Is a fetus a living person?

[Someone09]

Because the person i was replying to said

"Pro Life = Serious control freak issues
May the fetus that you save be gay,liberal,pro choice and an atheist."

and Because for some reason most people i've met seem to think that everybody who is the LGBT community are pro choice and I am part of that community yet I am not completely pro choice with the choice being what it is now.

I don't think it should be illegal but think there should be stricker guide lines and education before the fact and then LOTS more education on protection

[Idi O Syncrasy]

MadMaxThunderDome wrote:

<quoted text>
Emotions can and often do cloud rational thinking.
Therein lies the very basis for the so called Pro-life argument.
It's a developing cluster of cells.
Do you eat eggs?
It is NOT a little baby. Babies are born outside the womb.

You are right, your emotions are clouding rational thought.

The very young human being, just after fertilization... has split in two cells and then in three cells... curiously we do not split ourselves in two, four, eight and continue like that...
We split in two cells of roughly equal dimension and one of the two cells splits in two...after that stage of three cells, it starts again, it comes to four, and it continues by multiples of two...

When we split at the beginning of our life (two cells and then one cell in two), we go at a three cell stage. It's probably at that time that a message goes from one cell to the two other cells, come back to the first one and suddenly realize we are not a population of cells. We are bound to be an individual.

That is individualization, that makes a difference between a population of cells which is just tissue culture and an individual which will build himself according to his own rule, is demonstrated at the three cell stage, that is very soon after fertilization has occurred.

So, clinically speaking, and biologically proven,a human fetus IS a human.

[Watamooze]

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

Watamooze said "Of course ! As from conception, we deal with an UNBORN HUMAN BEING. The term "fetus" is merely a convenient biological term to denote a certain developmental stage of the UNBORN. The moment of conception is when identity is formed, not the moment of birth ..."
I respectively disagree. As entities we have no actual beginning. Our identity is an integral part of who we are.
At the moment of actual conception the soul or entity takes the gift of genetic code from each parent and begins the process of manifestation of the physical shell with the help of US all. Who we are exists outside of this space time continuum. I have written more here for people who might be interested:
http://grandpasmurf9520.wordpress.com/2009/06...

Smurf, I must respectfully disagree with your disagreement. While you may be more than 100% correct in a cosmological sense, we cannot bring metaphysics into play here. That is precisely what must be avoided to prevent this from becoming a theological debate ...

The moment of conception is when the unborn assumes the precise genetic identity that it will have for the rest of its natural life. What happens before that, cannot distract from my argument, anyhow. The unborn, as a single identifiable entity in the biological sense, cannot be defined before conception ...

[Watamooze]

MadMaxThunderDome wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. But no matter what anyone's opinion is, as long as there are unwanted pregnancies especially in cases like, incest and rape, there will be abortions.
We will never save all of the unwanted fetuses, education,protection and a supportive environment will stop unwanted pregnancies but as long as there are people who fear sex and misuse it, this unfortunate issue will be with us.

Murder is wrong, & outlawed. There has never really been doubt about it. The law does, however, recognise exclusionary situations & circumstances, such as self-defence. This does not, however, change 1 single bit of the basic principle ...

Exclusionary circumstances, such as incest, rape & medical neccessity, cannot be argued to allow blanket freedom of choice to arbitrarily decide over the life of a healthy, viable unborn. The principle should be established first, that it is wrong to terminate the life of an unborn ( since it is a person in its own right ). Only then can exclusionary circumstances be discussed, & exceptions be determined, strictly according to legal principles ...

Otherwise, it would be tantamount to legalising murder, just because there is the possibility of an exclusionary circumstance like self-defense ...

[Watamooze]

Someone09 wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because you can't stop them all doesn't mean you don't try to decrease the numbers.
I know the "fetus" is alive I've had 3 of them inside me and felt them move, seen and heard there heartbeats. I do not have hard feelings for the mothers, infact I feel sorry for them that they are in a place they feel they have no choices. That must be hard, I do realize that.

I can see that your compassion is wide-spread & inclusive. Mine too. I feel, however, that we have our first responsibility towards the unborn members of society, who cannot yet voice their protest or appeal ...

[Watamooze]

Someone09 wrote:

Because the person i was replying to said
"Pro Life = Serious control freak issues
May the fetus that you save be gay,liberal,pro choice and an atheist."
and Because for some reason most people i've met seem to think that everybody who is the LGBT community are pro choice and I am part of that community yet I am not completely pro choice with the choice being what it is now.
I don't think it should be illegal but think there should be stricker guide lines and education before the fact and then LOTS more education on protection

So much for asumptions. I am, in fact, atheist, & 100% Pro-Life. I base my view on pure science, reason & logic, as I've shown. Emotions come into play when I passionately defend the rights of the unborn. I think we both see things basically the same. Funny thing is many people see things the same way, but for various reasons. I think the common denominator must be compassion for the unborn ...

