difference between young fetus and the born

[dairygirl4u2c]

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.

[Aloysius]

there is a unique genetic code of 46 chromosomes from the time of conception. at that point, the baby's very eye color is already determined. everything about the baby is present in that unique genetic code. his organs, his limbs, his hair, his hair color, his eye color, whether he'll be left or right handed, whether he'll be able to do the spock thing with his fingers (though, if he can't, he can make him self be able to like I did by taping his fingers together in that position for a week )

also contained in that unique genetic code are the instructions for his very brain structure, what a materialist would label as his 'consciousness' but what a Catholic would label as the connected physical reflection of the workings of his soul.

at that point, a unique brain structure has been formed, a unique body has been formed, a unique person has been formed.

anyway, a fetus does have organs... you must be talking about an embryo or a zygote in the very first few days, in which case the only abortion you could really be advocating is the morning after pill.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 5 2005, 08:57 AM']there is a unique genetic code of 46 chromosomes from the time of conception.  at that point, the baby's very eye color is already determined.  everything about the baby is present in that unique genetic code.  his organs, his limbs, his hair, his hair color, his eye color, whether he'll be left or right handed, whether he'll be able to do the spock thing with his fingers (though, if he can't, he can make him self be able to like I did by taping his fingers together in that position for a week )

also contained in that unique genetic code are the instructions for his very brain structure, what a materialist would label as his 'consciousness' but what a Catholic would label as the connected physical reflection of the workings of his soul. 

at that point, a unique brain structure has been formed, a unique body has been formed, a unique person has been formed.

anyway, a fetus does have organs... you must be talking about an embryo or a zygote in the very first few days, in which case the only abortion you could really be advocating is the morning after pill.
[right][snapback]746755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

nice reply

genetic code 0wnz, it proves that its human because that zygote certainly doesnt have the code of a monkey or an apple pie.

[Didacus]

I once saw the result of an operation where the patient had all organs removed from the chest down (ie; no intestines, no pancreas, no stomach... only thing left wehre the heart, lungs and liver). is he any less of a human being after the operation?



How do you define a human being?

I define it as a 'crystal ball'. In this sense, i have yet to find a single human being.

In other words, should a crystal ball appear from thin air, talking, reasoning, showing conscience and being just as any humans does yet not having eyes, arms, feet nor any body to speak of, I would consider defining this ball as human. For certain, if someone would take the ball and break it voluntarily, I would charge them with murder!



The point is to define human life with physical characteristics is purely ridiculous and cannot hold detailed scrutiny.

[dairygirl4u2c]

--anyway, a fetus does have organs... you must be talking about an embryo or a zygote in the very first few days, in which case the only abortion you could really be advocating is the morning after pill.--

That was what I was boiling it down to, tough I'm not sure when the organs develop. How do you distinguish between these first few days and normal cells? other than potential..

[Jedi_StClaire]

by 8 weeks, there is a heart beating, there are brain waves the baby resembles a human and all it needs is time to grow and for the lungs to adapt and develop. And the unborn is considered a fetus by I think 8 or 12 weeks. Fetus is Latin for "little one".

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 5 2005, 01:35 PM']--anyway, a fetus does have organs... you must be talking about an embryo or a zygote in the very first few days, in which case the only abortion you could really be advocating is the morning after pill.--

That was what I was boiling it down to, tough I'm not sure when the organs develop. How do you distinguish between these first few days and normal cells? other than potential..
[right][snapback]747017[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
a completely distinct genetic code in all 46 chromosomes makes it a distinct entity from the mother. it also contains all the predetermined information for every aspect of the child. call that "potential" or whatever, I call that a blue-eyed or green-eyed baby already.

[Didacus]

As Cam42 argued with LittleLes:

"He who is to be man, is man already."










I miss LittleLes sometimes... but don't tell anyone I said so.

[let_go_let_God]

Also, at the point that the sperm enters the egg, life begins because the soul of this child is infused within the fetus. It doesn't matter that at the time of conception it doesn't have organs, yet, it doesn't have limbs, yet, it doesn't appear to be anything, yet; it has a living viable soul which makes the child alive, and it cannot turn into anything else but a child.

God bless-
LGLG

[avemaria40]

embryos grow organs at a fast rate. the heart beats three weeks into a pregnancy and brainwaves are recorded at six weeks. at 9 weeks, the embryo is called a fetus and has all of it's organ systems, including reproductive organs. Also, a fetus will be able to smile, kick, move, smell of elderberries his/her thumb (and feel pleasure from it), practice breath, drink, respond to light, respond to music, etc.

[Snarf]

I loved that Onion Point/Counter-Point article, "Life begins at conception versus life begins at 40".

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 5 2005, 04:15 PM']As Cam42 argued with LittleLes:

"He who is to be man, is man already."
I miss LittleLes sometimes... but don't tell anyone I said so.
[right][snapback]747380[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That was Turtullian

[dspen2005]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 5 2005, 09:50 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]

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?

[Socrates]

Dairy, we've been over this exact identical debate a several times already, and I don't see why repeating this tripe over and over (with more silly polls attached) is going to make the outcome any different.
You aren't any kin to LittleLes by any chance, are you?

A fetus is a human child that is still in the womb; he is an infant when he is out of the womb. Nothing miraculous happens while the baby is coming out of the womb. All that has happened is a change of location. The baby does not suddenly, magically, gain a "consciousness" and organs the moment he is born. Everything the baby has when he is born, he had before birth .
Dairy, if you're really that ignorant of human biology, you have no business "debating" this topic. Read a simple biology textbook first.

Might as well give it up, you'll never convince us that abortion is right!

Edited October 6, 2005 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

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.

Edited October 6, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c