At what point does a fetus become a human being?

[MJ_]

You've never been a parent, have you. I hesitate to recommend it to you.

It isn't for everyone.

 

[Oberon]

It isn't for everyone.

I could not have said it better myself.

With that, I think I'm finished here.

 

[reason]

There are no empirical tests which can be brought to bear on the question of when a feotus becomes a human being, since what is being implicitly argued over is the definition of the words 'human being', and definitions are established by convention. In other words, the two parties in the debate are defining the term 'human being' differently, according to different conventions. The debate is ethical, not semantic or scientific, about what properties must an organism have before it is wrong to destroy it? To argue about "essential" definition of 'human being' is a distraction, and it is not something which can be established by any empirical test.

The controversy primarily concerns whether or not organisms like humans have a soul, and if so, when that soul enters the growing feotus. That said, though I am opposed to abortion, I am about as comfortable living in a country with abortion as one without, in a not so unsimilar way that I am as comfortable living in a country with capital punishment as without. There needs to be some convention, and I do not have any particular strong preference either way. I am not always a fan of democracy, but I think that questions such as these are best left to the democratic process. Of course, not everyone will get their own way, but that is the price which is paid for living in a civil society.

 

[Totenkindly]

This upsetting of the applecart thing works both ways, BTW. Most opponents of abortion clearly do not think of embryos as completely equal to born babies or they would not make exceptions for rape and incest.

Yes.

I always found it interesting in the OT law: Attacking a pregnant woman in a way that caused her to miscarry her baby was considered a crime... but not a murder.

The culprit was expected to pay the father a particular price, to compensate him for the loss of the child. That was it.

Note that in that particular culture, murder -- the assault and killing of another human being -- was punished by death. The killing of the baby in utero was not considered a murder even if the intent had been to harm the mother.

Again, yes... morally confusing since Christian beliefs (often with OT foundations) play such a substantial part in the abortion debates in the United States.

I think that the attempt to separate sex from procreation (and our ability to do so with our increased technology) has also made the dilemma harder. People nowadays rather expect to be able to have sex without a pregnancy occurring, so when one happens, it's considered to be the "anomaly" and not the given.

When people viewed pregnancy as a natural consequence of having sex, they were more careful about having sex or more open to the pregnancy, avoiding the need for abortion.

Is it realistic to view sex as separate from the conception of human life? As if we "have a right to have sex without conceiving"? I don't know.

 

[MJ_]

What a weird thought: what you were supposed to do
What do you mean by that? Supposed to? Supposed to?

Oberon has stated that he believes that abortion is essentially capital punishment/murder. (Correct me if I'm wrong here). I expect that he believes that abortion is wrong in many situations. Carrying a child to term may be what one is 'supposed to do' in Oberon's eyes, or in the viewpoint of many people.

I think I've contributed to a lot of thread drift (as well as delving into Oberon's personal life, which I should not have. My apologies go to Oberon, if he will accept them).

Going back to the original topic, I think 'when does a fetus become human' isn't the crux of the debate, for reasons I have stated. Arguably, the zygote is human, the embryo is human, and fetus is human. Not a fully developed adult, but capable of becoming one. Though they may be special and have no real equivalents in any other medical or ethical or moral situation, I don't believe they deserve any rights that other persons don't have.

I think it is best to leave the philosophical and moral questions up to the people who must consider them in their own personal lives, and leave the law out of it. I don't think anyone wants the legal power of the state compelling anyone to have an abortion or use birth control. In my own personal view, I don't think the state should be able to forbid it either.

These are with the words of a Canadian Supreme court justice, on the R. vs Morgentaler (1988) decision.

The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that. The question is: whose conscience? Is the conscience of the woman to be paramount or the conscience of the state? I believe, for the reasons I gave in discussing the right to liberty, that in a free and democratic society it must be the conscience of the individual.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oberon has stated that he believes that abortion is essentially capital punishment/murder. (Correct me if I'm wrong here). I expect that he believes that abortion is wrong in many situations. Carrying a child to term may be what one is 'supposed to do' in Oberon's eyes, or in the viewpoint of many people.

