When does an embryo / fetus become human, and why?

[TimCallahan]

Since many people who are religious consider abortion to be murder, they must consider the embryo being aborted a human being. So my question is: When, during the pregnancy, does the embryo become a human being? If someone answers that it happens at conception, I'd like to know how a single cell, even a fertilized ovum, can be considered a human being. If the answer is because "ensoulment" takes place at conception, that means even this single cell has a human soul.

Let us posit for the time being, regardless of whether we accept the notion or not, that there is such an entity as a soul. What indication would you give, if you argue that ensoulment takes place at conception, that your position is either rational or based on sound biblical doctrine?

 

[Manopolus]

Since many people who are religious consider abortion to be murder, they must consider the embryo being aborted a human being. So my question is: When, during the pregnancy, does the embryo become a human being? If someone answers that it happens at conception, I'd like to know how a single cell, even a fertilized ovum, can be considered a human being. If the answer is because "ensoulment" takes place at conception, that means even this single cell has a human soul.

Let us posit for the time being, regardless of whether we accept the notion or not, that there is such an entity as a soul. What indication would you give, if you argue that ensoulment takes place at conception, that your position is either rational or based on sound biblical doctrine?

Sperm is a human cell. So is an ovum. Both are human material BEFORE conception. Note that I am not arguing for some kind of ethic, just pointing out the facts.

 

[DJW]

Sperm is a human cell. So is an ovum. Both are human material BEFORE conception. Note that I am not arguing for some kind of ethic, just pointing out the facts.

No. No. You're so wrong. They're haplosouls.

 

[Cavemonster]

Sperm is a human cell. So is an ovum. Both are human material BEFORE conception. Note that I am not arguing for some kind of ethic, just pointing out the facts.

In the same way that my nail clippings, hair and skin cells are human cells, yes. But there is a difference between being composed of human cells and being a human.

 

[dio]

I liked this post from this thread.

 

[Manopolus]

In the same way that my nail clippings, hair and skin cells are human cells, yes. But there is a difference between being composed of human cells and being a human.

True. I'd also say that we don't become a human by the definition of the word until we learn language.

But, by the way, I don't condone letting parents kill their babies before they understand language.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Whenever we as a society decide it does. There's no "right" answer here. There's merely a line to be drawn, and precisely where that line is drawn will be to some extent arbitrary. The extremes are it starts human and not until birth. We'll eventually settle somewhere in the middle of the two, with heavy discontent from both sides continuing ad infinitum.

 

[Cavemonster]

Whenever we as a society decide it does. There's no "right" answer here. There's merely a line to be drawn, and precisely where that line is drawn will be to some extent arbitrary. The extremes are it starts human and not until birth. We'll eventually settle somewhere in the middle of the two, with heavy discontent from both sides continuing ad infinitum.

I think you misplace the extremes. In traditional Jewish culture, a fetus is not truly a person until it graduates from medical school.

 

[Trent Wray]

"I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb." Jeremiah 1:5

I have known Xtians who believe that all souls were created from the beginning, and each person has a soul.

I also know some believers who claim that not everyone has a soul. IOW, not everyone walking around has a soul. Or of course some were made for the purpose of destruction, like clay:

"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Romans 9:21

I also know of some believers who believe we, more or less, "asked" to be born. IOW, we asked to exist before we were born, and then when we were born, we entered into "sin" and lost this knowledge of our previous state. This is sometimes looked at in the idea that we all share part of the same original soul of Adam ... like Adam and Eve were the Queen Ant of Souls which multiply in each and every human being, giving a piece of that soul in each of us. Once the pieces of soul run out, it's midnight and the games over.

 

[blutoski]

Since many people who are religious consider abortion to be murder, they must consider the embryo being aborted a human being. So my question is: When, during the pregnancy, does the embryo become a human being? If someone answers that it happens at conception, I'd like to know how a single cell, even a fertilized ovum, can be considered a human being. If the answer is because "ensoulment" takes place at conception, that means even this single cell has a human soul.

