difference between young fetus and the born

[hierochloe]

I think she needs to do some reading on gestational stages of humans, get learned up on the difference between zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.

[Lounge Daddy]

Honestly – I do not understand the point of these discussions … a pre-born human is an unborn HUMAN … what is the debate in the face of this
We live in a country where it is a federal crime to destroy a Bald Eagle egg because “it will become a mature Bald Eagle” --- but we can toss pre-born humans in the trash like bic razors
Why discuss development of human beings? We are humans and get less protections than other creatures – although we make these laws… and that is messed up!
God help us.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Oct 6 2005, 12:20 PM']We live in a country where it is a federal crime to destroy a Bald Eagle egg because “it will become a mature Bald Eagle”    --- but we can toss pre-born humans in the trash like bic razors
[right][snapback]748379[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh man that's a great contrast. Hope I can remember it.

[Didacus]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Oct 6 2005, 02:11 PM']Oh man that's a great contrast. Hope I can remember it.
[right][snapback]748548[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ditto to that! Most excellent point Mr. Lounge Daddy!

[tojo]

That people cannot understand that we have the obligation to protect and care for defenseless, genetically distinct, biologically human creatures that will develop into newborn infants in the same way have that obligation towards genetically distinct, biologically human creatures that will develop into mature adults, perplexes me beyond all belief. I know and believe this more strongly than any aspect of my faith. If Jesus and Mary theirselves appeared before me and said they were pro-choice I'd get into an arguement with them.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Oct 5 2005, 08:49 PM']if u consider these two propositions as conditions for personhood then:
Does the being have to have ALL organs, or is there a certain number that it must have?
If consciousness is a criterion, what about individuals who are in car accidents and lose consciousness, or individuals who are sleeping -- which is a loss of consciousness?  If this is the case, when you go to sleep at night, you cease to be a person?
[right][snapback]747737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

dairygrl -- you haven't addressed the points i raised -- i think, that before we can discuss this topic, a better understanding of the defining terms needs to be sought and attained.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 6 2005, 12:00 AM']acorns aren't trees..

all any of you are doing is getting ot proving a benefit of the doubt, maybe.

instead of regurgitating things, try using something like the fact that early cells are stem cells, though people have stem cells too and how are those first few days different than stem cells in someone?

think of it this way. who's to say that the cells aren't just like cells in a person starting at the feet growing into a body. they're only cells. you need to start branching into arguments like, it's a unique DNA code and no other cells have that, therefore it's it's own entity. but if you said this, i'd point out that that doesn't mean it's a person.

i'm disappointed in this board as i hoped someone would generate someting for me to respond to other than you putting words into my mouth and missing my points. i end up arguing with myself if i want ot artue with anyone worth arguing with........... (take that for what you will)

cells in your arm have DNA too. DNA then isn't the critiera. true those cells won't form a person but potential people aren't people.
just because it's an entity separate ro the mother does't mean it's a person.
i've never seen a person with no organs.

i'm not trying to convince you that abortion is okay. i'm trying to convince you that at certain stages of development it's not obviously a human as you all insist. (and no i'm not saying that it's  cow either, like I'm not sayig cells in your arm are cows...) you insist this saying it's not just because you're a catholic/have a belief, but obviously that's the only way you could possibly claim that.

reality is nice. you need to stop mixing faith with science like this or you'll be doomed to living in a fantasy world forever.
[right][snapback]747990[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Who's living in a fantasy world?
We're not the ones making illogical arguments here.

Again, I ask, if the fetus is not human, what is it?
Let's look at the possibilities.

A) A part of the woman's body? (like the cells in her arm) - We've shown that the fetus has its own distinct dna code, blood type, etc., from the mother. It is scientific fact that it is a distinct organism from the mother. No serious scientist can deny this. The fetus is not part of the mother.

B) - Something non-living, not yet alive? The fetus is definitely alive - it has life functions, otherwise it could not be killed. No serious scientist would say a fetus that has not died is non-living.
So far, we have established scientifically that the fetus is a living organism distinct from the mother.

C) A non-human organism? A human fetus is clearly human in species. It has human dna, and cannot develop into any species other than human.

