactness on when personhood begins is inescapable, for we must not step on either a woman's or a child's rights. We need a sharp dividing line. There is no moral class between "person" and "non-person."

Abortion-choice theory, absent proof, sits on the horns of an impossible dilemma. Drawing a line even one day before personhood begins unjustly limits a woman's choice to destroy her property. To draw a line even one day after personhood begins is to permit unjust homicide.

Personhood is an either-or, an all-or-nothing, proposition because the right to be free from aggression is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. The right not to be killed cannot be put on a degree scale, because one cannot be "a little bit alive," or a "little bit dead." Killed or not killed is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. You are either dead or alive. You exist or you don't.

Thus, a so-called potential, partial, or lesser right to life—a right that can be set aside—is, in effect, no right at all. Persons have the right to life. If a being may be killed at whim, this being is not a potential person: this being is a non-person.

"Person" or "non-person" are constants. A person can have a better, or a poorer personality than other persons, but no human being has more, or less, personhood than any other. Just as the law has no power to give or withhold unalienable rights, it cannot give or withhold personhood. To be an actual person, human beings need do nothing but be alive.

When one human being can dictate whether another human being is a person, we should worry about our own prospects. I wouldn't want my personhood to be conditional under the law, subject to the arbitrary opinions of others. Would you? Yet, two tiers of humanity is precisely what abortion choicers support.

The answer to who decides when personhood begins is: Personhood is inseparable from the right to be free from aggression and both are inseparable from our life. We don't become persons; we simply are actual persons from Day One.

Source: Libertarians for Life

 

[Chuz Life]

.

My opinion is that anyone who believes that abortion must be allowed for any reason, needs to lose his/her/its right to defend his/her/its life.

I am still on the fence about valid cases of necessity, like rape/incest. I have been confirmed as a Catholic for just over a year, so I have to think harder about it.

Religion angles are not my thing.

I'm curious why you or why anyone would say "rape / incest" as if to make a distinction. What is the reason (if any) for that?

 

[dblack]

A person is a living human being.

The question is whether a fetus is a legally protected person, separate from the mother, while it's still in her body, before it's actually born.

 

[Eman623]

The word being has a number of different definitions.

But if we're still talking about human beings (which is what this thread is about) then it's just another way of saying a person. A living human being.

I understand where you're coming from....But what I've been saying is that a person is a living human being. We are living human beings from Day One of our existence. And when I say our existence, I don't mean when our head pops out of the womb. Day One is the day we were conceived.

I think the following excerpts will explain it in a better and more clear way. There are two excerpts below. Please read them the whole way through. Especially the second one.



Personhood: Developmental or a constant?

Since the human body is a thing that develops and grows, many people assume that therefore, so does personhood. The fact is, however, personhood is not developmental; it's a constant.

If personhood were developmental, then the right not to be killed (commonly called the right to life) would have to be developmental, too. But how can this right be developmental? Think of it this way: A human being cannot be partially killed and partially not killed. To be a person is to have the right not to be killed. This right cannot be put on a scale of degrees; it is an either/or, just as alive or dead is an either/or.

A "developmental" approach to personhood makes no sense. If the so-called "potential person" may be killed at whim, it is simply a non-person. If it is a person, we may not choose to kill it on a whim. A potential, partial, or lesser individual right not to be killed that can be set aside is, in effect, a non-right. A being is a person or not; there is no in-between moral, or even logical, class of beings.


_______


No "moral in-betweeners"

Anyone who denies that conception is Day One for personhood has the burden of pinpointing when Day One is. And they must show why it is this day rather than one day earlier, or one day later. Our need for exactness on when personhood begins is inescapable, for we must not step on either a woman's or a child's rights. We need a sharp dividing line. There is no moral class between "person" and "non-person."

Abortion-choice theory, absent proof, sits on the horns of an impossible dilemma. Drawing a line even one day before personhood begins unjustly limits a woman's choice to destroy her property. To draw a line even one day after personhood begins is to permit unjust homicide.

Personhood is an either-or, an all-or-nothing, proposition because the right to be free from aggression is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. The right not to be killed cannot be put on a degree scale, because one cannot be "a little bit alive," or a "little bit dead." Killed or not killed is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. You are either dead or alive. You exist or you don't.

