quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess my question would be, if the fetus is not "human," then when does it become so? Give me a clear, concise definition of when the fetus transforms into a human.

When it can do long division

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess my question would be, if the fetus is not "human," then when does it become so? Give me a clear, concise definition of when the fetus transforms into a human.

There is not clear definition. But i for one would say that even when the child is born, its not really "human". But to make things easier you must have a clear definition, and before the child is born would be a good one.

I ten to go with the doctors on that one - at the mo its 24 weeks (altho recently it has been said to be 22) If the doctors decide otherwise fine

So I guess the definition would be either as long as it's inside the mother or at the cutoff point for a viable premature birth. So, as science progresses and that cutoff point is pushed further back, we will have to deal with the repercussions of such new sicence. I had a class about modern biological ethics and this debate came up. It is a slippery slope that eventually leads back to syngamy. Fertilization in my viewpoint is not the start of human life due to sheer statistics, but syngamy is. Eventually science will get to the point where a human is viable both outside the mother's body and prematurely at the point of syngamy, and I guess according to the offered definitions, that will be the effective end of abortion.

I would also like to see where there is any concensus of doctors, or scientist in general of when human "life" begins.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess my question would be, if the fetus is not "human," then when does it become so? Give me a clear, concise definition of when the fetus transforms into a human.

The issue isn't whether the fetus is "alive" or "human", as it is self-evidently both, the issue is whether it is a "person". The way I see it, personhood (and all the rights that personhood entails) is acheived at the point of biological independence: that is, the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving independently outside of the womb. It's not a point that is easy to define with precision (as you'd know, being trained in the medical field), but we're generally talking 22-26 weeks gestation (i.e. close to the beginning of third trimester). Before this point, the fetus remains a part of the woman's body that cannot survive without her assent and it is therefore for her - and her alone, as the individual that has to carry the fetus throughout gestation - to decide whether she wants to allow it to continue to grow there within her or not. So far as I'm concerned, the fetus - as a dependant (parasitic?), biological mass - is afforded the same rights as any other organ in the female's body. The notion that a zygote consisting of 4 cells should be conferred the same rights as a sentient, fully-developed person is, for me, completely absurd.

The notion of "potentiality for personhood" is similarly nonsensical. The potential to become a "person" is not the same as actually being a person in the same sense that potential to become something is never the equivilent of actually being something (I have the potential, for instance, to become a doctor - should I, therefore, be conferred the same privilages as an actual doctor? Do we view acorns and oak-trees as identical objects?). Besides, every sperm cell and every ovum has the "potential" to become a person - are we therefore to legislate against men engaging in non-procreant ejaculations, or against women who ovulate? If not, why not? What's the distinction between the "death" of a sperm cell, the "death" of an ovum and the "death" of a bicellular unification of the two?

EDIT: The second paragraph is not necessarily directed at you, Neophono. I'm not sure if you agree with the concept of "potentiality of personhood" or not, but I'm pre-empting that response if you give it. If you don't agree with this as an argument against abortion, then disregard.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The issue isn't whether the fetus is "alive" or "human", as it is self-evidently both, the issue is whether it is a "person". The way I see it, personhood (and all the rights that personhood entails) is acheived at the point of biological independence: that is, the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving independently outside of the womb. It's not a point that is easy to define with precision (as you'd know, being trained in the medical field), but we're generally talking 22-26 weeks gestation (i.e. close to the beginning of third trimester). Before this point, the fetus remains a part of the woman's body that cannot survive without her assent and it is therefore for her - and her alone, as the individual that has to carry the fetus throughout gestation - to decide whether she wants to allow it to continue to grow there within her or not. So far as I'm concerned, the fetus - as a dependant (parasitic?), biological mass - is afforded the same rights as any other organ in the female's body. The notion that a zygote consisting of 4 cells should be conferred the same rights as a sentient, fully-developed person is, for me, completely absurd. The notion of "potentiality for personhood" is similarly nonsensical. The potential to become a "person" is not the same as actually being a person in the same sense that potential to become something is never the equivilent of actually being something (I have the potential, for instance, to become a doctor - should I, therefore, be conferred the same privilages as an actual doctor? Do we view acorns and oak-trees as identical objects?). Besides, every sperm cell and every ovum has the "potential" to become a person - are we therefore to legislate against men engaging in non-procreant ejaculations, or against women who ovulate? If not, why not? What's the distinction between the "death" of a sperm cell, the "death" of an ovum and the "death" of a bicellular unification of the two? EDIT: The second paragraph is not necessarily directed at you, Neophono. I'm not sure if you agree with the concept of "potentiality of personhood" or not, but I'm pre-empting that response if you give it. If you don't agree with this as an argument against abortion, then disregard.

