When does an embryo / fetus become human, and why?

Manopolus said:
Sperm is a human cell. So is an ovum. Both are human material BEFORE conception. Note that I am not arguing for some kind of ethic, just pointing out the facts.
Click to expand...
This continuum leads to my opinion the fetus has rights once it is viable outside the womb. Before that it is the mother who has all the rights.
 
Manopolus said:
True. I'd also say that we don't become a human by the definition of the word until we learn language.

But, by the way, I don't condone letting parents kill their babies before they understand language.
Click to expand...
So a mentally disabled person unable to learn language isn't human? :eek:
 
Loss Leader said:
A baby cannot be adopted away from a father without his consent (or, at least, a showing of persistent neglect coupled with an attempt to repair the parent-child relationship).

A father's financial responsibility to a child is equal to the mother's.




I am a family law attorney.
Click to expand...

The first part is actually somewhat irrelevant. Sometimes in cases of child support, the father doesn't even know the child exists until the kid is already 5 years old or so. AND the only thing the mother has to do to bypass this is say that she doesn't know who the father IS in order to put the kid up for adoption... you do know I'm talking about casual relationships, right? This isn't about a child that was born while they were actually in a relationship... or that's not what I'm talking about.

As to the second part -- equal responsibility without equal choice, yes and that is exactly my problem. The mother's responsibility is almost completely her own choice. On the other hand, the father's responsibility IS ALSO completely dependant upon the mother's choice, and not on his own (other than the fact that he had sex, of course).

Do you see the problem?

I link this issue to abortion merely because it is one of the choices the woman has... and taking away that choice would also make the law more consistent and fair. The adoption thing I guess is a side issue that is mixed in, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
True. I'd also say that we don't become a human by the definition of the word until we learn language.

But, by the way, I don't condone letting parents kill their babies before they understand language.
Click to expand...
Remind me not to ask you to babysit ... :)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So a mentally disabled person unable to learn language isn't human? :eek:
Click to expand...

I know what you mean... my mother is a special education consultant, so believe me, it's not through any hateful prejudice that I make that distinction.

However, the definition of "human" is directly linked to logic and thought -- which requires language. It is assumed by the roots of the word, itself.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I know what you mean... my mother is a special education consultant, so believe me, it's not through any hateful prejudice that I make that distinction.

However, the definition of "human" is directly linked to logic and thought -- which requires language. It is assumed by the roots of the word, itself.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The etymological roots of the word "human" all point to concepts of "earth" and "ground" and "same".
 
Manopolus said:
I know what you mean... my mother is a special education consultant, so believe me, it's not through any hateful prejudice that I make that distinction.

However, the definition of "human" is directly linked to logic and thought -- which requires language. It is assumed by the roots of the word, itself.
Click to expand...
Actually, I am curious ... Manopolus, do you speak any other languages other than English?
 
Manopolus said:
I know what you mean... my mother is a special education consultant, so believe me, it's not through any hateful prejudice that I make that distinction.

However, the definition of "human" is directly linked to logic and thought -- which requires language. It is assumed by the roots of the word, itself.
Click to expand...
From Wiki on Human Evolution:
The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines. The genus Homo had diverged from the Australopithecines by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3]
Click to expand...
 
Cavemonster said:
What are you talking about? The etymological roots of the word "human" all point to concepts of "earth" and "ground" and "same".
Click to expand...

Eh? Ok, maybe I'm thinking about Homo Sapiens.

Anyway, that's where the thought came from... not out of any desire to imply disrespect towards pre-speech or non speaking persons.
 
Manopolus said:
equal responsibility without equal choice, yes and that is exactly my problem. The mother's responsibility is almost completely her own choice. On the other hand, the father's responsibility IS ALSO completely dependant upon the mother's choice, and not on his own (other than the fact that he had sex, of course).
Click to expand...

This arrangement has bothered me too. This unequal choice could also lead to emotional pain and suffering. A father could have strong parental feelings and other emotional attachments to what he may consider his child. But forcing a woman to bear a child seems wrong as it is wrong for either side to force the other to do anything.
 
Okay, to bring it back to what I was originally talking about, is it an individual human being from the point of conception? If so, why?

If it's not human, either philosophically or under the law, at the point of conception, when does it become human? At the end of the first trimester? At the end of the second? At no time prior to birth?
 
trentwray said:
Actually, I am curious ... Manopolus, do you speak any other languages other than English?
Click to expand...

Not reliably. I know a little German and a little Spanish, but not that much of either. I assume that you were referring to my error of definition, though... see above.
 
Manopolus said:
Eh? Ok, maybe I'm thinking about Homo Sapiens.

Anyway, that's where the thought came from... not out of any desire to imply disrespect towards pre-speech or non speaking persons.
Click to expand...

Ok, but sapiens, from sapere refers to wisdom, not speech.

I don't mean to bust your chops, I'm just having trouble seeing where some of your connections come from.
 
tourmaline said:
This arrangement has bothered me too. This unequal choice could also lead to emotional pain and suffering. A father could have strong parental feelings and other emotional attachments to what he may consider his child. But forcing a woman to bear a child seems wrong as it is wrong for either side to force the other to do anything.
Click to expand...

Yup, it can also apply in the other direction.
 
Cavemonster said:
Ok, but sapiens, from sapere refers to wisdom, not speech.

I don't mean to bust your chops, I'm just having trouble seeing where some of your connections come from.
Click to expand...

I've always heard it referred to as "thinking man." Or something like that... anyway, it was about definition, and not particularly pertinant, but an attempt to be witty by being overly literal. I suppose it failed.
 
At the risk of an "if by whiskey" I'm going to suggest that the definition of human ought to be dependant on the purpose of making the distinction.

For instance, if we were discussing what a short amount of time is, if we were talking about a pause in conversation, the definition would be very different from a short amount of time to wait for a package to arrive in the mail, or for a computer to flip a switch. Definitions are artificial tools, and their usefulness is dependent of context.

So if by defining human, you mean a living being made of human tissue as distinct from other organisms and from inanimate objects, then the first cell division may count. If you mean a being to which we hold a moral responsibilty, then it gets more complicated and depends on what the basis and underpinning of that responsibility is.
 
Manopolus said:
Not reliably. I know a little German and a little Spanish, but not that much of either. I assume that you were referring to my error of definition, though... see above.
Click to expand...
Yeah basically, but I wasn't wanting to bust your boys over it. I was giving the benefit of the doubt ;)

But you're name is still erased off my babysitter list LOL :)

Well, unless we lived in ancient Sparta I suppose ... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom