If a fetus is not a human life....

I should never have made that topic, :?.

I mean, out of kitten stomping and monkey brain table splattering, the fetus video was the worst.

Cantius

what topic?

what is not yet alive can not be "life"

what is not yet alive can not be "life"

-DirtySanchez-

Sorry, but if there's cellular activity, more importantly cellular growth, it IS alive.

No, I am not agreeing that it isn't a human life. It is a human life by virtue of being the living creation of two other human beings. It may not be sentient, but it will be sentient. To compare it to a tree is ridiculous. A tree is not human. A tree will never become sentient. A fetus is alive, it is a human, and it will become sentient. To kill it is murder.famicommander

Well, that's not what you said before - you repeatedly said that it will "become a human", implying that it is not yet a human being. But here's another question, in that case: how does the potential of something eventually becoming a human make it a human right now? Or if an embryo is a human, then what qualities make it a human, rather than something that will at some point in the future make it a human? In the first few weeks, not only does it have no brain activity nor any heartbeat, it also does not even have any brain or heart to speak of - that doesn't exactly seem like human life to me.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"]A fetus is alive. The difference here is that you're taking a life that will become human rather than stopping a human life from existing in the first place. A fetus is a living thing that will become a human. By aborting it you're killing it. There is no killing involved with not having sex in the first place.famicommander

It's alive in the same sense that a tree is alive in that it's a cluster of living cells, but I don't think anyone would argue that any old cluster of living cells is a human life whose termination is murder. The crucial point, as I see it, is the question of what constitutes human life, and as I said, you're even essentially agreeing with the thought that it isn't yet human life. No human life, no murder.

So what you are saying is a fetus will become human so in conclusion it is human. That makes no sense. You are also using two definitions of human interchangeably. A fetus may be human in the genetic sense, but it's not been concluded that it is human in the moral sense. Is it wrong to kill something that has human code, yet no conscious, awareness, or any trait of a human being other than genetic code?

You also keep bringing up this stuff about the potential for life. Is it really plausible that a fetusis a person because it one day will become one? Consider this thought experiment:

Suppose a space traveller is captured by an alien race and they tell him that they can make 100 clones by dismenbering his body and using his cells. This would mean each of your cells is potential for life but are you obliged to create this potential life at your own risk? Certainly not, the potential life of 100 does not outweigh the rights of you, an actual person.

[QUOTE="Thechaninator"]Anyway, anybody who is pro choice, I suggest you try to argue using data that shows abortion rates are generally higher or the the same where illegal. It's very clear that pro choice is the correct poing of view when looking at that, however, when we debate what a fetus is, it becomes unclear.famicommander

using two definitions of human interchangeably. A fetus may be human in the genetic sense, but it's not been concluded that it is human in the moral sense. Is it wrong to kill something that has human code, yet no conscious, awareness, or any trait of a human being other than genetic code?

You also keep bringing up this stuff about the potential for life. Is it really plausible that a fetusis a person because it one day will become one? Consider this thought experiment:

Suppose a space traveller is captured by an alien race and they tell him that they can make 100 clones by dismenbering his body and using his cells. This would mean each of your cells is potential for life but are you obliged to create this potential life at your own risk? Certainly not, the potential life of 100 does not outweigh the rights of you, an actual person.

jazznate

It is immoral to kill something that is growing. Would you yank out a sappling from the ground thinking it's ok because it's not a tree yet? And sorry, your thought experiment is faulty. Cloning and procreation are two different things. For one thing, when you're cloning, you're simply making a copy. When you fertilize an egg, you're making an entirely new life. New genes and everything. One is artificial and one is natural.

It is immoral to kill something that is growing. Would you yank out a sappling from the ground thinking it's ok because it's not a tree yet?

JustPlainLucas

That's not really comparable, because a sapling is quite clearly already a tree - it just happens to be a young tree, which makes your scenario more comparable to killing a baby than aborting an embryo. A better comparison would be planting a seed in the ground, watering it, and then coming back the next day and digging it back up again. That's clearly not killing a tree, just in the same way that aborting a very early embryo is not killing a human.

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]

It is immoral to kill something that is growing. Would you yank out a sappling from the ground thinking it's ok because it's not a tree yet?

GabuEx

That's not really comparable, because a sapling is quite clearly already a tree - it just happens to be a young tree, which makes your scenario more comparable to killing a baby than aborting an embryo. A better comparison would be planting a seed in the ground, watering it, and then coming back the next day and digging it back up again. That's clearly not killing a tree, just in the same way that aborting a very early embryo is not killing a human.

Yeah, very tired and had a rough day. I meant to use a seed comparison. Don't know how it ended up becoming the other way. Anyway, let's use the seed example. If you planted the seed, why on earth dig it out? What purpose does that serve? Doing things without purpose is immoral in my book. The point is, a life has begun, whether it be tree or human. It matters not whether you kill a seed that has just been watered, or remove an embryo from the womb. You've prevented a life from existing on this plant, and that is wrong.

