Is a fetus a living human, or not really living?
This is NOT an abortion debate. I repeat NOT AN ABORTION DEBATE. So don't make it one.
Living
Side Score: 12
|
 |
Not Living
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
The question: Is a fetus a living human, or not really living? 1. Is it living? Obviously, yes. It meets the majority of the qualifications for life. In fact, it has been alive since its creation (even before fertilization). 2. Is it human. Well, what definition of human? Are we talking about from a scientific perspective? Or from the perspective of societal acceptance. If the former, then yes. From a few hours after the moment of conception, the DNA from gametes have joined. Thus, it has the DNA of a homo sapien. At no point since the to its death will new genetic information (epigenetics aside) be added. Side: Living
If all it took for something to be human was that it contained human DNA, then my dead skin cells on my bed are as much a human as I am. Obviously human DNA is not what makes a person human. Not even a scientist (unless said scientist was incredibly naive) would claim that human DNA necessitates a human. Probably the closest definition of being human we could get would be "has a nervous system resembling the average human nervous system." Sure, this is a circular definition, but it answers enough questions and is specific enough for many applications. Therefore, the fetus is not developed enough nervous system-wise until about the 6th week when we can detect brain waves of the fetus. I have heard arguments for the 12th week, but by then I feel like the baby already is exhibiting humanistic qualities (thumb sucking, hiccup, grasping, etc.), so we must choose the earliest time to define the beginning of humanity. So, a fetus between conception and 6 weeks is not a living human, but after we detect brain waves, that fetus is a living human. Side: Not Living
2
points
According to the Unborn victims of violence act they are considered alive only when it is effected by a violent crime. Kind of a double standard if you ask me. I suppose thats law for ya. Side: Living
|
3
points
Whilst I'm quite aware that a fetus is living, in my eyes, it is not a living human. A tadpole is not a frog, a caterpillar is not a butterfly/moth, etc. It can't make an independent choice, and it isn't even recognizable until about 13 weeks. It's equivalent to asking whether a squirtle is a living blastoise (pokemon: sponsors fetus debates). Side: Not Living
1
point
1
point
Well, there are two ways I look at it. There's the scientist part of me, then there is the philosophical side of me. 1. A foetus becomes a human at 20 weeks. This is when it is unmistakably in human form. It has a beating heart, a brain, hair, and can survive outside the womb. 2. A foetus becomes a human at birth. It is not until birth that a human can make independent choices, and what is truly living, if not to make choices. Whether I pick 1 or 2 depends on the context. In a science class, I'd pick 1. But in a debate on abortion I'd pick 2. Side: Not Living
3
points
1
point
However if you assault a pregnant woman (regardless of the fetus' stage of development or if the assailant has knowledge of the womans' pregnancy) you can be charged with any harm that befalls the unborn as if it were any other person...including a charge of murder in the case of a micarriage. Why is it okay for a criminal to be charged with a crime even if he doesn't realize or mean to hurt the fetus; however the mother is allowed to intentionally murder ot as long as it is by her choice? Why consider it a human being in one circumstance but not the other? Side: Living
|
