A human fetus is the young of the parents who created them
I notice that some here don't like books and references and all, but I have no other way to help you see your own denials. So, I hope you will reconsider the use of some scientific and other objective information that I share and use to support my claims.
Note that these are NOT abortion related websites.
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," ~http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fetus
"The placenta nourishes the young while in the womb, transferring food and other essentials for life from the mother to the growing fetus. "~ http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-placenta-cream.htm
"preg•nant1 (ˈprɛg nənt) adj.
1. having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal."~
"The shape, also, of the pelvis might affect by pressure the shape of the head of the young in the womb." ~ Charles Darwin in "Origin of Species" ~ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
"5. The act of carrying young in the womb from conception to delivery; pregnancy.[Websters]~
Side Score: 84
Side Score: 111
Young is: "offspring, especially of an animal before or soon after birth". So yes I suppose it 'the young'.
However, very few people would call this a child. It does not have the same legal rights as a child and a child is generally a being with, at the very least has limbs, internal organs etc as well as a consciousness. The embryo does have the potential to be a child.
This thread is only about whether or not it's the young of its parents and I thank you for recognizing the fact that it is.
As for your comment: "However, very few people would call this a child. It does not have the same legal rights as a child and a child is generally a being with, at the very least has limbs, internal organs etc as well as a consciousness. The embryo does have the potential to be a child."
We have already gained some legal recognition of the fact that a child in the womb is a child - under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and many State's Fetal Homicide laws which use the same language.
I understand that you may disagree with their definitions and conclusions. But you can't deny that they have been established.
Well I guess there will be another debate to follow and I can argue against you in that. A point that might also support your arguement is found in english law (I'm a law student):
section 1(1) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929:
“(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:
Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.
Because obviously when a child is growing up, you tell it that a caterpillar is a butterfly, not that one day it will change in to one.
I suppose you're going to tell me that a sperm cell is also a child? In which case you ought never have sex again, or you'll be responsible for the deaths of millions of children.
Jungle. Human beings do not morph out of one organism and into another. If you look up any reputable scientific reference and study 'metamorphosis' you will see that it uses butterflies and frogs as examples but not mammals. That's because mammals (including humans) unlike frogs and butterflies are the same organism throughout our life cycle.
I'm not going to tell you that a haploid sperm cell is a child because it's not. It's just a reproductive cell that has half the potential to create a child.
Banned, banned, banned...
Are you not going to listen to other people's opinions?
So a foetus is a human in the very early development stages. So what? It's less complex than a gnat at the moment. Potential doesn't matter if you don't or can't use it. And overpopulation is a huge issue, bigger than global warming.
You have already answered the question of this thread, Elvira. This was posted in the "Science" category. I understand that it will have ramifications in other debates but those are for discussions in other debates.
One of the first steps - dealing with population issues might be to recognize the way humans are created, when and how their lives begin, etc.
Or would you rather we all ignore the biological information?
Parasites do not attach to their own kind and because pro-creation and gestation is necessary for the survival of a species and for a bunch of other scientific reasons, the mother child relationship is more one of mutualism & symbiosis and not of parasitism.
Though technically, it's not that either because symbiosis like parasitism requires the two to be of a different species from each other and a mother and child are of the same species.
"Symbiosis is a close ecological relationship between the individuals of two (or more) different species. Sometimes a symbiotic relationship benefits both species, sometimes one species benefits at the other's expense, and in other cases neither species benefits."
Department of Entomology NC State University (www.cals.ncsu.edu)
So what? Whether or not a fetus deserves to proselitize some hazy terminology perhaps pertaining to some vague, extristic predetermined notion of "life" or "personhood" is NOT unctuous or even germane to the abortion debacle; per contra, the brouhaha is entirely equidistant to one inperitive inquiry: which is stronger, the personhood of the begetter or that of the begetted?
Since you have subscribed to the veryily deplorable but igniomouosly samey method of censoriously gagging any perspective that does not run ecclestesically congruent to your fasticious one-trick shetland pony that you have decided to term a worldview depite the fact that there is risible, extant proof that it is nothing but mealy and stillborn-- such is the erudite quantity of bupkis predilectations that you have contorted into its metaphorical cloaca--, I am going to use this post as a brusque summa of my arguments, as I have been coaxed into neurotic fear that I will be forced into tautology, such is the brevity of the corrospondence.
Incumbently, my valedictorial argument is that our entire system of aspirational lactations that we have vaguely defined as a demoncracy rely on one simple axiom: that we each have a right of defence, a right to solemnly apprehend any who dares impair our equilibrium. The parental embodiment and the foetal embodiment each have conflicting interests and therefore it is their scientific right, almost their naturalistic duty, to brawl over docility. If a foetus's right to life-- I am not denying that it exists, I am merely saying that it is barely potent-- interrupts that of a mother, the foetus has commited an indelible wrong that should morally be resolved with the appropriate finesse. You, on the other hand, want to assign preponderant rights to the unborn foetus simply because of your own altrustic belief system.