[Watamooze]

Idi O Syncrasy wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right, your emotions are clouding rational thought.
The very young human being, just after fertilization... has split in two cells and then in three cells... curiously we do not split ourselves in two, four, eight and continue like that...
We split in two cells of roughly equal dimension and one of the two cells splits in two...after that stage of three cells, it starts again, it comes to four, and it continues by multiples of two...
When we split at the beginning of our life (two cells and then one cell in two), we go at a three cell stage. It's probably at that time that a message goes from one cell to the two other cells, come back to the first one and suddenly realize we are not a population of cells. We are bound to be an individual.
That is individualization, that makes a difference between a population of cells which is just tissue culture and an individual which will build himself according to his own rule, is demonstrated at the three cell stage, that is very soon after fertilization has occurred.
So, clinically speaking, and biologically proven,a human fetus IS a human.

Thank you for the neat explanation. I take it you agree that personhood begins after conception, then ?

[Someone09]

Infiniti04 wrote:

<quoted text>My apologies, I miss posted that, it wasn't to you. I'm quite busy and wasn't paying attention to who reponded as I assumed that I had gotten the right person. Please disregard as I saw that you were a lesbian, in fact I posted to one of your other comments. That post was meant for Madmax. Again, I'm sorry for the confusion.

Oh ok now that I get lol I replied to myself earlier by mistake. I know that looked really bad but I was trying to respond to another post and I clicked on my own then they all picked on me on another forum

[awesome me]

um well i'm not sure god this is confusing god i need a nap my head hurts

[Someone09]

Infiniti04 wrote:

<quoted text>That is too funny, I haven't accomplished replying to myself yet, but I'm sure that I will. ;)

Yeah it was pretty funny, I can laugh at my self. I'm a dork haha

[Idi O Syncrasy]

Watamooze wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for the neat explanation. I take it you agree that personhood begins after conception, then ?

If by conception you mean fertilization, then yes.
Shortly after fertilization, a human is conceived, a living soul.

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.
There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and experts are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation[implantation].

It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field.

It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons:
(1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing else than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed;
(2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life (abortion)involves accepting the risk of killing a human, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

[just an allusion]

There is no question that a fetus is a "living" organism as our observations of the World in which we live have provided us with an almost endless variety of examples that constitute 'life', but the thread's OP queried whether or not a fetus constitutes a living "PERSON", which is a different matter entirely as there are a number of fairly specific nuances that constitute what defines someone as a "person".

It is the investigation of the existence of these traits, these realizations, that warrants research, a metaphorical litmus test if you will, to determine whether or not a fetus is conscious of itself and of it's existence, characteristics that determine sentience/personal disposition, characteristics that, by our interpretation, define an entity as a 'person'.

So, if we are to accurately determine the legitimacy of assigning "person" classification to a fetus, further testing must be performed to discern the evidence for the disposition as one way or another.

[Watamooze]

Idi O Syncrasy wrote:

<quoted text>
If by conception you mean fertilization, then yes.
Shortly after fertilization, a human is conceived, a living soul.
This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.
There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and experts are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation[implantation].
It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field.
It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons:
(1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing else than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed;
(2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life (abortion)involves accepting the risk of killing a human, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

The terrain of metaphysics & theology is rocky at best, with probably dozens of differing viewpoints on the question. So, the scientific point of view provides better dividing lines for decision-making. Like you pointed out, it would then be better to err on the safe side, than to be presumptious & really risk killing a person, not so ?

As I pointed out to another poster, there would be many, from different walks of life, agreeing on this, for differing reasons. In the end the common denominator would be that Pro-Life proponent would invariably be people whose views are really dictated by their conscience ...

[Skombolis]

Watamooze wrote:

<quoted text>
The terrain of metaphysics & theology is rocky at best, with probably dozens of differing viewpoints on the question. So, the scientific point of view provides better dividing lines for decision-making. Like you pointed out, it would then be better to err on the safe side, than to be presumptious & really risk killing a person, not so ?
As I pointed out to another poster, there would be many, from different walks of life, agreeing on this, for differing reasons. In the end the common denominator would be that Pro-Life proponent would invariably be people whose views are really dictated by their conscience ...

That is exactly how I feel. I know medically there would be no debate if it could be proven 100%. But I'd hate to find out I was wrong if it turns out a fetus is a living person.