Since a human fetus is a distinct, living, human organism, how can we not say it is a human being? What else could it be?

I have proven this using accepted scientific facts. You accuse of being "unscientific" and "mixing religion and science," yet it is you who refuses to accept scientific fact, and say (on faith alone) that a human fetus is not human (a rational absurdity).

How's it like in your little fantasy world, Dairy?

[dairygirl4u2c]

first i think it'd be productive to call it a zygote from now on. i know a rose by any other name...
but at least this way it doesn't have connotations of a little person image to it. it may seem not fair to have connotations to a clump of cells, but what we're talking about is more similar to a clump of cells in image than something resembling a person.

[quote]Since a human fetus is a distinct, living, human organism, how can we not say it is a human being? What else could it be?[/quote]
I didn't have to think I'd explain this whole "not being human" thing. This is the poorest argument I've ever heard, a distraction. The way you just responded reaffirms yet again that you are missing the point entirely.

First I want you to read this that I posted since you didn't respond to it.

[quote]Also since people like to assume I make typical arguments. I'm not saying that the early fetus is not a human, just that it may not be.

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)
[url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm[/url]

That's a pretty objective website. It doesn't state that the fetus is in fact a human. Smart, rational people think that you don't know.
Notice Regan's talking about a fetus with legs arms etc. That's not the same as a few days old. [/quote]

Notice that smart people affirm that you cannot really state definitely when, i'll say, "personhood" begins.
also notice that this website distinguishes between "human" and "person", the distinction I'm making is there on that site.
You ignore it completely, or at least aren't addressing it, something of minor relevance to the true philophical debate of when personhood begins.

By your logic, the cells in your arm should be deemed as human beings. You might say, they're not humans! Then by me using your logic, I'd say, well then what are they? cows?
I hope this better illustrates the irrationality of your argument.

i admit, smart rationale people think you can define a person, but their criteria fails at the level i've seen. i'm going to start a post after this to debate with myself, since you're keeping us stuck in elementary debating.

Edited October 8, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[avemaria40]

The cells in your arm don't have the potential to become a fully grown human being, and they have the same DNA. A human zygote/embryo/fetus has the potential to become a fully grown human being, and since you're always a human, not a squirrell or anything, and since you're always alive, it's a pretty safe bet to say that a newly conceived zygote, a three day old embryo, and a 9 week old fetus are all human beings. a zyogote has his/her own DNA, gender is already determined by chromosomes, and all hereditary traits are determined. [b]The only thing that he/she needs is time and nourishment and then he/she can start to develop organs. [/b] This logic that they aren't people, based on stages of development, is flawed, b/c then by that logic, my little brother is less of a person than i am since I'm at a completely different stage of development. And as for the fact that he/she can't think conciously, then by that logic, when i'm sleeping, since i'm not conscious of my thoughts, i am not a person. Or, if presence of organs is necessary for personhood, then, if i had a kidney or an apendix removed, i just have had a bit of my personhood removed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

when i was mentioning that it doens't have organs, I was implying a lot more than i'm sure any of you realized as the bottom post illustrates.
---------

This is me debating with myself. You may call it scientific/philosophical babble, but that's the nature of the situation, and if you can't accept that, then of course you're going to call it babble.

I also want to state that ideas that are new need to be taken and read slow. You can't just read something that's new to your brain and expect it to be absorbed as fast as something that your brain is familiar with.

[quote]you need to start branching into arguments like, it's a unique DNA code and no other cells have that, therefore it's it's own entity. but if you said this, i'd point out that that doesn't mean it's a person.[/quote]

The only argument I see that distinguishes between the zygote and cells is a unique set of DNA. One level of argument against this being adequate is that it's arbitrary, unique DNA is what makes a person? I think this question alone is sufficient in itself, but I'll take it to another, separate level that is another form of thinking.

