Prosecutors seeking to argue their side and pro-lifers refer to it as an unborn child, not defense attorneys or pro choice advocates. Prosecutors select to use the wording to maximize their appeal to emotion. Same with the anti-abortion crowd.
It's opinion that a fetus is 1) human and 2) alive??? Again, prove that it isn't. You've merely taken my statement and redirected it to your own opinion. Prove that the fetus is genetically not human. You can't do it. Nor can you refute that the fetus is alive. A "human" is an organism which contains a complete set of genes which defines it as a human and none other. Can you prove that a fetus is not human? I don't think so. I'm not prolife or proabortion. I will restate my argument: 1. The fetus is human as defined by genetics 2. It is alive 3. Abortion takes a human life. You can't prove any of these statements wrong.
Once again for your educational edification, the definition of the human genome: "There are 24 distinct human chromosomes: 22 autosomal chromosomes, plus the sex-determining X and Y chromosomes. Chromosomes 1â22 are numbered roughly in order of decreasing size. " The chromosomes define the organism - be it a human, a lower primate, a dog or a cat. Now, once again: Can you refute the fact that the fetus is 1) human and 2) that it is alive. And once again: you can't do it.
It's opinion that Jesus Christ, the Lord God, is the Saviour and Creator of the Universe? Prove that he isn't. --------------------------------------------- ... and so on. The militant faithful are famous for asking the Men of Reason, the Compassionate Majority, to prove a negative. 'If you can't prove that my faith-based assertions aren't true, then they're true'. Wouldn't it be wonderful if real life worked this way. Ah well, the faithful aren't famous for recognizing the basic human right of all women to control their own fate. After all, in their view, women were Created from the rib of a man, and are a sub-species of human, put on earth to serve men.
So a fetus contains genetic material, so does a harvested organ awaiting transplant. A fetus that doesn't have a brain stem is brain dead, but still is of human genetic material, still alive, is not a human being. This is alive, this contains human genetic material, this is a human fetus, and this is not a human being: <img src=http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/2/2f/300px-Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg> An unhatched chicken egg is not a chicken, nor is an acorn from an oak tree in the ground with a developing root structure...
Brain dead???? Not human???? An organ ready for transplant has the genetic material, but not genetic triggering or enzymatic mechanisms to make it a complete human being - it will always be a liver, a heart or a kidney. A fetus has the compete set of chromosomes and all the triggering mechanisms necessary for it to continue to grow and develop. It is, in fact, human and if allowed to develop will continue to age just as we all do. The brain stem statement is ridiculous - a human just out of the womb is not fully developed either - its skull is not fused, it's brain and other organs are still developing. Does that make it any less human? Your arguments are specious.
Not sure who the "militant faithful" are, but I don't see any here. I'm an agnostic - it doesn't matter to me whether god exists or not - there's no evidence either way. The conversation is about the humaness of the fetus. I assert that 1) the fetus is human and 2) the fetus is alive Prove me wrong.
You just fell into the trap, thanks. No a heart is not a complete human being, nor is a human fetus. A fetus is not a human being, a fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken, an acorn in the ground with a sprouting root is not an oak tree... Thanks again.
The fetus contains all the genetic material plus triggering mechanisms to grow and to age just as we all do. So why is it not a human? Both the chicken egg and the oak tree have the full set of specific genes to enable them to grow. That they're at an early stage of development is just part of the growing process - has nothing to do with what the organism "is". If the fetus is not human, then what is it? A sub-human? A primate? Some alien creature that magically turns into a human the day it's born? Biology and science have defined what makes an organism what it is - it's their genetic makeup. If the genetic makeup of a fetus changed immediately upon birth, then you would have a case. But the same genetic mix is present at conception as the day it is born and until the day of death - no fundamental biological change takes place at birth - it's merely another stage of development.