Are fetus' humans?

[artimies7]

Without even reading any of the other arguments, I have to say this.
These fetuses have every possibility of becoming sane, rational, living human beings.

If you kill a fetus, you kill the person that it would become. And that's just not cool.

Let`s extend that logic. Every time a woman menstruates, it wastes an ova that could have become a human if a male had fertilized said egg. Is that cool? (I want to hear you tell me what, if there is, the fundamental difference)

Furthermore, what if it comes at the expense of the mother's life?
-snip-

1. The menstruated egg *had* the possibility of becoming something that would become a living person. Almost there, but not quite containing that spark of life. You would give a fetus nine months in suitable conditions and it would be born as a baby. An unfertilized egg? Never. That's the difference.

2. That's the mother's decision.
(Possibly off topic but somehow related: Medicine has advanced enough that a doctor would have a reasonable estimate of mother/baby survival rates off of which said mother could make a 'logical' decision whether or not to abort or go through with the birth.)

[Jenkar]

Without even reading any of the other arguments, I have to say this.
These fetuses have every possibility of becoming sane, rational, living human beings.

If you kill a fetus, you kill the person that it would become. And that's just not cool.

Let`s extend that logic. Every time a woman menstruates, it wastes an ova that could have become a human if a male had fertilized said egg. Is that cool? (I want to hear you tell me what, if there is, the fundamental difference)

Furthermore, what if it comes at the expense of the mother's life?
-snip-

1. The menstruated egg *had* the possibility of becoming something that would become a living person. Almost there, but not quite containing that spark of life. You would give a fetus nine months in suitable conditions and it would be born as a baby. An unfertilized egg? Never. That's the difference.

Isn't fertilisation just a suitable condition?

[artimies7]

Without even reading any of the other arguments, I have to say this.
These fetuses have every possibility of becoming sane, rational, living human beings.

If you kill a fetus, you kill the person that it would become. And that's just not cool.

Let`s extend that logic. Every time a woman menstruates, it wastes an ova that could have become a human if a male had fertilized said egg. Is that cool? (I want to hear you tell me what, if there is, the fundamental difference)

Furthermore, what if it comes at the expense of the mother's life?
-snip-

1. The menstruated egg *had* the possibility of becoming something that would become a living person. Almost there, but not quite containing that spark of life. You would give a fetus nine months in suitable conditions and it would be born as a baby. An unfertilized egg? Never. That's the difference.

Isn't fertilisation just a suitable condition?

Compare the highlighted text to its preceding alternative. That suggests that fertilization is a process which changes the makeup of the egg into a fetus.

So no.

[Jenkar]

The changes that happen AFTER fertilisation due to the environment (mostly, nutrition) on the fertilised egg are arguably way bigger than the change from unfertilised to fertilised status.

[artimies7]

The changes that happen AFTER fertilisation due to the environment (mostly, nutrition) on the fertilised egg are arguably way bigger than the change from unfertilised to fertilised status.

Let's look at the original argument.

-snip-

Let`s extend that logic. Every time a woman menstruates, it wastes an ova that could have become a human if a male had fertilized said egg. Is that cool? (I want to hear you tell me what, if there is, the fundamental difference)

The changes you are referring to are occuring because of the fertilization. If we were to replicate those changes with both an ova to a fetus in some kind of incubator (removing that factor) and comparing the development of the two, the fetus would grow and the ova would not.

That's the fundamental difference. The fetus has a set of parameters in which it will become a human baby. The ova has no such parameters and is therefore not capable of life until transformed by fertilization into a fetus. That's the point at which it should be protected.

I'm fairly sure that answers your question. Tell me if it doesn't; I'm running on an empty brain-tank.

[Jenkar]

Depends on what you call parameters. For me, presence of spermatozoids is a parameter. (and it is one that enables the ova to eventually become a physical human)

[artimies7]

Depends on what you call parameters. For me, presence of spermatozoids is a parameter. (and it is one that enables the ova to eventually become a physical human)

For me, presence of spermazoinons or whatnot is the defining characteristic between the two objects in question. They're the true/false variable that allows you to predict what's going to happen next.

[Jenkar]

Oh, i don't disagree with the fact that fertilisation makes ova different from fetuses. What i disagree with is your exclusion of ovas (and spermatozoidons ) as potential humans, while you do include fetuses.

[northcity4]

Yes, I agree, an egg is not human...has no life. Fetus' do have life. By scientific definition, life responds to its surroundings. Eggs do not, but what about sperm? Scientists are still curious is masturbating is considered killing something living because there is evidence to suggest sperm are living (just a thought).

Aliens: mythological, but from my understanding, they are intelligent creatures, can create society just like humans...and even have a hierarchical system...but something bothers me. Let's pretend we met an alien one day...they came to visit. Can we call them human?

1) They have morals
2) don't have morals
3) regardless of 1 and 2--->a female human sleeping with a male alien =/= a baby.

I'm not sure what I am asking, maybe for your thoughts.