I think I've contributed to a lot of thread drift (as well as delving into Oberon's personal life, which I should not have. My apologies go to Oberon, if he will accept them).

Two things:
1. You should avoid putting comments in other people's mouths (as you're doing with Oberon). There's no need to do that, and as far as I can tell (knowing him for 15 years or so), his actual position is a bit different than what you've tried to state here.
2. If you want to apologize to Oberon, PM him direct because I think he's left this thread due to the direction the thread took.

 

[murkrow]

Do you accept that abortion is homicide?

I agree that the morality of it is ambiguous, however if we can accept that abortion is a homicidal action then we can start to discuss methods of stemming such wanton use of killing.

Most people who have abortions performed on the humans inside them don't consider the fact that it is infanticide, and I truly doubt that the same amount of abortions would be had were such and understanding to be reached.

Furthermore, even though the morality is ambiguous, I am not convinced a clear decision is impossible.

What is the difference between my money being taxed for the support of a health care system that I consent to simply by being a citizen of Canada but do not support ideologically and a woman's body being siphoned away for the good of a human she conceived? Both actions which brought about the loss of resources were not the direct choices of the loser.

If the Canadian government is going to support a society based on the mutual sacrifice of economic freedom for the health of all it's citizens, why should it not also support the sacrifice of nutrients for the life of a future citizen?

You will probably claim that the future aspect of the fetus' citizenship means that it earns no protection from the government, but I am obviously advocating a thorough overhaul of the system for attributing rights to newborn humans.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Here is a question we might ask someone from China or India. Is it inethical to abort a fetus because it is a girl?

 

[Jeffster]

A fetus is always a human being. Well, assuming we're talking about a human fetus.

 

[ajblaise]

A human being is defined as an "individual of the genus Homo". Since the fetus is connected to and relies on the mothers body, are they an individual? I wouldn't say so.

 

[Jeffster]

A human being is defined as an "individual of the genus Homo". Since the fetus is connected to and relies on the mothers body, are they an individual? I wouldn't say so.

A dependent individual is still an individual. Some people are mentally or physically disabled to the point that they cannot survive without constant assistance from someone else. Those people are still individuals.

 

[ajblaise]

A dependent individual is still an individual. Some people are mentally or physically disabled to the point that they cannot survive without constant assistance from someone else. Those people are still individuals.

Those people aren't physically connected to and living inside someone else.

 

[Jeffster]

Those people aren't physically connected to and living inside someone else.

They're not living inside someone else, but I bet many of them would say they are 'physically connected to' someone else.

Personally, every time I hear "pro-choice" arguments, they seem to require dehumanizing someone in order to make sense. You have to make yourself heartless and make it about detached examinations. That's not something I've ever had the ability to do. From a very young age, my instinct was to protect the helpless, not advocate their worthlessness due to dependency. It's a view I simply can't fathom. I can't make my brain see it that way, no matter how hard I try to empathize with that position.

 

[ajblaise]

They're not living inside someone else, but I bet many of them would say they are 'physically connected to' someone else.

Personally, every time I hear "pro-choice" arguments, they seem to require dehumanizing someone in order to make sense. You have to make yourself heartless and make it about detached examinations. That's not something I've ever had the ability to do. From a very young age, my instinct was to protect the helpless, not advocate their worthlessness due to dependency. It's a view I simply can't fathom. I can't make my brain see it that way, no matter how hard I try to empathize with that position.

Well I can't dehumanize what I don't think is human hehe. But I know that more emotional people would naturally have more trouble being pro-choice.

An abortion is a sad event, but I think restricting women's freedom to their own bodies is even sadder.

 

[sriv]

Does there have to be a "point" at which this occurs?

It is interesting how relentlessly human beings create dividing lines and categories. This is especially true in Western European thought. Whether it is dividing the lines of property into square mile fields, dividing pitch into equidistant half steps, rhythm into pulses, religion into denominations, politics into parties, the light spectrum into specific "colors", or personality into 16 types, the process is the same. We create a lower resolution of reality so that we can more easily deal with complexity. In reality these points of division are artificial.

