View Single Post
January 25th, 2011, 08:39 AM
Love.BryceyBoo Love.BryceyBoo is offline
Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by smt View Post
The cells are certainly human in origin, but a "human being" is more than a simple collection of cells. A human being is a complex collection of trillions of cells in an organization where other emergent properties come to exist, such as consciousness, feelings, etc.

I would say that without a doubt a fetus at the six month stage is a person. I would probably be willing to go lower than that, too.

Are you saying "prove it's not a human being" as opposed to "prove it's not human tissue"? I could if you would dare to define a human being like I asked. If you actually believe that a conceptus is a human being then would you support charging women, who have abortions at any point in a pregnancy, with murder? How about the death penalty for multiple abortions? Of course not, because you don't actually believe that a early-stage conceptus deserves the same protections that a full-fledged human being deserves.

First and Second bolded: So your definition of "human" revolves around the ideal that "something of human nature" becomes a viable "human" when conscious thought comes into existence? So I think it would be logical to deduce from that, given that you believe a 24 week fetus or possibly younger is a viable human, that there is scientific evidence of brain functionality beginning at a certain week of gestation? Can you please show me the study where the scientific community has came up with a definitive answer? Or do you just "feel" like that is a proper point to determine that it's human? Why? Because it looks human to you at that point? It's not viable without the mother at 24 weeks and an attempt won't even be made to save a fetus at younger then 24 weeks gestation. So at 23 weeks and 6 days, a fetus is probably still not cable of conscious brain activity so we have no concern for it's well being, but when it hits your magical 24 week mark, it does? Or is this because you know that 24 weeks is when at attempt at saving a fetus will be made? So, do you base your whole perception of what defines human off of when the scientific community says that a fetus can be saved by hooking it up to machines that does everything for it? Is that even a baby? Something that just lies there not doing anything except existing with machines doing what a mother's body usually would do, that's a human? I want to understand what you define human as and why you deem something human at the point you do.

Third Bolded: Given that you would potentially call a fetus of less than 24 weeks gestation a human, then I assume you are for charging mothers who have abortions when they are 21, 22 or 23 weeks, with murder? You said previously that you think abortions at or after 24 weeks should be illegal, but then also said that you believe a fetus at less than 24 weeks is a potentially a viable human, so you are okay killing a human at that point? So if a conceptus doesn't deserve the same treatment as a full fledged human, but a fetus at 23 weeks in your opinion is full fledged human and can be aborted, then I'm confused, what treatment does or does not it deserve? You can abort either one. So you believe a human being that has not reached a certain number (24 weeks) doesn't deserve the same treatment as a human being that has? I guess I'm also still confused at what point we determine "full fledged human being" status. Please elaborate on that.
Reply With Quote