So far, I guess genetics plays a role making you human, consciousness to some extent. Morality and the ability to reproduce, ability to think complex things...what about feelings? Sure animals get mad if you annoy them (lions for example), but animals don't care if its grown child dies later in life. If the lion king were to be realistic, the simba's mom would probably not been so 'sad' to have her husband die.

It appears as if we agree in the end but disagree about whether the word human should or should not be used to describe personhood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood)

I think it absurd to refer to Homo Sapiens for legal, ethical, sociological, psychological, and other not-strictly-genetic purposes.
I think the ability to reason is a sufficient condition for personhood.

Since Human is usually used to refer to only Homo Sapiens out of all People, I think we should be specific and use personhood when we are talking about personhood.

I apologize for the confusion; there were indeed some unclear phrases in my writing (such as 'must be considered', and the lack of clarification between personhood, humanity, and Homo Sapien-ness).

The original question of whether fetuses should be considered humans refer more to the concept of Personhood (but not exactly; there is still a difference between Personhood and Humanity) than to that of Homo Sapiens. If it refered to Homo Sapiens, there would be nothing to discuss. A fetus has the same DNA as its future, full-grown self (barring extraordinary circumstances and artificial interference); as 'Homo Sapien' is a genetic definition, there is no way to suggest that it is not Homo Sapien.

In order for the discussion to have any meaning, then, the word 'human' in the question must not refer to 'only Homo Sapiens out of all People', as you have suggested, but 'People' in general.

Also to say a human must define themselves as human to be human is incorrect. What if I am mute and have a brain problem...am I not human...in fact let's say the world calls me non human, am I non-human? No, your still human...this is why there is something more...something different we are not seeing that makes humans so unique.

Being mute does not prevent you from defining yourself as a human, or even from communicating your declaring of humanity.

If your brain problem is sufficiently severe, then you may not be a human. For example, there is a medical condition in which additional sets of fully formed organs can develop inside a person's body, but have no capacity to grow into a reasoning being; that collection of organs is not human. There is another medical condition where two twins are merged into one, with only one of them retaining the ability to reason, and the other existing only as a parasitic twin. The parasitic twin is not considered human, and removal of the twin from its host ('killing') is almost universally recommended if medically reasonable.

lares itself human, then it is human, even if his master disagrees (again, by P1).

If you declare yourself human, but every other human disagrees, you are still human (P1).

So, you are saying someone born without the ability to think really isn't human? Like zombies from World War Z? I agree to some extent. They have the genetic composition of a human, respond to their surroundings, still look human...but as Max Brooks states in his book (p1-3), they lost their human factor...I wonder if fetus' have this 'human factor.'

(I will talk about this also in the abortion topic)

[cometbah]

What difference between personhood and humanity do you see? (I see one too but I want to understand what you see.)

A person is a social unit. A human is a universe-al (odd spelling to distinguish from the usual definition of 'universal') unit.

Theoretically, a person can be multiple humans, and a human can be multiple persons.

What is the difference you see?

I think this discussion can have meaning when human in the question refers to 'only Homo Sapiens out of all People'. What it does it gets people to identify what other traits humans happen to have that are relevant to the abortion thread. This identification allows people to form actual well communicated arguments without the confusion the word human causes in that topic.

Interpretation (correct/incorrect?):
You think that fetuses are humans (assuming 'human'='Homo Sapien'), but traits other than merely 'being human' are the key factors when deciding whether an act of termination is justified.

[OldTrees]

What difference between personhood and humanity do you see? (I see one too but I want to understand what you see.)

A person is a social unit. A human is a universe-al (odd spelling to distinguish from the usual definition of 'universal') unit.

Theoretically, a person can be multiple humans, and a human can be multiple persons.

What is the difference you see?

I think this discussion can have meaning when human in the question refers to 'only Homo Sapiens out of all People'. What it does it gets people to identify what other traits humans happen to have that are relevant to the abortion thread. This identification allows people to form actual well communicated arguments without the confusion the word human causes in that topic.

Interpretation (correct/incorrect?):
You think that fetuses are humans (assuming 'human'='Homo Sapien'), but traits other than merely 'being human' are the key factors when deciding whether an act of termination is justified.

I usually use personhood to symbolize moral personhood (aka Ought it be treated as a person? and How ought people be treated?)
The use of Humanity that does not mean Homo-Sapien would include both moral personhood and some other universal characteristics in our neurology. (Like our tendency towards being social animals or our tendency towards helping family even at personal cost)

That is a correct interpretation of my position.
My usually position is deciding between the Reason or Ability to Suffering minimum requirement for moral personhood.

[Jenkar]

Yes, I agree, an egg is not human...has no life. Fetus' do have life. By scientific definition, life responds to its surroundings. Eggs do not, but what about sperm?

Oh good lord.
First, eggs DO respond to their surroundings. That's how they devellop.
Secondly, according to wikipedia, the definition of a living organism is that :  "In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole."
Fetuses are incapable of reproduction, at least in the early-mid stages.