I had a health teacher once that gave this way of looking at it. He asked people both pro-life and pro-choice is it OK to have an abortion 1 day before the child would have naturally been born? Everyone said no. Then he asked what about 2 days? Same answer. You see where this is going. He kept counting backwards and said, at what point then, what day does it shift from not being OK to OK? He said if nobody could point to anything, then maybe it is because it is never OK.

He said it is easy to count forwards and say, OK just not after 3 months. But when counting backwards, it IMO makes a clearer distinction that maybe it always was a life. That story always stuck with me.

For me anyway, I would have to know someone I was with would not have one to be involved in a relationship. Peace:)

[Ooogah Boogah]

Is an acorn an oak tree?
Is a tadpole a frog?
Is a catepillar a butterfly?

[Watamooze]

just an allusion wrote:

There is no question that a fetus is a "living" organism as our observations of the World in which we live have provided us with an almost endless variety of examples that constitute 'life', but the thread's OP queried whether or not a fetus constitutes a living "PERSON", which is a different matter entirely as there are a number of fairly specific nuances that constitute what defines someone as a "person".
It is the investigation of the existence of these traits, these realizations, that warrants research, a metaphorical litmus test if you will, to determine whether or not a fetus is conscious of itself and of it's existence, characteristics that determine sentience/personal disposition, characteristics that, by our interpretation, define an entity as a 'person'.
So, if we are to accurately determine the legitimacy of assigning "person" classification to a fetus, further testing must be performed to discern the evidence for the disposition as one way or another.

Define "person". I think that you will find that there are so many variants, that we will argue until doomsday just over the definition ...

Some definitions will definitely exclude a large portion of society, & the majority of posters on Topix, who would then have to be mecifully put out of their misery ...

For me, it is sufficient that an living entity as the full capacity to "become a person", by any definition, at any stage in the near future ...

Are we going to condone infanticide if we should so find that a baby only becomes a "person" after 6 minths ? Ridiculous ...

[Watamooze]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

Is an acorn an oak tree?
Is a tadpole a frog?
Is a catepillar a butterfly?

Are you kidding ? They are all 100% human ...

Is Joey a kangeroo ?

[Watamooze]

Skombolis wrote:

<quoted text>
That is exactly how I feel. I know medically there would be no debate if it could be proven 100%. But I'd hate to find out I was wrong if it turns out a fetus is a living person.
I had a health teacher once that gave this way of looking at it. He asked people both pro-life and pro-choice is it OK to have an abortion 1 day before the child would have naturally been born? Everyone said no. Then he asked what about 2 days? Same answer. You see where this is going. He kept counting backwards and said, at what point then, what day does it shift from not being OK to OK? He said if nobody could point to anything, then maybe it is because it is never OK.
He said it is easy to count forwards and say, OK just not after 3 months. But when counting backwards, it IMO makes a clearer distinction that maybe it always was a life. That story always stuck with me.
For me anyway, I would have to know someone I was with would not have one to be involved in a relationship. Peace:)

Thank you ! We think 100% alike. Would it not be nice to tell someone years later that they exist because you were not afraid to be "wrong" ? I can live with my "error" if I should turn out to be wrong in believing that life is sacred, & personhood starts, immediately after conception. If "Pro-Choicers" turn out to be wrong, they cannot revive all the "errors" they've had to bury ...

[Skombolis]

Watamooze wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you ! We think 100% alike. Would it not be nice to tell someone years later that they exist because you were not afraid to be "wrong" ? I can live with my "error" if I should turn out to be wrong in believing that life is sacred, & personhood starts, immediately after conception. If "Pro-Choicers" turn out to be wrong, they cannot revive all the "errors" they've had to bury ...

Yep. Just a little disclaimer: I do not push my beliefs on anyone but I will freely say what I believe.

Anyway, I have given my opinion on this in real life and sometimes it generates a rather intense response. And what the most common one is, "you can't prove when life begins" and my answer is, "neither can you, that's my point". Maybe I will never know the final truth, but I all I know is it really freaks me out thinking about possibly being on the wrong side on this one.

If I am wrong and a fetus really never was a life and end up raising a kid so be it. It would be tough right now but I know I would love him/her like nobody's business. If I am right and a fetus is a child, not having him/her would mean I killed my own son or daughter. I have always been a gambler by nature, but not with stakes this high. Have a good day:)

[Someone09]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

Is an acorn an oak tree?
Is a tadpole a frog?
Is a catepillar a butterfly?

Tadpole and Caterpillars are not Frogs and Butterfly's per say but the are unique in there own life and have the right to exist just as much as they do at further states in life.