At what point does a fetus become a human being?

[sriv]

This appears to be the crux of the abortion debate.

 

[Oberon]

The question is a legal and/or philosophical one.

From a biological point of view, it's a non-starter.

 

[sriv]

The question is a legal and/or philosophical one.

From a biological point of view, it's a non-starter.

I want to focus on the philosophical part.

 

[Oberon]

Well, here's the perspective I shared on another thread:

With regard to abortion, it is quite reasonable to take an ethical stance against abortion without bringing religion into the conversation. To wit: If we can designate human organisms as non-persons based on the age or physical stage of development of the individual organism, we set the precedent that a human organism is or is not a person based on empirical criteria. It is by no means established, however, that age or physical stage of development are the only criteria by which personhood can be granted or denied. Therefore, nothing prevents us from designating other unwanted human organisms as non-persons...the same line of reasoning that justified Dachau.

It is reasonable, therefore, to grant blanket personhood to all human organisms as an ethical postulate; to say, in other words, that all human organisms are human beings. It would help to keep our society out of a deep and dangerous ethical quagmire.

It answers the question with "If it's a human organism, it's a human being." That keeps us from trying to figure out which kinds of human organisms are people and which kinds are not.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Do you think this question is kind of pointless? There is no absolute definition of "human being." Like all words, it gains meaning by agreement. In the end, though, all these definitions are arbitrary and useless.

The better question, in my opinion, is what issues we should be concerned with in abortion, how to balance those interests, whether we can even conceive of making a blanket rule, and then, finally, what that rule might look like and what kind of exceptions it should carry.

 

[sriv]

The only point of classifying something under "human being" is that a human being has rights.

Some say that a fetus is a bunch of cells that cannot be considered "alive" whereas a human being is alive.

Well, here's the perspective I shared on another thread:

It answers the question with "If it's a human organism, it's a human being." That keeps us from trying to figure out which kinds of human organisms are people and which kinds are not.

That does avoid a lot of conflict.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

The only point of classifying something under "human being" is that a human being has rights.

Some say that a fetus is a bunch of cells that cannot be considered "alive" whereas a human being is alive.

I get the point, I just think it's pointless.

 

[sriv]

I get the point, I just think it's pointless.

Pointless that we give certain rights to certain objects based on that object's definition?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Pointless that we give certain rights to certain objects based on that object's definition?

Pointless that we debate whose definition is more correct.

 

[Ivy]

Oberon's is a point I've made before myself in abortion debates. If we don't know, isn't it best to err on the side of caution?

The problem with the caution approach taken all the way back to fertilization (as opposed to implantation) is that it then means that the only acceptable forms of contraception are barriers and fertility awareness. Illegalize the pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control that prevent implantation but may allow ovulation and thus fertilization, and IMO we've got a social crisis on our hands.

 

[MJ_]

Does any human (however anyone defines it) have the right to use the organs and blood supply of another without that person's consent? Thats another important part of the debate. (And for the sake of argument, no one can tell another person what they do or do not consent to. Consent must be freely given).

I think its kind of telling that the philosophically debatable 'human' becomes the 'crux' of a debate when an actual human with rights of their own is most definately involved.

 

[Oberon]

Does any human (however anyone defines it) have the right to use the organs and blood supply of another without that person's consent?

Well, I don't know about organs and blood supply, but our society has decided that certain humans (i.e., young ones) do have the right to food and shelter at the expense of their parents, without the parents' consent if necessary. People are prosecuted for child neglect every day in this country... and, I believe, rightly so.

 

[sriv]

Pointless that we debate whose definition is more correct.

True. But most of us live in a democracy.

Oberon's is a point I've made before myself in abortion debates. If we don't know, isn't it best to err on the side of caution?

The problem with the caution approach taken all the way back to fertilization (as opposed to implantation) is that it then means that the only acceptable forms of contraception are barriers and fertility awareness. Illegalize the pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control that prevent implantation but may allow ovulation and thus fertilization, and IMO we've got a social crisis on our hands.

Good point.
So you consider the zygote a human organism, which makes sense.

 

[Ivy]

Does any human (however anyone defines it) have the right to use the organs and blood supply of another without that person's consent? Thats another important part of the debate. (And for the sake of argument, no one can tell another person what they do or do not consent to. Consent must be freely given).

