At what stage does the foetus become a person?

[otseng]

From Murder of abortion provider George Tiller:

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

If pressed on the issue, I would argue that it is not until a baby is able to understand some form of language with explicit lexical content that it attains the full status of personhood with all the rights due to it. But that would take far too long to explain here.

I am tending toward a detemination based on when the complex neo-cortex develops to a stage where it supports self aware consciousness.

For debate:
At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

[Artheos]

Thank you for your considered response Bio-logical, however I do think we are still swimming on old ground.

I'd like to start my response by re-iterating the purpose of this thread in the final question posted by the OP:

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I based my assessment on the above generally accepted definition, note the emphasized portion.

You are correct that disregarding any data that comes from a source with an agenda is bad reasoning, but my post was not directed at the author per-se, instead it was meant to enlighten readers that the author comes from a religiously funded group, something that should cause an extra degree of scrutiny while examining conclusions. Bias is a real thing in many aspects of life and when there are occasions that bias is likely it is all the more important to seek it out. The author appears to have done a pretty good job in containing his bias and compensating for it within his writings and conclusions, but the bias is evident in the motive for the research. The paper does not state anything that is new reasoning in any way - life has always been regarded in the same fashion. What he is doing is trying to create a clear definition of human life beginning at conception to open the way for a court case(speculation admitted). This is the same tactic as the Christian effort to redefine marriage as "one man and one woman" and to force textbooks to include the phrase "evolution is only a theory". While in both cases they are doing nothing sinister, they are doing what they do as strategic moves for another motive, and that is the same reason for the article at hand.

I don't agree with the final analysis of motivation being a problem in determining if the science is telling us something real or not. Motivation and future goals should not determine whether it is accurate. That's a fear driven response and to re-use your closing argument in response, this isn't unlike what has happened when some creationists have argued against evolution, concerned that it is a step in undermining their other beliefs. In some cases, a creationist has directly used the argument above, I won't believe evolution, because that may mean my faith is wrong. Above you are intimating that it is unwise to concede to that scientific argument regarding the topic, because it may influence our thinking on a dependent topic. It is true that the language you are using isn't 'fearful' in the same sense, however the overall context is so similar it's eerie.

I contend that science should influence our decisions, and if it is accurate, we should treat it as so.

I argue that every time you bring the motivation in the debate you are moving us away from consensus on an objective topic.

I have already on this thread recognized that as a scientist a zygote is genetically no different than that cell will be as an adult, but that does not mean it is biologically the same thing. A fetus is an obligate interorganism parasite unti it reaches the age at which it can survive without assistance for basic biological functions (i.e. breathing, heartbeat).

This appears to be the same argument presented by goat. I think your comment about parasitism also intimates a bias. From what I recall, in order to be a parasite, an organism must be a different organism than the parent organism.

To be defined as a parasitic animal you are correct. However, the definition still holds as far as classification of behavior. A human is not a parasite as an adult and it is irrational to abort every fetus of every placental mammal because it is parisitizing its mother, but that does not change the fact that it is. For the most part the parasitic behavior is beneficial to both mother and child in the long run since it continues her genes and its life, but a fetus is an obligate parasite by every definition of the word outside of it being a different species. This does beg the question, Is a leach any less of a parasite if it attaches itself to a much larger leach?

In this argument, you repeatedly refer to words as being influential in making decisions, decrying the use of the word "human being" to describe what has been apparently demonstrated to be a "human being", yet you do the inverse by continuing to lean on the word parasite.

I will further distance the word parasite from what we were discussing. The behavior of the parasite is not the same as the behavior of the developing stages inside a womb, because what determines the relationship between host and 'guest' happens at the beginning of the relationship and is itself behavioral.

A parasite attaches itself to the host without a choice on the part of the host.

The developing organism inside of a woman is generally the result of engaging in reproductive activity with an awareness of the possible generation of the "guest". Effectively, it didn't attach, the parent attached it.

Additionally, a parasite by definition, does not offer any value to the host, if it does, then it would be referred to as mutualistic, instead of parasitic. Considering that the developing organism in pregnancy not only offers a benefit, continuation of species, it is the only way to achieve that benefit, without which we would not be having this conversation.

It appears to me that the usage of the parasitic terminology does exactly what you are concerned about regarding the usage of "human being" terminology, but in reverse. I believe you referred to it as, "repackaged in artillery shells.".