DNA can exist in tubes. I think we'd agree we need more. The DNA would have to have cells or some sort of biology accompanied with it. This combination exists in dead animals. We'd have to have the quality of metabolic processes involved too. So what distinguishes the unique DNA/biology/metobolic (Combination) processes of cells in your arm with those in the zygote? This would have to be more of a less certain science, but the philosophical notion indeed is there to explain it, that is, the cells can be taken away and a process will continue for the Combination to survive. What separates this from taking a few cells away from a few other cells, and those other cells persisting (are those cells human?) This would have to define it more by saying that the cells that are taken away would have to be okay to take away as many as possible while still allowing the entity as a whole to function naturally. We may have defined personhood then with this proof. But I think the simple question still goes back to if you can simple declare this to be life or not? See, you could scientifically call it a person if you want to define it that way, but scientifically you could define it another way too, such as requiring that the cells have at least some organ structure to it. (I think the inability to see this is a major problem, those who do think that by being able to "scientifically" call it a human (whenthere are more definitions), they think they've proved it's humanness (remember personhood/human debate) philosophically)

There are some more considerations though. One is that what about the Combination*(see bottom note) in a person who was just shot? [i](Something for further reflection later, most any scientist will tell you that defining death is not really possible, though ironically many prolife persons will tell you defining the beginning is very possible)[/i] The person was shot, probably dead by most suppositions - but the person still has the Combination. If we for example simply totally "squished" this apparently and by almost unanimous standards dead individual to a mesh, would that be murder? [An additional refutation is to add organs to the body, this even for those who argue that the cells must have organs!] I think we need to add something like, the Combination must be growing into something. Well, the cells in the dead body are, so okay, the Combination with the potential to sustain itself. The shot body doesn't have that. We may have defined the person then: I'll start with this declaration to contrast it to the next: "Combination with organs that is growing into something that can sustain." But what about the organ issue that of the zygote? Okay, "Combination with organs that is growing into something that can sustain". So again, we're down to two propositions to choose from. do organs matter or not?

**actually to illustrate the true nature of defining life: "Combination with at least some organ material that is growing into something that can sustain, from a standard in which some cells can be taken away up to the point that the entity as a whole still sustains." or "Combination with that is growing into something that can sustain, from a standard in which some cells can be taken away up to the point that the entity as a whole still sustains."

I think you could take it further and say that just because you have a kidney and some surronding cells for example doesn't mean you're human. But I don't wnat to go here, at least yet, and my point will be proven that you can't definitely state what you think you can if I only use my cells with any organs argument"

If you insist on saying "combination that is growing into something that will sustain" is personhood proof, I'd say you're being arbitrary and missing the counter argument that the organs must be present or something like that. Remember most people even many profilers accept that defining death can be difficult if not arbitrary.

Some even distinguish true death with bodily death, which brings me to my next point. On another note, I think ultimately we'll find the only real way of defining a person is with unconsciousness/ or at least the soul. But this is not able to be proven, that is who espouses those qualities and who does not; so along with the scientific uncertainty, the uncertainty of when life truly begins would hence become unavoidable.

Okay, I'm gonna stop here, though I think I could keep going. I'm disappointed because we're sort of where we started from, but I think the proof if you will of how we got (or should have got) here might spark further profitable analysis. I want you to absorb this and think about what debate should really be.

This isn't canned responses material here. I hope no one minds. If we want to get to the heart of the debate, this I think is the method we must use to flesh out the core issues. Especially if we wanna figure out why the smart people are disagreeing!

Edited October 8, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]This logic that they aren't people, based on stages of development, is flawed, b/c then by that logic, my little brother is less of a person than i am since I'm at a completely different stage of development. And as for the fact that he/she can't think conciously, then by that logic, when i'm sleeping, since i'm not conscious of my thoughts, i am not a person. Or, if presence of organs is necessary for personhood, then, if i had a kidney or an apendix removed, i just have had a bit of my personhood removed. [/quote]
The stage you are compared with your brother is not exactly similar to a born and a zygote. Both you and your brother have at least some organs. If someone wanted to define you as person and your brother as not has to show why the discrepancy, other than time? Remeber, I've shown that the zygote has no organs at all, while the born/later fetus does.

