« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 03:24:22 AM »
No it says it is a developing human, that is a human that is developing. It doesn't say it will later become a human.
Perhaps you can define this. What is an unborn human? Is there no such thing in your mind?
It's a meaningless term (and yes, I know "unborn" has a definition in Merriam-Webster). Please do define it if you think it is valid as you are using it.
I'm not asking Webster. I'm asking you. Is there no such thing as unborn human ?
What about babies that are premature. They are still developing. Does that mean they are not humans?
There are fetuses, embryos, zygotes. Why do you feel the need to say "unborn human", jst? Again, they are potentially human, just like a fertilized egg, or a egg or a sperm, but you pick and choose when to declare something a human being or not. As I have indicated, I find a fetus to be a human if it does not require another body to keep functioning. In a normal pregnancy, it is when labor ends up with it out of the womb.
It is very correct that premature babies are still developing. They would die without human intervention, and human inventions to keep them alive. They died for many thousands of years until humans invented the way to keep them alive. It is an issue as I've stated before, when technology keeps pushing back when a premature infant will live or die. It's harder and harder to determine what is a fetus and what is a child. If it is no longer in the womb, then it depends on technology to keep it alive. Before it left the womb, it depended on the human being, the woman, to keep it alive. If an egg and sperm are put together and fertilize and then are brought to term in an artificial womb (something I suspect we'll see in our lifetimes), when do you declare it is human or not, jst?
This still comes down to declaring a fetus more important than a woman, and to be equal in status as a human being. Where do you draw the line? That is a question you have yet to answer, jst, and that is no surprise.
If one is to believe your religion, your god intentionally allowed an unknown number of children die because they were born too soon to survive, thanks to your god intentionally allowing evil to reign in the world.
You appear to be infering more from my argument than I intend. What line are you talking about drawing? A legal line? Certainly not. Whether or not a woman can have an abortion shouldn't be determined by a line. There is no need to place a line. I am also not advocating a fetus having rights. Abortion is ideally to me a private matter.
However, I don't think it ought not be dehumanized because that completely dismisses any sort of accountability. With rights come responsibilities. Special cases aside, if a woman is pregnant it's because she allowed someone to make her pregnant. That fetus isn't there because of it's own will but because of it's mother's will. If you don't want a fetus using your body then don't make one. Very simple solution.
We don't need laws. We need compassion and responsibility.
Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, newborns, infants, and toddlers are all developing humans and will all die without human intervention. Yes it's life is in it's mother's hands. But it's still a human.
I personally have a hard time viewing it as a human in it's very early stages, but that doesn't mean it's not. Just like the newborn phase, they are all just steps toward the development of a human adult.
Concerning your comment about God's permission of evil, if God did not allow disobedient humans to live then there would be no humans at all. Would you prefer that alternative?