Technically speaking the article is entirely correct and no self respecting scientist would ever tell you that a human zygote is anything other than human from the moment of conception.

I appreciate that you've validated the article, does this include the two conclusions below?

We'll get there

The reason there is a debate as to "when a fetus becomes a person" is because there is a difference in the human mind as to what it is to be human and what it is to be a person.

By determining if in fact we are discussing a human being, we can more clearly discuss the resulting questions.

This is not a scientific question but a philosophical one and to try to analyze it scientifically is a false attribution fallacy.

Perhaps, but discussing it with full knowledge of what we can know about the topic scientifically is not only important, but imperative.

This is where the bias i referred to before comes into play. The resulting questions would be is it legal to end a human life now that we have scientifically shown a fetus is human?

Avoiding consensus on the topic because of an anticipated impact is irresponsible. I don't mean this directly to you, just in an overall sense.

It is not scientifically imperative to know that a fetus is human, we all knew that before the study was done.

Not so.

For example, from googling [is a fetus a human], I limited my review to the first 3 pages of results and to explanations that didn't seem to be directly about legal personhood,

Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote.

However, I believe a fetus does not become a human until it has been born out of the mother.

A fetus is not a human being. It is a bunch of tissues that feed off of a human.

The preceding page is echoing your parasite argument.

Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being

However, a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being

A fetus is not a human being.

The preceding article argues directly against the content we are discussing

When it can survive independently outside the mother's womb - usually at about 7 months

A fetus is considered human when it's heart starts beating.

It is a small sample, but shows a trend of non-agreement with the findings of the paper in question.

What the science behind this is doing is setting the stage for a massive straw man attack which will challenge the law assuming the false idea that we were wrong about what a fetus was when we wrote the law.

This appears to be a fear statement based on the anticipated results.

Nobody ever questioned whether or not an abortion is ending a life that would be human,

This sounds like you are now implying that the organism in question is not yet a human. Was that intentional?

Nobody ever questioned whether or not an abortion is ending a life that would be human, they just questioned if it is more immoral to end that life or force a woman to allow it live off of and inside of her until that life becomes self-sustainable - an answer which was established a long time ago and since anti-abortionists cannot come up with a way to defeat it, they try to go around it and pretend it was never the question.

I still think this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the organism in question is a human being. Those discussions can continue. If your opposition is that a consensus of determining that the organism is indeed a human being will inform that decision, I fail to see why there would a concern, that is indeed a benefit of scientific inquiry, is it not? By that I mean being informed for our decisions.

Essentially the argument being made in the article is that since the zygote is part of a continuing cycle toward adulthood it is human in every sense of the word. This would be true if it was the subject of scientific debate, but the debate is moral - not biological and can therefore not be answered by science.

The conclusion of the article is:

Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception.

A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined moment of conception, a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species"human beings.

These are conclusions regarding the nature of the beginning of a human being, and should be established and agreed upon, if they are correct, before proceeding with the discussion of personhood as a philosophical or legal discussion.

They have always been known since we first understood cell biology. Of course a fetus is a living human! What else would it be? These are, as I said, obvious straw man conclusions asserting in a way that presumes it is new knowledge something that has been known forever.

As demonstrated, they aren't known, at least widely. I contend that affirming, confirming and understanding what is known is important as the conversation continues. It isn't a straw man at all, it is simply one of the data points that should be clear in the discussion you're concerned about. In order to be a straw man, it needs to be a misrepresentation, which if it is true, it is not. Not only that, it has nothing to do with the other person's position, it has to do with an objective data point.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1]

On a side note, you have asserted several times that because the source is biased does not mean the science is bad, and I tend to agree in this situation that the science is sound. This does not, however, work as a general rule and it is dangerous reasoning.

I agree, which is why I asked repeatedly for refutation of the content of the article.

Did I do it yet. Science in article is sound, conclusions sound, motive and necessity are very questionable. I could do the same sort of study definitively proving that gays are human beings as well if I were ramping up for a human rights case on their side.

Did you refute the content of the article? Surely not, you have affirmed it and you have avoided it alternatively, so I'm not really sure whether you are in agreement or not.

You have continued to emphasis the bias of the article, yet you have demonstrated a significant bias of your own, in my opinion. We all have bias, that I recognize, I only point it out here because it seems to deeply impact your discussion in this regard.

