A fetus

[Jazzy]

Do you think a fetus in the womb is a living human?

~Or~

Do you think life begins when the umbilical cord is cut and the baby becomes anatomically independent of the mother?

Please explain your choice.

 

[Lamb]

Life begins at conception according to scriptures.

 

[Josiah]

My sister has a Ph.D. in biology.

Her position is this: Life is defined by DNA. And the DNA of a human fetus is... human. And obviously that human is living because its growing.

It ain't rocket science. And you don't need a Bible to show it.



.

 

[tango]

My sister has a Ph.D. in biology.

Her position is this: Life is defined by DNA. And the DNA of a human fetus is... human. And obviously that human is living because its growing.

It ain't rocket science. And you don't need a Bible to show it.

Defining purely by DNA isn't really helpful though. Once we have died our DNA is still the same, pending bodily decay. It doesn't mean we are still alive.

 

[Josiah]

Defining purely by DNA isn't really helpful though. Once we have died our DNA is still the same, pending bodily decay. It doesn't mean we are still alive.

But it does prove he's a dead HUMAN. The issue I was addressing by that is if the "little one' (fetus) is HUMAN.

And I added, "is growing"


I'm pretty uncomfortable with ignoring biology and substituting instead wantedness.... we have a living human IF the mother wants the baby and we just have a lifeless blob of nothing if she doesn't. Makes me think of Hitler and the Jews or slave masters and the Black man.




.

.

 

[tango]

But it does prove he's a dead HUMAN. The issue I was addressing by that is if the "little one' (fetus) is HUMAN.

And I added, "is growing"


I'm pretty uncomfortable with ignoring biology and substituting instead wantedness.... we have a living human IF the mother wants the baby and we just have a lifeless blob of nothing if she doesn't. Makes me think of Hitler and the Jews or slave masters and the Black man.

I agree that the unborn is a human, I think much of the discussion about abortion is about whether it is a living human in its own right. If the fetus cannot be considered a living human then abortion logically cannot be considered the killing of a human, any more than shooting a man who is already dead can be considered murder.

You are absolutely right that the current situation is absurd, in which the fetus is either a living human or a useless bunch of cells depending on what the mother would prefer it to be.

 

[Lanman87]

Defining purely by DNA isn't really helpful though. Once we have died our DNA is still the same, pending bodily decay. It doesn't mean we are still alive.

I don't think it is purely by DNA.

The DNA shows it is human
The fact that it is growing and maturing show it is alive.

Therefore, it is a living human.

 

[Lamb]

I don't think it is purely by DNA.

The DNA shows it is human
The fact that it is growing and maturing show it is alive.

Therefore, it is a living human.

What is cool is that the baby's DNA is unique from its mother's.

 

[Josiah]

What is cool is that the baby's DNA is unique from its mother's.

And to HUMANS. This is the DNA of a homo sapiens. Distictive of the mother, but HUMAN.


1. The foundational apologetic of the pro-abortion crowd is that what exists in the womb before that microsecond that the last cell of the last toe to exit the birth canal is not human. Not homo sapiens. To admit otherwise is to admit to murder, they can't escape that, so they must deny the humanity of that life. It's just a blob of nothingness - less than a cockroach, more like toilet paper. Then, BINGO, just like that, as that last cell exits, we have have a human (albeit still developing, still totally dependent). Problem is: the DNA doesn't change at that point, their whole apologetic is unscientific and untrue.


2. Knowing the absurdity and falsehood of their foundational argument, they may resort to the "DEVELOPING human" slogan. Our species is defined by how developed it is. This too is entirely unscientific; nowhere in biology is a species defined by the development of it. And of course, a human never stops developing. So the morality they are making the foundation of their position would allow the "termination" of a 12 year old girl just as much as a 12 day old girl in the womb - both are a developing homo sapiens. Their "science" and morality permit ALL humans of ANY age to be "terminated."


3. Knowing the unscientific view and the horror of their morality, some resort to "Okay, human but just PROPERTY - human but not a PERSON." This comes lock, stock and barrel from the pro-slavery handbook 150+ years ago. It is founded entirely on the premise that our species can be the personal property of another - and thus looses all status as a human, their very humanity, they are a human biologically but can be treated by toilet paper if that's what the owner wants. We deal this this absurd and horrible morality over 150 years ago in this country (although it took a literal war).


4. Knowing the horror of the morality they are promoting... and the very unscientic view they must take, some suggest that actually, our species is defined by whether such is WANTED. That little girl sucking her thumb in the womb is a homo sapiens IF the mother wants it, and it's a glob of nothing if she doesn't. This obviously, undeniably is absurd.... but this too would apply equally to a 16 year old boy; if the mother doesn't want him, she can kill him because he's not alive, he's not human because she doesn't want him to be. Of course, Hitler embraced that view.


Consider not only the silliness of these apologetics, but (more importantly) consider the morality of this.





.