My progeny to that argument is that if the mother gives the foetus to perpertually command her body, this consent can also be vetoed. For me, the relationship between mother and foetus is like the unilatterally fragile relationship between a government and the plebarians it commands; if the foetus starts to erode the mother's liberty and fraternity until only a stochastic iota of pastoral flotsam is still a utensil, then that foetus is totalitarian and may be abscounded.
Lastly, albeit alarmist as it seems, we must consider the conseptualisation that prohibiting a woman from having an abortion is lionised rape. Pregnancy is essentually a medical prognosis brought on by sexual congress, and if any aspect of sex is nonconsensual then that sexual conduct can be declared to be rape.
It's funny that you wrote such an epic novel on this- because I didn't see any need to read past those first two words.
If you don't care?
Why should I care?
EDIT: I went back and skimmed your post just to make sure there was nothing else I wanted to respond to and it seems you missed the original question too. It's one of science not philosophy.
Is a creature that is in the 'fetal' stage of their life the young of the parents who created it - or not?
The answer is yes.
No, you don't look at an acorn and tell people " this is a tree!" You tell them, with time, this will morph in to a tree!
The same can be said of a fertilised egg. It is not a human being, as much as if you take a bit of cartilage out of someones foot and say " this is a human being."
It will grow in to a human being, but given all the characteristics of a human being, in term, an egg could be any other mammal.
Human beings do not "morph" out of something that is less than an human being and into something that is one.
Human beings are the same organism at conception that they are at 80 years of age (providing they live that long)
Likewise for a tree and when they germinate.
Because once the Foetus-Baby-Child has reached adulthood, it is in that stage of life until the day it dies. It will get older yes, but it is still a human. An egg on the other hand is not. What characteristics does this thing have for you to call it "A Human"?
It has human genes in it, and is forming in side another human. However this thing is not a human, it will turn in to a human. Would you look at a nut and say " This is a tree" or would you say " This will become a tree"?
Heads up, if you say yes to the first question, you loose.
Its isn't a child yet. It could stop growing like some acorns do. They just suddenly do nothing or die. When its born and between that age and puberty you have child. Other than that not so much. The reason I think that its not really a big deal is because like trees how many eggs is a woman born with? A lot. How many acorns do trees produce? Enough to make plenty of trees and feed many squirrels.
Ummmmm the question was not whether or not they are a child.
The question is, regardless of what stage of life it is in (following conception) is the the young of the parents who created it?
Did you even read the question?
Also, just to address your comment. Are the Medical dictionaries Legal definitions that define it as a child all wrong?
I take it that he said that you were for forcing raped girls to have babies from the rape, no? You came in an compared me to someone who would be for killing anyone that was in a coma, obviously I would disagree with that but I didn't report you, and I wouldn't have banned you if it was my debate. Same thing with the situation you seem to be talking about, in your opinion that is not apart of your political opinion, however you banning him because of that makes you a hypocrite.
If you can see it as more than one, then we can see it as and treat it as at least one.
In other words, if it never divides, it is the (single) Young of the parents who created it.
If it does later divide, it is still the (plural) young of the parents who created it.
Just like chicken, we spend our life in our mothers womb in an egg type thing.
If you take an egg from a chicken, you will see that inside that egg is not a chicken (unless of course, the egg is at an age where there is a chicken inside), there is only particles that are about to create a chicken, it has yet to become a chicken.
To consider fetuses as human beings, is like considering eggs as chicken, and caviar as fish.
As a matter of fact, I would definitely consider it to be a young chicken in an egg if I were ever to get my hands on a fertilized one. Thankfully, that's a very rare occurrence when you get your eggs in most grocery stores. Most egg farms don't even have roosters on the premises.
Oh you would consider them young chickens - so now all of a sudden the ''opinions'' do count, and not just facts?
Cause in the other debate you were unwilling to discuss my opinions. I guess as long as the opinions aren't the same as yours, you aren't willing to comment - but whatever.
But, I really want to ask, and this has nothing to do with the topic, but you said this, I quote:
Thankfully, that's a very rare occurrence when you get your eggs in most grocery stores.
Why did you use the word ''thankfully'' - are you thankful for that the only eggs we can get nowdays are the disgusting eggs you find at the supermarket?
Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
You do know you never had any of our respect either.
The pro-aborts conduct on this thread is a perfect reason why you have no respect.
Quocalimar on the other hand is an opponent I have some respect for because he treated the subject straight on and didn't play games about it.
You set up a debate, a debate for people to discuss your statement, and all you do is tell people " No, you're all wrong, and if you don't agree with me I will ban you." What kind of imbecile does that? Look, I'm sure there are other sites on the internet for other pompous and grandiloquent people out there. This, however, is a place for people to discuss and exchange ideas on things. Telling other users that they're " in denial" because they don't agree with you is simply idiotic!
I have given you the information so that you can see for yourself - that you are in denial. It really doesn't matter to me if you agree with me on this question or not. I already know what the facts are. I just posted multiple links to multiple sources for you to see. I would love to see what information you have to refute them. If you can prove to me that a human in the fetal stage of their life is not the young of their parents? I'll give it my fullest consideration. But then, you should afford my provided information the same consideration. Shouldn't you?