The study you are talking about fails on two points:

There is no experimental setup to the study - it is just a matter of redefining terminology and therefore not a true study, and those writing it have an obvious bias in agenda for doing so.

This wasn't an experimental article, but was based on already understood information. In other words, it takes accepted scientific knowledge and parses it, thus experimental study would not be necessary, unless they attempted to introduce previously unknown information. Studying and evaluating existing information is clearly a valid pursuit of knowledge.

The article is complete, the bias is there - note: the bias was introduced directly in the article at the beginning - and all that matters is the content at this point, since we can simply examine the presented argument and determine if the data or conclusion is wrong.

So then, do you agree with the article that from conception, we are talking about a human being?

I always have and so has the rest of science. These are not new conclusions just common knowledge repackaged in artillery shells.

As I have demonstrated above, the idea scientifically, that the organism inside a pregnant woman is fully a human being is not well known, else we would not be having this discussion, and while asserting such, you even use language, that indicates an opposing position such as, "parasite" and "a life that would be human".

[Elvis Trout]

I think you're a human being as soon as you know you're a human being.

Just my two cents

[FinalEnigma]

I think you're a human being as soon as you know you're a human being.

Just my two cents

the problem with that is that it's well after birth.

[McCulloch]

I think you're a human being as soon as you know you're a human being.

Just my two cents

Do you stop being a human when you don't know that you're a human? Is my cat not a cat because she does not know that she's a cat?

My 2

[Elvis Trout]

Okay she's a cat to you, but she's whatever she thinks she is to her. I suppose to a mother and father their unborn child is a human being whenever they want it to be but to the child itself it's only human when it knows it's human. I think consciousness defines us. If you don't know you exist, for you, that's pretty much the same as not existing.

[Bio-logical]

This is getting quite quote-y so I will truncate a bit for brevity, but please let me know if I leave out anything you deem pertinent. I am only showing the last two parts of each quote, your's and mine before it, the rest is still accessable but I do not want you to feel light I am intentionally omitting anything

Thank you for your considered response Bio-logical, however I do think we are still swimming on old ground.

I'd like to start my response by re-iterating the purpose of this thread in the final question posted by the OP:

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

I based my assessment on the above generally accepted definition, note the emphasized portion.

You are correct that disregarding any data that comes from a source with an agenda is bad reasoning, but my post was not directed at the author per-se, instead it was meant to enlighten readers that the author comes from a religiously funded group, something that should cause an extra degree of scrutiny while examining conclusions. Bias is a real thing in many aspects of life and when there are occasions that bias is likely it is all the more important to seek it out. The author appears to have done a pretty good job in containing his bias and compensating for it within his writings and conclusions, but the bias is evident in the motive for the research. The paper does not state anything that is new reasoning in any way - life has always been regarded in the same fashion. What he is doing is trying to create a clear definition of human life beginning at conception to open the way for a court case(speculation admitted). This is the same tactic as the Christian effort to redefine marriage as "one man and one woman" and to force textbooks to include the phrase "evolution is only a theory". While in both cases they are doing nothing sinister, they are doing what they do as strategic moves for another motive, and that is the same reason for the article at hand.

I don't agree with the final analysis of motivation being a problem in determining if the science is telling us something real or not. Motivation and future goals should not determine whether it is accurate. That's a fear driven response and to re-use your closing argument in response, this isn't unlike what has happened when some creationists have argued against evolution, concerned that it is a step in undermining their other beliefs. In some cases, a creationist has directly used the argument above, I won't believe evolution, because that may mean my faith is wrong. Above you are intimating that it is unwise to concede to that scientific argument regarding the topic, because it may influence our thinking on a dependent topic. It is true that the language you are using isn't 'fearful' in the same sense, however the overall context is so similar it's eerie.

I contend that science should influence our decisions, and if it is accurate, we should treat it as so.

I argue that every time you bring the motivation in the debate you are moving us away from consensus on an objective topic.

I don't feel as if though you are reading everything I write. Several times now I have given credit to the author and to the data contained in his report as accurate and good science. The reason I keep bringing up motive is because although it is good science, he might as well have proved the Earth revolved around the sun. He was restating known facts in a slightly altered verbiage in a way to allow it to be more operative toward what I can only assume is his goal of making abortion illegal. I am in no way saying I won't believe a zygote is a person, what I am saying is that what he was saying was already well known in biology. I am therefore questioning his motives - if the material was new it would be unnecessary to question the purpose as it would be assumed to be general inquiry.