Humans enjoy convenience. Humans have desires. For both these reasons, they warp the environment physically and subjectively. To answer your question, yes.
I don't find it interesting at all.

The limitation of this approach to processing information comes to the foreground when asking the most important questions like "when does human life begin?".

Do you have a better approach?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Do you have a better approach?

It seems reasonable enough to me to attempt to understand each moment of development of a fetus without forcing it into an arbitrary category of being human or not. Questions like when a fetus feels pain, or when they are viable outside the womb, should not be ways of defining if the fetus is "human". A preconceived notion of category can too easily distort perception of information. Even a newborn is not understood as being "self aware". Development is ongoing as a continuum. Why can't a six week fetus be exactly that? Why does it have to either be human or not? All or nothing thinking doesn't fit the model of human development imo. Using spermicide and having a third trimester abortion both destroy a potential, viable human being, but it would seem that the former is less of a violation of a life. Perhaps the question of abortion can be one of gradually coming closer to killing. Destroying a two-week fetus is less of an act of killing than destroying a two-month fetus because of where it falls on the continuum of development. Just like using spermicide is less of an act of killing than destroying a two-week fetus. With this approach there is no dividing line between guilt or innocence because it is all relative. Everything is tainted to varying degrees. What do you think?

 

[Werewolfen]

Individual life begins with conception by the union of the couple's sex cells or gametes. The 23 chromosomes of the paternal sperm (male pronucleus) fuses with the 23 chromosomes of the maternal oocyte (egg or female pronucleus) at fertilization to create a single cell embryo or zygote containing 46 chromosomes. The fertilization process takes about 24 hours.
The new human zygote has the inherent capacity or potential to become a fully rational and cognizant person!
Each one represents a unique, irreplaceable, never-to-be-reduplicated human being!

 

[Not_Me]

Personally, every time I hear "pro-choice" arguments, they seem to require dehumanizing someone in order to make sense. You have to make yourself heartless and make it about detached examinations.

Not so. If one believes that a fertilized egg is nothing but a bunch of cells, then there is no need to dehumanize it. It deserves no more empathy than an egg or sperm cell.

 

[vince]

It seems reasonable enough to me to attempt to understand each moment of development of a fetus without forcing it into an arbitrary category of being human or not. Questions like when a fetus feels pain, or when they are viable outside the womb, should not be ways of defining if the fetus is "human". A preconceived notion of category can too easily distort perception of information. Even a newborn is not understood as being "self aware". Development is ongoing as a continuum. Why can't a six week fetus be exactly that? Why does it have to either be human or not? All or nothing thinking doesn't fit the model of human development imo. Using spermicide and having a third trimester abortion both destroy a potential, viable human being, but it would seem that the former is less of a violation of a life. Perhaps the question of abortion can be one of gradually coming closer to killing. Destroying a two-week fetus is less of an act of killing than destroying a two-month fetus because of where it falls on the continuum of development. Just like using spermicide is less of an act of killing than destroying a two-week fetus. With this approach there is no dividing line between guilt or innocence because it is all relative. Everything is tainted to varying degrees. What do you think?

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above.

I posted my whole stance on abortion here, but then deleted it again. I think I was dwelling off. Bottom line however is that I think the abortion debate is hypocrite, when you take into account how many full-grown adults & particulary children die every day because of ...*fill in for yourself*

 

[ajblaise]

Individual life begins with conception by the union of the couple's sex cells or gametes. The 23 chromosomes of the paternal sperm (male pronucleus) fuses with the 23 chromosomes of the maternal oocyte (egg or female pronucleus) at fertilization to create a single cell embryo or zygote containing 46 chromosomes. The fertilization process takes about 24 hours.
The new human zygote has the inherent capacity or potential to become a fully rational and cognizant person!
Each one represents a unique, irreplaceable, never-to-be-reduplicated human being!

Sooo taking the day after pill is capital murder?