Thus, a so-called potential, partial, or lesser right to life—a right that can be set aside—is, in effect, no right at all. Persons have the right to life. If a being may be killed at whim, this being is not a potential person: this being is a non-person.

"Person" or "non-person" are constants. A person can have a better, or a poorer personality than other persons, but no human being has more, or less, personhood than any other. Just as the law has no power to give or withhold unalienable rights, it cannot give or withhold personhood. To be an actual person, human beings need do nothing but be alive.

When one human being can dictate whether another human being is a person, we should worry about our own prospects. I wouldn't want my personhood to be conditional under the law, subject to the arbitrary opinions of others. Would you? Yet, two tiers of humanity is precisely what abortion choicers support.

The answer to who decides when personhood begins is: Personhood is inseparable from the right to be free from aggression and both are inseparable from our life. We don't become persons; we simply are actual persons from Day One.

Source: Libertarians for Life

If the best you can do is tell me a person is a human being and a human being is a person, then you've told me nothing.

As for developmental personhood, I see no reason why such a thing cannot exist, although it's not necessary for the purpose of allowing early term abortions.

It is true that everyone who thinks personhood exists and attaches to living humans must say where that point is. Everyone has to draw a line in the sand, but everyone draws their own line. Even if you think it begins at conception, you've still drawn a line

It's like when you turn 18 you become a legal adult. Why 18? Is there some magic that happens in that day? If course not. Its just that we have collectively decided that's where the line will be drawn. It's a little arbitrary but we have to draw the line somewhere.

Personally I think the line for personhood is somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy. Call it 20 weeks more or less. I have no specific reasons why this date is better than any other. I know it's arbitrary. In fact I picked it because it's arbitrary. I'm like Solomon cutting the pregnancy down the middle. I think this line maximizes the mother's rights while also protecting unborn persons' rights.

 

[buttercup]

The question is whether a fetus is a legally protected person, separate from the mother, while it's still in her body, before it's actually born.

The OP wasn't emphasizing the legal aspect of this issue, at least that's not what I got out of his post. He seemed to be simply asking the question, when is an embryo or fetus a human life?

I answered his question. From a scientific standpoint, we are human beings from the start. Human life has many different stages. Zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, etc, etc.

If you want to focus on the legal aspect, there are laws that acknowledge that human life begins before birth. For example, if someone murders a pregnant woman, the murderer can be charged with double homicide, in many states.

But instead of focusing on the legal side of this, I think it's important to discuss this from the standpoint of what is actually true, because as I'm sure you would agree, the law is not what determines what is actually true. At one time, blacks were considered less than full persons. Did the law make that actually true? Of course not. In the same way, laws on abortion don't determine the actual truth.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Religion angles are not my thing.

I'm curious why you or why anyone would say "rape / incest" as if to make a distinction. What is the reason (if any) for that?

.

To designate the fact that the girl/woman had no chance to give her consent.


.

 

[Chuz Life]

The question is whether a fetus is a legally protected person, separate from the mother, while it's still in her body, before it's actually born.

And / or whether they SHOULD be recognized as such.

 

[Chuz Life]

.

To designate the fact that the girl/woman had no chance to give her consent.


.

Right, so if incest is also just another form of rape, why not just say rape? It covers both.

I just don't see the reason to mention rape AND incest, when the word rape would cover both.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The question is whether a fetus is a legally protected person, separate from the mother, while it's still in her body, before it's actually born.

.

You were a legally protected person while you rode around in your mother's body for nine months.

Do you regret that? You know what to do about it.




.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What is a being?

Being - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

A being is any living creature, from a person to a bug. Being also refers to the state of existing.

www.vocabulary.com

 

[The Duke]

6 weeks.

No. Conception. I lost a nice woman by not coming in her.
It's serious business. In hindsight, I wish I woulda. She was alright.
Coulda had some nice babies but I was a selfish dipshit.

 

[DukeU]

Wrong. The “heartbeat” you refer to is simply an electrical impulse. Not a sign of human life.

The Bible says that you become “human” when you draw your first breathe - at birth. That is when the “soul” enters the body.

It’s in Genesis.

Quote the exact scripture please.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Quote the exact scripture please.

.

The cult will buy any lie if they think it supports their wrong beliefs.


.