I agree that science should influence our decisions, but objective data is not normative. It is necessary to have accurate data in any decision you make, but once again the data being presented is nothing that was not already common knowledge.

I bring motivation into the debate because there was already a consensus on the objective side of the topic, it is the subjective morality tied to it that is still in question which is entirely entwined with personal motivation. Science cannot tell us when a human organism becomes what most people would consider to be a human being because in science, there is no such thing as a human being - just the organism. The fact of the matter is that the author is restating known data in a way that allows it to be interpreted into a normative statement.

To be defined as a parasitic animal you are correct. However, the definition still holds as far as classification of behavior. A human is not a parasite as an adult and it is irrational to abort every fetus of every placental mammal because it is parisitizing its mother, but that does not change the fact that it is. For the most part the parasitic behavior is beneficial to both mother and child in the long run since it continues her genes and its life, but a fetus is an obligate parasite by every definition of the word outside of it being a different species. This does beg the question, Is a leach any less of a parasite if it attaches itself to a much larger leach?

In this argument, you repeatedly refer to words as being influential in making decisions, decrying the use of the word "human being" to describe what has been apparently demonstrated to be a "human being", yet you do the inverse by continuing to lean on the word parasite.

I will further distance the word parasite from what we were discussing. The behavior of the parasite is not the same as the behavior of the developing stages inside a womb, because what determines the relationship between host and 'guest' happens at the beginning of the relationship and is itself behavioral.

A parasite attaches itself to the host without a choice on the part of the host.

The developing organism inside of a woman is generally the result of engaging in reproductive activity with an awareness of the possible generation of the "guest". Effectively, it didn't attach, the parent attached it.

Additionally, a parasite by definition, does not offer any value to the host, if it does, then it would be referred to as mutualistic, instead of parasitic. Considering that the developing organism in pregnancy not only offers a benefit, continuation of species, it is the only way to achieve that benefit, without which we would not be having this conversation.

It appears to me that the usage of the parasitic terminology does exactly what you are concerned about regarding the usage of "human being" terminology, but in reverse. I believe you referred to it as, "repackaged in artillery shells.".

The reason I keep focusing on the term parasite is because my original use of it was contested and I am defending my case. Truly it does not matter what semantics you will call it by, a fetus is a human child that has a reasonable expectation of becoming independent of its host and growing into adulthood. Until it reaches a certain age, however, it cannot achieve any of those prospected stages in life without first living inside of another organism (of the same species) and directly taking its nutrients from that host while biologically contributing nothing to it at the time. You are assuming a false dilemma in my argument that I think fetuses are all bad things, but I obviously see that reproduction is a natural and necessary part of life for the continuation of the species. What you are failing to recognize is that however true that may be, there are times when the host (the mother) did not choose to conceive the fetus (even if she did engage in the mating act, it was done for ulterior motives most likely pleasure) and she does not want something to grow inside of her body that will physically and chemically alter it forever before becoming a dependent upon her (unless she chooses adoption). In those cases it is immoral to force that person to allow another to live off of and inside her without her consent and until that person is of an age that it can survive in a different environment, the only choice is death.

Imagine a hypothetical situation in which two people, through some accident or malice on the part of neither or them (third party malice) come to share a vital organ. The organ can be proven to belong, originally, to one of them. Disregarding the fact that transplants and artificial organs are now available for the sake of the demonstration, is it moral to force the person whose organ it is (person A) to live a live with a physical dependent attached to them? A person may choose to allow this since the alternative is death to the other person (person B), but they are not obligated to do so even if that choice means ending the life of the other party involved. What it boils down to is intent. If the intent of person A is to end the life of person B, regardless of circumstance this person is hoping to commit murder. If, on the other hand the intent of person A is only to live a life free of person B and the death of person B is an unfortunate consequence, that is what is called collateral damage. This is why it does not matter that a fetus is a person but instead matters that a fetus is for al intents and purposes parasitic to its mother and if she wishes to live a life free of that burden she is morally and legally allowed said liberty.

This is where the bias i referred to before comes into play. The resulting questions would be is it legal to end a human life now that we have scientifically shown a fetus is human?

Avoiding consensus on the topic because of an anticipated impact is irresponsible. I don't mean this directly to you, just in an overall sense.