I apologize for introducing the consciousness argument. I knew the counter argument. I was thinking more along the lines of a born person has proved to have consciousness at one point, and so when the person is uncsoncious he's at least had that inital. Though I suppose one could be born unconscious? Hmmm... (this is the type of debate we need, I'll respond later if I can and have time) I don't want to use this argument though.
I'd rather just stick with the unconsicous argument moreso. But this ultimately rests with the organs debate: how do we know a person who does not have consciousness has unconscious? We'd have to assume so based on the bodily functions, so we're back to the Combination or Combination with at least some organs debate.

You did not have a bit of your personhood removed. Either you have some organs or you don't. You'd still have organs. (I admit we could debate when does the cells finally form organs, but we could also argue when does the sperm really microscopically speaking as we are, form the fretilized egg? So anyway, let's not go here.. no need)

Edited October 8, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[avemaria40]

just because a zygote has no organs yet doesn't mean he/she is not a person. We were all once a zygote, an embryo, a fetus. Let's be thankful we got the chance to be born.

Edited October 8, 2005 by avemaria40

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think what it might come down to is this. CC has facts for believing what it does. Though, that doesn't mean it's proven what it claims per se. It means it has a rationale. Like if I think people die when their brain signals are gone, I have a rationale. I don't think I have any truly outside transcending arguments proof though, like I can't prove my death theory with the same confidence that something certain physics principles are true. Someone else might think that other factors are what should cause clinical death.

[Aloysius]

dairy, I read all your posts. and you know, you're just confusing yourself and everyone else.

but you seem to have just merely described what applies to everything. people disagree... wow you've made a breakthrough ... people have rationale for why they disagree... amazing? you can't just dismiss our arguments to call it "rationale" instead of proof.

by the same logic, I can dismiss a lot of physics principals. I could argue geocentrism because, while the non-geocentrists have rationales, they cannot prove beyond all doubt that the earth isn't the center of the universe.

the fact is, we have to argue our rationales for which is the best one, which explains more.

yours so far is reducing personhood to when the entire body functions with all its necessary and vital organs. while that's an interesting assertion... the fact remains that these organs have not changed anything. by the time the baby has developed all of its vital organs, it already had a brain I believe...

which organs must be present? the heart? the brain? the lungs? the stomach?

the best sign of an event being the beginning of personhood is that it be an absolute exact event. it has to be, at the moment of a unique human form existing, that is the moment of personhood. it would be much less fitting to say 'at the moment the brain is formed'... or 'at the moment the brain is fully formed'... those things are not stark events. those things develop out of something human that already exists.

the moment that is the best candidate for the moment of personhood is the moment in which an entirely unique and distinct human genetic code has been formed, complete with every charecteristic about its body already decided.

saying it's the moment his heart forms is about aing that was already a distinct and unique human form. the best candidate for personhood is a moment when EVERYTHING changes, where something human that once did not exist, now exists. anything other than a moment like that is really just a stage of developement of something that already exists, it's adding on to something from within itself that it had planned to add on from the beginning. it is no different than any other stage of developement through our entire lives.

the one moment that cannot be categorized with all other mere stages of developement like the formation of fingers is the only plausible candidate for personhood.

and death? death happens when the person will no longer live. that's the moment it happens. just like personhood happens when something that did not exist suddenly begins to exist, so too death happens when something that did live ceases to continue life. that's the moment. now doctors have not necessarily discovered just what that point is, but we know philisophically that that would be the point at which someone died. the point where everything changes. it'd be the only candidate for the end of a life, just like the point where everything changes is the only candidate for the beginning of a life. we've been able to determine the point where everything changes at the beginning of life. just because we haven't identified that point in scientific terms for the end of life doesn't change anything.

we attain personhood when a distinct and unique human that did not exist, begins to exist. we die when a distinct and unique human that did live, ceases to live. it's that simple.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 8 2005, 03:41 PM']first i think it'd be productive to call it a zygote from now on. i know a rose by any other name...
but at least this way it doesn't have connotations of a little person image to it.
[right][snapback]750697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
right... right...
we wouldn’t want "little human" imagery getting in the way of factual discussion, would we?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]yours so far is reducing personhood to when the entire body functions with all its necessary and vital organs.[/quote]
Right now all I'm arguing is that the zygote is not a person. A zygote has no organs at all. (unless you're putting in my mouth i said all organs must be present by me not having my own definition of when it begins? Well, I've pretty much said so far at least for the sake of arguement that if you have any organs then you're a person. i'm sticking with my zygote argument)