I think its kind of telling that the philosophically debatable 'human' becomes the 'crux' of a debate when an actual human with rights of their own is most definately involved.

Doesn't engaging in sex (assuming a person knows what the possible consequences could be) imply consent?

 

[Totenkindly]

...Illegalize the pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control that prevent implantation but may allow ovulation and thus fertilization, and IMO we've got a social crisis on our hands.

Along with a new industry to run memorial services for the 25% or even higher percentage of pregnancies that are miscarried by the sixth week.

Anyway, obviously the zygote is alive.
It's usually also got the genetic makeup of a human being.
That makes it "human life," right?

The only point of classifying something under "human being" is that a human being has rights.

Yes, it's an argument over "at what point" does a developing human life has legal rights.

Just imagine all the poor embryos frozen, in stasis, in a freezer somewhere because only some of them needed to be implanted in the mother's womb artificially. Human life, certainly; do they have a right to be implanted somewhere, because they are unfairly locked up in what could be a permanently arrested stage of development? can the in vitro company be brought up on charges?

And don't think the conventional wisdom about "souls" doesn't have anything to do with the conflict. If souls exist and are equal, and every fertilized egg gets one, then aborting the human life is murdering the soul's body. If souls -- our essence as individual people -- aren't implanted and instead "develop over time" (i.e., all human beings are "developing souls" and we're not separate from our bodies at all, really), then what would that mean logically for this argument? There's a lot here that just will never be teased out. I think a rigid answer is always Procrustean and bound to not fit every situation.

 

[Ivy]

True. But most of us live in a democracy.


Good point.
So you consider the zygote a human organism, which makes sense.

I don't think there's much medical/scientific debate about that. The debate comes in when you start to consider which level of development a human organism becomes a person.

 

[sriv]

I don't think there's much medical/scientific debate about that. The debate comes in when you start to consider which level of development a human organism becomes a person.

I meant to say the beginning of human life. Yeah, you're right.

 

[MJ_]

Well, I don't know about organs and blood supply, but our society has decided that humans do have the right to food and shelter at the expense of their parents, without the parents' consent if necessary. People are prosecuted for child neglect every day in this country... and, I believe, rightly so.

Those parents also have the option of placing a child for adoption, or placing a child in foster care. People who neglect children should be prosecuted, because they have the option of ensuring the child is taken care of by others if they cannot or will not do so themselves. Its as simple as going to a police or fire station with an infant, no questions asked in many jurisdictions. Children are dependent on someone, but not a specific single individual for their lives.

A pregnant woman does not have the option of transferring a fetus (or defenseless innocent human, whatever your preference) to someone else. It is her blood, kidney function, pancreas, and calcium stores. It is her uterus, with a 25% chance of having a C-section in the US. No one else's. Does any human have the right to those, without consent?

 

[Ivy]

Those parents also have the option of placing a child for adoption, or placing a child in foster care. People who neglect children should be prosecuted, because they have the option of ensuring the child is taken care of by others if they cannot or will not do so themselves. Its as simple as going to a police or fire station with an infant, no questions asked in many jurisdictions. Children are dependent on someone, but not a specific single individual for their lives.

A pregnant woman does not have the option of transferring a fetus (or defenseless innocent human, whatever your preference) to someone else. It is her blood, kidney function, pancreas, and calcium stores. It is her uterus, with a 25% chance of having a C-section in the US. No one else's. Does any human have the right to those, without consent?

I'm not feeling this line of reasoning. I think if you engage in sex, and you know it can lead to pregnancy, you've consented. Furthermore, as it applies to matters between humans outside the womb, a person can give consent and withdraw it at any time. This isn't the case with pregnancy--after a certain threshold the pregnant woman can no longer withdraw her consent and "evict" the fetus. Pregnancy, in nearly every way, upsets the apple cart of ethics between people.

 

[Oberon]

A pregnant woman does not have the option of transferring a fetus (or defenseless innocent human, whatever your preference) to someone else. It is her blood, kidney function, pancreas, and calcium stores. It is her uterus, with a 25% chance of having a C-section in the US. No one else's. Does any human have the right to those, without consent?

Well, let's turn the question around. Should temporary theft of these resources be a capital crime?