The consensus has always been there (or at least existed prior). I also contend that your argument is false in many ways. Consider the pursuit of a science that could be used to wipe out all life from the planet and has no other purpose. Is it still irresponsible to avoid further study? Science always has been used as a tool and I do no contend that in this situation the science should not have been done, I contend that I do not agree with the motive for its use.

It is not scientifically imperative to know that a fetus is human, we all knew that before the study was done.

Not so.

For example, from googling [is a fetus a human], I limited my review to the first 3 pages of results and to explanations that didn't seem to be directly about legal personhood,

...


It is a small sample, but shows a trend of non-agreement with the findings of the paper in question.

All the sources you cite are general public. Show me a peer reviewed journal article that claims a fetus is not human. You cannot generalize and say that just because something is not accepted as true in the general public that there is no scientific consensus. There are no paper or studies being done right now to provide evidence in support of evolution by natural selection, there is a consensus in science that it is the mechanism by which life grows and differentiates. Does the world at large agree? No, but that doesn't make scientists continue writing papers restating it, there is plenty of support out there and now the job of the scientists is to do further research into the deper workings of that mechanism and the applications in the world - regardless of public acceptance.

What the science behind this is doing is setting the stage for a massive straw man attack which will challenge the law assuming the false idea that we were wrong about what a fetus was when we wrote the law.

This appears to be a fear statement based on the anticipated results.

It is an observation based on trends evidenced many times over by the particular group to which this man belongs. Religiously funded scientists have been rewording well documented facts for years in an effort to poke holes in evolutionary theory and in the abortion debate. This is another example of this tactic and I do not fear it, but I welcome the effort because with every public defeat of that movement, scientific knowledge spreads into the world at large a little bit more.

The statement I made is a prediction as to the use of this study that will go to support my theory of the motive.

Nobody ever questioned whether or not an abortion is ending a life that would be human,

This sounds like you are now implying that the organism in question is not yet a human. Was that intentional?

Not intentional. I meant it to say that would grow up to be and adult human (or have a reasonable expectation to do so). I personally feel that there is a very large difference in the qualitative matter of life but a zygote is just as much a human organism as an adult human, it simply has not had the ability to interact with the outside world in the same way. There is a reason we look at a death of a young person as a tragedy and at the death of an old person as a natural part of life. We use terms like, "he lived a long, full life" with old people but the young people always have, "so much life ahead of them". This is what I mean by "would be" - the same thing that people say when they talk about all the life left ahead of a child - everything they could and would be.

quote="Bio-logical"]
Nobody ever questioned whether or not an abortion is ending a life that would be human, they just questioned if it is more immoral to end that life or force a woman to allow it live off of and inside of her until that life becomes self-sustainable - an answer which was established a long time ago and since anti-abortionists cannot come up with a way to defeat it, they try to go around it and pretend it was never the question.

I still think this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the organism in question is a human being. Those discussions can continue. If your opposition is that a consensus of determining that the organism is indeed a human being will inform that decision, I fail to see why there would a concern, that is indeed a benefit of scientific inquiry, is it not? By that I mean being informed for our decisions.

Again, science cannot define human being, it is a social and psychological term attached to emotion. Science has known for a long time hat it is a human organism but you can call it whatever you want. Even if it were a human being it is still imposing itself onto another human being in a detrimental (temporarily) way and it is her choice to accept this condition or not.

They have always been known since we first understood cell biology. Of course a fetus is a living human! What else would it be? These are, as I said, obvious straw man conclusions asserting in a way that presumes it is new knowledge something that has been known forever.

As demonstrated, they aren't known, at least widely. I contend that affirming, confirming and understanding what is known is important as the conversation continues. It isn't a straw man at all, it is simply one of the data points that should be clear in the discussion you're concerned about. In order to be a straw man, it needs to be a misrepresentation, which if it is true, it is not. Not only that, it has nothing to do with the other person's position, it has to do with an objective data point.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1]

I straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, such as representing science in a way that their position was that a fetus was not human. Science has not made this contention, the public has and it is therefore fallacious to represent it in a way that represents it otherwise.

Did I do it yet. Science in article is sound, conclusions sound, motive and necessity are very questionable. I could do the same sort of study definitively proving that gays are human beings as well if I were ramping up for a human rights case on their side.