See, I knew someone would make all of my points.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The issue isn't whether the fetus is "alive" or "human", as it is self-evidently both, the issue is whether it is a "person". The way I see it, personhood (and all the rights that personhood entails) is acheived at the point of biological independence: that is, the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving independently outside of the womb. It's not a point that is easy to define with precision (as you'd know, being trained in the medical field), but we're generally talking 22-26 weeks gestation (i.e. close to the beginning of third trimester). Before this point, the fetus remains a part of the woman's body that cannot survive without her assent and it is therefore for her - and her alone, as the individual that has to carry the fetus throughout gestation - to decide whether she wants to allow it to continue to grow there within her or not. So far as I'm concerned, the fetus - as a dependant (parasitic?), biological mass - is afforded the same rights as any other organ in the female's body. The notion that a zygote consisting of 4 cells should be conferred the same rights as a sentient, fully-developed person is, for me, completely absurd.

I think the arguement that "person-hood" begins at biological independence has a couple problems. First is the case of permature birth. These children are unable to take care of themselves out of a strictly controlled environment that is meant to mimic that of the womb. Are these "things" then still eligible for an abortion? Is there any injustice or wrong in putting one of these "things" to death? If it is not acceptable to kill one, than I again go back to my arguement that science is the determining factor as to when the cells become "human." If that is the case I still put forth that it is only a matter of time before cells after syngamy are able to be brought forth to a viable human offspring in an artifical environment. I then wonder how we will look at abortion.

Second is the definition of "independent." I would argue that many individuals are not independent as far as being able to completely care for themselves until much after birth, childhood and in the case of some individuals with mental or physical defects, are ever able to be "independent." Is it than okay for these individuals to be "aborted?"

I understand how your definition arises, but I do believe there to be some major concerns with it.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew There is not clear definition. But i for one would say that even when the child is born, its not really "human".

For the love of God, what is it then?! Congratulations Mr. & Mrs. Babyowner. You are the proud parents of a fully functional, non-human mass of cells!

Don't have a lot of time here (I have to be up for work in 4 hours :-/), but quickly:

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think the arguement that "person-hood" begins at biological independence has a couple problems. First is the case of permature birth. These children are unable to take care of themselves out of a strictly controlled environment that is meant to mimic that of the womb. Are these "things" then still eligible for an abortion? Is there any injustice or wrong in putting one of these "things" to death? If it is not acceptable to kill one, than I again go back to my arguement that science is the determining factor as to when the cells become "human." If that is the case I still put forth that it is only a matter of time before cells after syngamy are able to be brought forth to a viable human offspring in an artifical environment. I then wonder how we will look at abortion.

There's a clear distinction between a premature birth and an aborted fetus, which is why I draw the line at about 22-26 weeks. Any "child" born before this stage has virtually no chance of surviving, and no aborted "fetus" has any chance of surviving up until this stage either. If it were possible to abort a fetus, find some way to keep it alive artificially and then find someone to take care of it as it develops into a child then I would say that this would be an acceptable solution. As it stands though, no fetus at this stage of development can survive outside of the mother's womb. In this sense, it is a part of the woman's body, therefore it is for the woman alone to decide what to do with it. You cannot force a woman to carry a fetus for nine months and then give birth to it if this is against her wishes - it's undeniably inhumane and I'm not sure that the child that grows from the fetus will have much of a life at the end of it either.

