FaithFalcon,

A fetus, meaning, an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth, has all the potential to be born a human and zero potential to be born anything else.

In your query you italicize being. By doing such are you inquiring if the fetus has a soul. Or possibly you seek to know what a being is since we know that a fetus which we discuss is human?

When we search the word being it returns the following choices: : the quality or state of having existence b (1): something conceivable as existing (2): something that actually exists (3): the totality of existing things c: conscious existence : life: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality: a living thing; especially : person.

I believe the fetus meets all the requirements listed above.

In Christ,

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

1.  All living things have a unique identification code in each living cell, called the DNA.  The DNA of a human being is unique from any other plant, animal, or other living thing.

2.  Individual living things develop, but they do not change the identity of what they are. The DNA of each individual human being does not change; it is identical from the time of being a zygote in her mother's fallopian tube, to the time of being a little girl swinging on the playground, to the time of being a grown-up woman grading students' papers, until the time of being an old woman on oxygen in the old folks home. 

3.  The law is widely accepted making it illegal to destroy a sea turtle egg and a bald eagle egg. While they are not yet sea turtles or bald eagles that we would recognize, they are sea turtles and bald eagles nonetheless.

4.  Words mean things. The word fetus means "little one" in Latin. If it is not a little human being, than what else could it possibly be a "little one" of?

5.  We must not kill when we are not sure. If we are not 100% convinced whether that noise in the bushes is a bear or a person, to kill would not be the correct thing to do precisely because we are not sure. If we are not certain, we ought to err on the side of living, not killing. 

That's just a start, but I hope that helps.

de nada - any chance you are an Albertus Magnus Falcon?

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

I think one important point that has not been made, is that even in science, it is recognized that man is body and soul (or consciouness or inner being-you can fill in the word here). By framing the argument purely on biology I think a big point is being missed. Human beings are not just a body like animals. We have an immortal soul that connects with our body at the moment of conception. When that body dies, the soul still lives-the essence and being of we humans is that soul. Therfore, how does anyone have the right to kill the body made in the image and likeness of it's Creator?

I'm just doing a copy/paste from the other abortion string:

Excerpt from:

Editorial, A New Ethic for Medicine and Society, 113 CAL. MED. 67,67-68 (September 1970) 

 So this is copied from above mentioned California Medical Society's Journal in 1970 (two years before Roe v. Wade)

" It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute values on such things as human lives, the use of scarce resources and the various elements which are to make up the quality of life or of living which is to be sought.  This is quite distinctly at variance with the Judeo-Christian ethic and carries serious philosophical, social, economic and political implications for Western society and perhaps for world society.

The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun.  It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion.  In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary.  It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws and public policy rather than the reverse.  Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.  The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices."

bhokuto-

I went on the March. This year, there were over half a million people there-broke records. It was great! 

There is so many layers to this debate -- spiritual, biolgocial, sociological and anthropological.

Everyone here has strong feelings about the spiritual argument, no doubt.

Biologically...do you own your body?  Scratch that, it brings you squarely back to the spriritual argument.  LOL.  But, for the sake of secular argument, let's assume that you have ownership of your body.  Does that include eggs or sperm (DNA copyrights)?  What about sperm or eggs that have genetically combined with another to form a completely seperate being that's not even 50/50 but some unpredictable, cross-over mix, meaning this newly created being is not even expressed 50/50.  How do you determine who has genetic dominance and greater ownership?  If your DNA has combined and has genetically crossed-over (mixed) with anothers is it still yours...or theirs?  Do you still own the copyrights?  Or have your copyrights ended and collided with anothers? 

Sociologically--When a majority of a society believes that the value of each individual life is relative (contigent upon convenience, health and ability to be exploited to the benefit of others (embryonic stem cell research)) it will imbue your entire socioeconomic system...which is has...from the bottom up to the top.  We're living this relativism every day.  Not everyone matters, least of all the mentally imperfect and dependent.  It's reflected in all our social and health systems.  You can't build a culture that cares without first giving absolute value to each life, but includes the support that we, as a community, give each mother and child beyond birth.  It doesn't end with overturning Roe vs. Wade.  It's only the first step towards building a culture that truly values every life.

Then there is the whole anthropolgocial side which I don't know much about.   How does abortion impact a culture that practices it long term?  There have been many cultures that practiced abortion (Japan pops into my mind for some reason).  If the culture is split by the belief in abortion (as in the US) then how will that effect the numbers of both sides.  Is it self-genocide that limits it's own belief and growth?

God has given us laws to protect each individual and ensure the health and growth a population which lives by his laws.  Regardless of man's laws, if we, as Catholics, continue to follow God's laws we will flourish and draw strength regardless of man's laws.

Ladybug

Oops.  Didn't realize you already submitted your paper.  That's what happens with kids constantly pulling on your legs and vying for attention. LOL.

<<How does abortion impact a culture that practices it long term?>>>

Excellent question.  How about the wealthy get fabulously wealthy and the poor become hopelessly destitute?  How about the country that hosts that culture spends 70% of its wealth on weapons while exporting its manufacturing jobs to cheap labor overseas?  How about the children of that culture are having sex at 12 years of age?  How about the culture becomes viciously anti-religion?

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.

Peace

Here is a link to an excellent scientific answer to when does a human being become a human being.

http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/whendoes.html