Did you refute the content of the article? Surely not, you have affirmed it and you have avoided it alternatively, so I'm not really sure whether you are in agreement or not.

You have continued to emphasis the bias of the article, yet you have demonstrated a significant bias of your own, in my opinion. We all have bias, that I recognize, I only point it out here because it seems to deeply impact your discussion in this regard.

I have addressed the original article and agreed with the findings. I have not once claimed it was wrong, I claimed it was unnecessary and most likely presented on illusory terms that it is for nothing but the further pursuit of knowledge.

So then, do you agree with the article that from conception, we are talking about a human being?

I always have and so has the rest of science. These are not new conclusions just common knowledge repackaged in artillery shells.

As I have demonstrated above, the idea scientifically, that the organism inside a pregnant woman is fully a human being is not well known, else we would not be having this discussion, and while asserting such, you even use language, that indicates an opposing position such as, "parasite" and "a life that would be human".

I feel I have demonstrated where you are misinterpreting public opinion with scientific consensus. I still attest that the use of the term parasite is appropriate in this situation but you are correct in pointing out that I said would be human in a reference to the public opinion, not scientific stance.

[micatala]

Okay she's a cat to you, but she's whatever she thinks she is to her.

Cool.

I think that intellectually I am Albert Einstein but in Colin Firth's body.

:D/

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Artheos]

I don't feel as if though you are reading everything I write. Several times now I have given credit to the author and to the data contained in his report as accurate and good science. The reason I keep bringing up motive is because although it is good science, he might as well have proved the Earth revolved around the sun. He was restating known facts in a slightly altered verbiage in a way to allow it to be more operative toward what I can only assume is his goal of making abortion illegal. I am in no way saying I won't believe a zygote is a person, what I am saying is that what he was saying was already well known in biology. I am therefore questioning his motives - if the material was new it would be unnecessary to question the purpose as it would be assumed to be general inquiry.

Restating scientific findings preceding discussing how to handle those findings from an ethical perspective is not a bias.

Even further, the motivation is absolutely clear in the document.

It is really far past time to clear the air of the smog that obscures and confuses debates
about abortion, embryonic research, cloning, and related issues.
Among the chief obfuscations and confusions is the claim that we do not know when
human life begins. This frequently takes the form of claiming that the question is
a matter of faith or religious belief. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as is
lucidly and convincingly demonstrated in this White Paper.

It is clear that their objective is to clear the air on a foundational point of scientific evidence regarding the ongoing debate. They indicate this is for debates, which is not limited to the scientific community.

They also clearly indicate that this paper doesn't solve the ethical problem, but sets a correct foundation for the discussion

The debate in our society and others is not over when human life begins but is over
at what point and for what reasons do we have an obligation to respect and protect
that life. Before we can get to that argument, however, we need to clear the smog
surrounding the question of when human life begins. This White Paper makes an
invaluable contribution to that end.

I agree that science should influence our decisions, but objective data is not normative. It is necessary to have accurate data in any decision you make, but once again the data being presented is nothing that was not already common knowledge.

Neither the author of the paper nor I ever said that it was normative, by stating this are you setting up a straw man by your interpretation of a straw man, or are you merely asserting an additional view building on the previous points in the statement?

I bring motivation into the debate because there was already a consensus on the objective side of the topic, it is the subjective morality tied to it that is still in question which is entirely entwined with personal motivation. Science cannot tell us when a human organism becomes what most people would consider to be a human being because in science, there is no such thing as a human being - just the organism.

Categorically false, a human being is a member of the species homo sapiens.

The reason I keep focusing on the term parasite is because my original use of it was contested and I am defending my case.

I understand that. That however doesn't change the misrepresentation of the scientific basis for the word parasitic. This is part of the problem of this discussion. The supposedly 'objective' viewpoint misuses words and phrases, 'not a human being', 'is a parasite', to diminish the emotive reaction, yet at the same time, those phrases engender their own emotive reaction.

The challenging part is by 'changing' the meaning, communication is lessened.

What you are failing to recognize is that however true that may be, there are times when the host (the mother) did not choose to conceive the fetus (even if she did engage in the mating act, it was done for ulterior motives most likely pleasure) and she does not want something to grow inside of her body that will physically and chemically alter it forever before becoming a dependent upon her (unless she chooses adoption).

You're revealing a bias here, by moving straight to morality.