[quote]the moment that is the best candidate for the moment of personhood is the moment in which an entirely unique and distinct human genetic code has been formed, complete with every charecteristic about its body already decided.[/quote]
How is this moment the best candidate other than because you say so? I'm pretty sure you could have a dead person's cells living in a tube.... that means it's unique DNA from any other living cells.
you might be able to, but i want to see more of a definition than what you've given. see, you're going to have to do a lot more than make simple declarations like that.
like something about the zygote, may it's got some sort of chemicals in it that are different (do we know this? it might be able to be inductively proven, though I'd like some sort of reputable website at least saying so)

[quote]the point where everything changes. it'd be the only candidate for the end of a life, just like the point where everything changes is the only candidate for the beginning of a life. we've been able to determine the point where everything changes at the beginning of life.[/quote]
So, what about that unique DNA set that lives in a tube?

People who would say the earth is flat are denying overwhelming cirumstantial evidence and inductive proofs. It can be demonstrated on many levels why the earth is round.
You'd say you could demonstrate on many levels why the zygote is a person. But here I have all this proof that it's not, lack of organs etc, and you can't explain away my proofs like the person who's defending that the earth is round would. For example, if I say death occurs at brain signal death, by some (not necessarily yours) logic, I've "proven" when someone dies. Someone else would say death cannot occur until the heart stops, and they've "proven" when someone dies. They can't both be right. They have rationales for their argument only. It'd seem to be more objective, perhaps this is just me, to say that you can't say when pepole die for sure.
Have they both proven when the person dies?

I know you have that point where everything changes thing, but if you can't define why the zygote is different from those cells, it goes back to determing when it's a person. (again unless you can show how different...)

Edited October 9, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[MissScripture]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 9 2005, 08:20 AM']Right now all I'm arguing is that the zygote is not a person. A zygote has no organs at all. (unless you're putting in my mouth i said all organs must be present by me not having my own definition of when it begins? Well, I've pretty much said so far at least for the sake of arguement that if you have any organs then you're a person. i'm sticking with my zygote argument)
[right][snapback]751511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Is it just me, or did that not make any sense at all?

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 5 2005, 10:50 AM']Many here claim that the first few days a fetus is conceived is the same as a person. I claim that the differences are these off the top of my head:
the fetus has no organs *at all*
the fetus has no previous indications of consciousness to warrant considering it a person, unlike a parapalegic who has that "consciousness".

I suppose we'll debate th consciousness thing, but the organ thing is pretty black and white. I'll add more things later, my list is a list in progress. Eventually I might get to why the fetus is more like a few ordinary cells than a person.
[right][snapback]746749[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so... i have a friend who had to have one of her kidneys removed because of cancer. is she less of a human than I am? of course not! your argument about having to have a complete set of organs in order to be a person is ridiculous.

what is consciousness? Mirriam-Webster defines it as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself." basically, consciousness is the ability to percieve what is going on around you. if you go into a coma, while you might not be conscious, you are still a person, a human being. Nothing can change that.

your argument comes from the body of thought known as eugenics, which was what Hitler used to destroy six million Jews, along with many Catholics, homosexuals, disabled people and communists.

Edited October 9, 2005 by photosynthesis

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 9 2005, 01:11 PM']so...  i have a friend who had to have one of her kidneys removed because of cancer.  is she less of a human than I am?  of course not!  your argument about having to have a complete set of organs in order to be a person is ridiculous.

[right][snapback]751683[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe her argument is that you need at least one organ to be categorized as human. I personally think this is a really bizarre argument, and haven't found a logical way to approach it yet. However, the lack of one organ doesn't make you less human, nor do I think the milkmaid would argue so.

Defining when life starts is easy. Giving a definitive answer as to when your humanity starts, without any use of religious beliefs, is a bit sketchy....

Edited October 9, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 9 2005, 05:16 PM']I believe her argument is that you need at least one organ to be categorized as human. 
[right][snapback]751760[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
:

I'm sorry but that argument is so stupid it's funny.