On The Humanity Of The 'fetus'

[KnightofChrist]

I've often thought that some people use the word "fetus" the same way some use the n word. Both the words are used to describe what they see as a non-human, or less than human.

Abortionist remind me very much of Racist. Both do not see the human life they hate. Or even the hate they hate with....

[Didymus]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1185658' date='Feb 5 2007, 06:25 PM']
This is fairly close to my original post. It was alot easier to understand the first time I wrote it, but I couldnt remember everything i said, so if something comes to mind, I'll add it as we go:

This is more of a discussion than a debate. I had been thinking about this and I wanted some clarification as to my assumptions.

It seems as though one of the main arguments in the political and social world with regards to abortion is if the unborn child is human, more commonly, when the child in the womb is human. Normally this is recorded with not only weeks since conception, but trimesters of the pregnancy. (e.g. Some believe that 3rd Trimester and partial birth abortion is wrong, but not abortion in the first trimester.) My first question has to do with the 'trimester' itself. Does the division of trimesters pertain to the state of the mother's body, or the state of the baby's body? My assumption was the mother's, because a mother wouldn't refer to the stage of her pregnancy being in 'my child's nth trimester' rather 'my nth trimester.' If this is true, and the basic known fact is held that no two children in the womb will grow/develop at the exact same rate, then my basic conclusion would be: Who is man to decide when a child in the womb is truly a human being based a timeframe that doesnt pertain directly to that particular child, but rather to the condition of the body of the mother?

My initial response to this is because the only way doctors could tell the child is at a certain stage is to actually look at the child through the ultra-sound, and it would be kinda hard to deny the humanity of the baby when you look at him/her. It all goes back to the lies of the culture of death, and I really am interested in how far we have gotten in the constant scientific proof to the secular world that the child in the womb is a human being from conception.
[/quote]

bump

[KnightofChrist]

It was my understanding that trimesters were based on the development of the Child in the womb.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well one thing scientific. people always ask what the difference is bettwen an early fertilzied egg and other cells. i could never think of a definitive difference in the cell itself without resorting to "potenial human" or rhetorical questions like "when does it start then" that don't really answer. but with the whole stem cell thing, there is at least one fundamental difference i can point to, which is how the early cells are much stem cells that are able to be made into any human body cell. adult stem cells are only able to be made into certain cells. i'm not sure if this is a definitive difference to say the early fertizlied egg must be human in the fullest sense, but it is at least a difference, which is all i wanted, and which i had not thought of before. if you don't take this a a reason to sayun, i might be able to understand, but how much proof will you want is a good question.

[goldenchild17]

What separates it from other cells? Do other cells have their own separate code of DNA that makes them their own individual? No, but the fertlized egg does.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1185782' date='Feb 5 2007, 08:15 PM']
The fetus is not your foe, therefore drop the "o".
[/quote]


Hmm..what does one call a fish without eyes? Fsh.