gungadin09
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aileen1968 quote:
ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote:
ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl when does Human life begin? A "fetus" becomes a "human being" at the point in time that it has a reasonable chance of surviving outside it's mother's womb. To be absolutely specific: i believe a fetus stops being a lump of human cells and starts being a "person" or "human being" at 22 weeks, or viability, because that's when it can survive without it's mother. i believe that's the first time it can be said to have a "self", instead of being a sort of growth within it's mother. However, technically, it was alive before that, and had human DNA before that. So: It is alive It is genetically human But it only stops being a thing and starts being a person (with rights) when it can survive on it's own. If the question is, what is the first point that it's both alive and human, the answer is at conception. If the question is, what is the first point that it's alive, human, and a enough of a person to be entitled to its own life? i believe the best answer to that question is, at viability. So: human life begins at conception. Human beings begin at 22 weeks. pam I gave birth to my son at 21 weeks. Not only did he live for six hours, but he was a perfectly formed little baby. There is no way anyone will ever convince me that because he was unable to sustain life at that age, that he wasn't a life and human. I held a baby in my arms for those six hours. Not a fetus. And...I have his death certificate and social security card filed away. Aileen, i'm real sorry to hear that. There's a marked difference in the language that the opposing sides use. That's the thing that most struck me as i was looking this stuff up. Pro-lifers say "when does life start?", and pro-choicers say "when is that life a human being?" To me, those are really two different questions. There is absolutely no doubt that a fetus is both alive AND human at conception. So, it seems to me that prolifers are really asking, not whether a fetus is alive (it is), and not whether is is human (it is, genetically) but whether it is a person, a human being. If i understand it correctly, that is the language the Supreme Court used in the Roe vs Wade decision, that a fetus becomes a "human being" at the age of viability. Not that it becomes "human" at that point, but that it becomes a "human being", in other words, human and a "being"; it has a "self", it is it's own person and not an adjunct to it's mother, at that point. i think it's unfortunate that the courts have to designate an exact point for the fetus to become a human being. i believe that it's a gross oversimplification to say that a fetus is fully a "human being" after a certain point and not at all before that. i believe that we become "human beings" gradually, as we develop from a single celled zygote into a person. However, in my opinion, viability is the still the best point in development to say "this is now a human being". Aileen, i'm sorry for your loss. i had no intention to offend you. pam
|