As I say, if there is a way of keeping a fetus alive and then ensuring it could be nurtured through childhood then this would be an acceptable solution. Inadequate medical technology, though, and a lack of willing foster parents make it an unattainable one.

quote:

Second is the definition of "independent." I would argue that many individuals are not independent as far as being able to completely care for themselves until much after birth, childhood and in the case of some individuals with mental or physical defects, are ever able to be "independent." Is it than okay for these individuals to be "aborted?"

I'm talking strictly about biological independence. If a mother dies during child-birth, for instance, the child could still be reared by a relative. Even though it is still dependent on another human being for sustinance (as we all are at that stage in development) it can survive independently from its mother. This, I believe, is the point of biological independence (and thus, personhood): where the being is no longer dependant on a direct, biological relationship with a specific biological entity to survive.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Eh, I kinda disagree with your view, Renegade, because your definition is based on current medical technology. This means that a baby that was born at 6 months of age 100 years ago was not supposed to be considered a human since the medical technology of the time wasn't sufficient to maintain it. Similarly, if we push it to the other extreme, one day a single celled zygote will be considered a human being.

Until recently, I have pretty much shared Neo Phono's view on the matter, but some biological facts and probable technological advances in the near future make this point of view blurry at best. First of all, there's the fact that most fertilized and functional zygotes (about 70%) simply fail to catch on to the womb and get flushed out anyways. Providing sufficient technology, those zygotes could be saved and grown into fully capable human beings. On the other hand, there's the matter of cloning. Imagine this scenario - you take your DNA and put it into a fertilized cell (no need to kill it, you can always wait till it splits up a few times and then just take one of many). Now, if you let it grow normally, it will grow out into a new person (kinda like your long lost identical twin). But if you reinsert that cell into your body, it will simply be reabsorbed and live with you happily until you die. So, is this cell a new person or still a part of your body? Well, it's both actually, and what will come of it depends on the environment you put the cell in. Actually, cloning is not necessarry, every organism has in itself a small number of cells that can develop into anything, including another human given the right circumstances. And talking about identical twins, there are also cases where the twins split, and then still inside the womb one twin simply reabsorbs the other one into his own organism.

Taken all this into consideration, the line is really blurry, because many cells can grow into independent organisms, and many such organisms get destroyed and reabsorbed by the body before they have the chance to become something new. In other words, I don't have the solution to the problem and the fence is really stuck deep into my ass.

On the other hand, if we're talking about aborting deformed fetuses and people who have hereditary diseases and who want to choose the one fertilized egg that does not carry their disease, I'm all for that.

As for euthanasia, sure, if someone wants to die, go ahead.

Now about the death penalty, personally I prefer labor camps. That way the criminals will actually be useful, and since there's always the possibility of one being wrongly accused, such mistakes can be more easily corrected.

___________________
1+1=10

The solution to the person-hood issue is simple. The nature of a fetus is fundamentally different from the nature of a naturally viable human being or "person" - it is the fetus' nature not to be independent. That is precisely what defines it. Even if it can be kept alive outside the womb through the use of medical technology, it does not change it's basic nature - that is, a developing organism that survives only by direct physiological dependence.

Until it crosses the threshold of viability - that is, natural viability, not the artificial viability of medical technology - it is not its nature to live as an individual, and therefore it cannot possess an individual right to live.

With regards to the original post:

I fully support both abortion and the death penalty in theory, but I don't support the death penalty in practice simply because it is irreversable and, given the rather glaring inadequacies of our current justice systems, it seems to me to be inappropriate for them to prescribe such a permanent penalty.

Abortion doesn't suffer from such uncertainty, it is a matter of will, not the product of (at best) an educated guess by a jury of one's "peers" (or in the case that one has any intelligence at all, one's inferiors .)