If a fetus is not a human life then what sort of crime is it to kill it. Would a roundhouse kick to a pregnant womans stomach be murder, property damage or just assault?

domatron23

What if it's Chuck Norris doing the roundhouse :shock:

But I think it would be assault if the attacker could convince the jury he was unaware that the woman was pregnant, if not, murder.

In memory of the recently locked baby eating topic here's a couple of questions revolving around a hypothetical scenario where a fetus is not considered to be a human life until it is born.

If a fetus is not a human life then would you let people eat it and have it sold at supermarkets (assuming of course that it is legally obtained and properly labelled)? Would such a practice be considered cannibalism?

If a fetus is not a human life then what sort of crime is it to kill it. Would a roundhouse kick to a pregnant womans stomach be murder, property damage or just assault?

If a fetus is not a human life then would torturing it be a case of animal cruelty or something else?

domatron23

In my opinion, fetuses aren't human beings and they aren't animals. I consider them clumps of under developed human cells. Some people might consider it cannibalism, I personally wouldn't. People eat placenta all the time, so people eating "fetus" would probably be closest to that if anything else. I think eating a fetus or placenta is extremely gross and would never try it. I don't think they would sell it in a supermarket because I doubt anyone would want to eat such a disgusting thing.

I don't think it is a crime to destroy a fetus. A "roundhouse kick" to a pregnant woman should just be considered assault or attempted murder of the pregnant woman.

Torturing a fetus wouldn't be considered animal cruelty or anything else. It's a clump of under developed human cells.

Yeah, very tired and had a rough day. I meant to use a seed comparison. Don't know how it ended up becoming the other way. Anyway, let's use the seed example. If you planted the seed, why on earth dig it out? What purpose does that serve? Doing things without purpose is immoral in my book. The point is, a life has begun, whether it be tree or human. It matters not whether you kill a seed that has just been watered, or remove an embryo from the womb. You've prevented a life from existing on this plant, and that is wrong.

JustPlainLucas

But is it murder? Whether or not one would consider it immoral to dig up a seed after planting it, I think few would argue that it ought to be illegal to do so the moment the seed hits the dirt. The biggest argument against abortion is that it's the taking of a human life - if the embryo and fetus are not themselves human lives, then there is by definition no possibility for murder.

It's estimated that about thirty percent of conceived embryos fail to implant themselves in the mother's womb, and which, consequently, die. In the United States, around 4 million babies are born each year in the current day, which means that about 1.7 million such embryos die each year. That's almost as large as the entire total death toll in the United States, which is about 2.4 million each year. Given that no one mourns what would apparently be here a tragic and staggeringly large loss of human life, I think it's fair to say that it's a rather hard sell that an embryo is a human life immediately after conception.

And I might also add that abortion is not exactly senseless - women don't get abortions just because they feel like it. They get abortions because they either don't want a baby or because they feel that they can't raise a baby. Now, one could argue that this is just out of convenience, which in some cases is true, but we kill living things for convenience all the time - just look at all the trees that get cut down for development projects. The only thing that everyone tends to be rather averse to killing for convenience is human life. So if we want to say that the embryo or fetus trumps the mother, I think we'd better establish that it is indeed a human life... which, during the early stages, is not exactly something I would call easy to do (saying that it has the potential does not count at all, in my view - either it is a human life or it isn't).

Well it was pretty much inevitable that this thread would turn towards the issue of finding humanity in fetuses, still though it warms my heart to see that people would sooner use a fetus as a doorstop than value it over a born human. On the other hand it chills my heart that even more people actually are fetuses.

By the way Gabu you're arguing like a pro tonight. Good job.

That's a terrible questionnaire, really. The answers are so loaded.Funky_Llama

That was kind of the point. Didn't you know that all pro-lifers are mysogynistic haters of freedom and autonomy and that all pro-choicers are murderers and baby eaters?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]That's a terrible questionnaire, really. The answers are so loaded.domatron23

That was kind of the point. Didn't you know that all pro-lifers are mysogynistic haters of freedom and autonomy and that all pro-choicers are murderers and baby eaters?

In memory of the recently locked baby eating topic here's a couple of questions revolving around a hypothetical scenario where a fetus is not considered to be a human life until it is born.

If a fetus is not a human life then would you let people eat it and have it sold at supermarkets (assuming of course that it is legally obtained and properly labelled)? Would such a practice be considered cannibalism?

If a fetus is not a human life then what sort of crime is it to kill it. Would a roundhouse kick to a pregnant womans stomach be murder, property damage or just assault?

If a fetus is not a human life then would torturing it be a case of animal cruelty or something else?

domatron23

Legally, there are many grey areas concerning fetuses.

To me, a fetus is not a life until it can live outside the womb with no physical connection to the mother.

My one and only bump for tonight. I'm still wondering what kind of crime it would be to intentionally kill a fetus inside a pregnant woman. Is the fetus the property of the woman or is it a seperate life which just is not human yet (assuming of course that a fetus is not a human)?domatron23

Legal ****fication varies.