It is immoral to burden the woman who participated in the optional activity with the responsibility of the result of the optional activity, therefore I refer the the result of that optional activity as a parasite, a definition that has nothing to do with reality.

The rest of your commentary here, that I didn't include, was building a foundation of your personal moral perspective to justify referring the the above result as a parasite.

It's only a parasite, because you are morally offended by implications of it not being a parasite.

The consensus has always been there (or at least existed prior).

False, the debates of impact are outside of the scientific community, and betray a lack of understanding of the aforementioned consensus. I provided evidence of that.

I also contend that your argument is false in many ways. Consider the pursuit of a science that could be used to wipe out all life from the planet and has no other purpose. Is it still irresponsible to avoid further study? Science always has been used as a tool and I do no contend that in this situation the science should not have been done, I contend that I do not agree with the motive for its use.

My interpretation of the motive is to provide a clear scientific basis for the meaning of human being to inform all debates about dependent topics, scientific or not.

How is that a poor motive?

All the sources you cite are general public. Show me a peer reviewed journal article that claims a fetus is not human. You cannot generalize and say that just because something is not accepted as true in the general public that there is no scientific consensus.

You are misrepresenting my position, again another straw man?

The sequence is as follows:

It is not scientifically imperative to know that a fetus is human, we all knew that before the study was done.

Not So.

It isn't only scientific consensus this paper intends to address, it is the debate in general, and that's clearly laid out.

It is sometimes said that the abortion debate is about values rather than facts. An
honest debate about abortion, however, is about values based on facts. If we dont
get the facts right, we will not get our values right. Establishing by clear scientific
evidence the moment at which a human life begins is not the end of the abortion
debate. On the contrary, that is the point from which the debate begins.

There are no paper or studies being done right now to provide evidence in support of evolution by natural selection, there is a consensus in science that it is the mechanism by which life grows and differentiates. Does the world at large agree? No, but that doesn't make scientists continue writing papers restating it, there is plenty of support out there and now the job of the scientists is to do further research into the deper workings of that mechanism and the applications in the world - regardless of public acceptance.

I don't agree, since science influences public policy and moral discussion, a correct understanding of the science is imperative. Or perhaps, we should have just stayed flat-earthers?

Also, can you show me other papers that directly answer this question, since you're of the opinion that there are plenty.

Again, science cannot define human being, it is a social and psychological term attached to emotion.

I disagree on the contention that every word in common usage has emotive properties.

Additionally, the underlying science is that we are discussing a human being from conception to death, to change that, is to change language.

I straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, such as representing science in a way that their position was that a fetus was not human. Science has not made this contention, the public has and it is therefore fallacious to represent it in a way that represents it otherwise.

Just a quick review of the introduction of the paper above showed that you are the one providing a straw man argument by focusing on intention rather than what was actually presented.

I feel I have demonstrated where you are misinterpreting public opinion with scientific consensus.

There was no misinterpretation on my part, it is clear that the paper was intended to address all debates dependent on the topic, and I previously provided evidence of a dozen conversations where consensus on the topic did not exist, which falls in the goal of the paper in question. The motive, inform the debate, is valid and necessary.

I still attest that the use of the term parasite is appropriate in this situation

I still disagree, it doesn't describe the relationship or the causal and effect qualities of guest organism in this case. It is also a prejudicial statement, invoking images of fleas, based on a personal moral evaluation (granted there are plenty that agree with that moral evaluation).

but you are correct in pointing out that I said would be human in a reference to the public opinion, not scientific stance.

Appreciated.

[Celestial Dragon]

The problem arises because we are so used to defining so many multitudes of things into categories. "Is is a human or isn't it?" Perhaps there's more to it than that.

The desk I'm typing on is a desk. But at what point in time did it become a desk? Was it when the last piece of wood was glued into its proper place? If we left the last piece out, it wouldn't be complete, but would it still be a desk? Maybe it depends on the piece that was left out, and how important it is. Or was it a desk when it mostly looked like what it was intended to be when it is finished? I think we call something its name in accordance with its utility and our common notion of it.

Substitute "desk" with anything. "House," "tree," or "fetus." The constituent parts of different objects will be related to themselves differently in each case, but the analogy stays the same.

So in this debate I suppose I remain undecided. I just wanted to throw an analogy out there.

[TXatheist]

Mirriam-Webster defines a "person" as:

one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.

Is a fetus recognized by law as the subject of "rights and duties"?