Let us posit for the time being, regardless of whether we accept the notion or not, that there is such an entity as a soul. What indication would you give, if you argue that ensoulment takes place at conception, that your position is either rational or based on sound biblical doctrine?

This is not the argument they're making, though. Manopolus is correct: everybody agrees that a zygote is human.

What is in disagreement are two things, and this makes four decision quadrants:

* |Person|~Person
|OK|fetus is a person but abortion is OK|fetus is not a person; abortion is OK|
|Not OK|fetus is a person but abortion is not OK|fetus is not a person but abortion is not OK|

It's important to understand that not all pro-choice arguments agree that abortion is 'ok' - some argue that it's simply not government's role to intervene. In the same way that cheating on your husband is not 'ok' but it's also not a crime.

ETA: you know what: the BBCode for tables is throwing me. I'll have to redo this at home.

 

[Ausmerican]

I have always felt viability was the most rational point to draw any line. Purely opinion of course. When the fetus can survive outside the body it can be classified as a person. Before that it is living in someone and off someone. A parasitic organism. It is a very complex teratoma. And if it is living in you and off you then it's you. And, as a part of you, it is up to you what happens to it.

 

[Manopolus]

My only take on the abortion issue has nothing to do with this idea.

My concern is.... where's the male right to have an abortion? We supposedly have the financial responsibility, whether there was any desire to actually have a child or not. The women have many options -- abortion, adoption, etc., but men have none, when the aforementioned financial responsibility is assumed.

This is not equal rights.

Does not the man also have the right to "abort the parasite?"

(added) Also note that I don't have any illegitamate children that I am aware of, so I have no direct personal interest in the concept.

 

[Arkyrion]

Personally, I think of a fetus as human eighteen days after conception when its heart starts beating. Something with a heartbeat is alive, and a fetus is composed of human genetic material. Ergo, living human. Or something of the like.

 

[Cavemonster]

My only take on the abortion issue has nothing to do with this idea.

My concern is.... where's the male right to have an abortion? We supposedly have the financial responsibility, whether there was any desire to actually have a child or not. The women have many options -- abortion, adoption, etc., but men have none, when the aforementioned financial responsibility is assumed.

This is not equal rights.

Does not the man also have the right to "abort the parasite?"

(added) Also note that I don't have any illegitamate children that I am aware of, so I have no direct personal interest in the concept.

Unequal rights appropriate to an unequal biological situation, and an unequal social situation are quite appropriate. A female need to carry that baby physically in her body for the better part of a year, then go through labor. The male's only obligation can be financial.

 

[Manopolus]

Unequal rights appropriate to an unequal biological situation, and an unequal social situation are quite appropriate. A female need to carry that baby physically in her body for the better part of a year, then go through labor. The male's only obligation can be financial.

Yes, but if someone payed me enough money, I could easily consider allowing them to shoot me in the foot.

One does not take precidence over the other, necessarily... especially when money is as important in human affairs as it is in the current world.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Here is what Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan thought about it, with respect to abortion:

[...] when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes, but if someone payed me enough money, I could easily consider allowing them to shoot me in the foot.

One does not take precidence over the other, necessarily... especially when money is as important in human affairs as it is in the current world.

I'm not saying that biological issues always take precedence over economic ones. In this case though, I think they do, considering that the baby is very much functionally not just an effect on her body, but a part of her body for this time period.

How many other situations are there where one human must submit to a medical procedure for the economic benefit of another individual?

There's a lot more wrong with the idea of a man ordering an abortion against the mother's will to avoid child support, but do we really need to get into everywhere that falls down? Isn't it stunningly obvious?

 

[Wowbagger]

Nature does not provide any specific point at which an embryo or fetus becomes a "human being". Development is a gradual process. Even conception is a gradual process, when you look at the details.

Where we choose to draw the draw lines is dependent on where our general needs and interests are.

 

[Manopolus]

I'm not saying that biological issues always take precedence over economic ones. In this case though, I think they do, considering that the baby is very much functionally not just an effect on her body, but a part of her body for this time period.

How many other situations are there where one human must submit to a medical procedure for the economic benefit of another individual?

There's a lot more wrong with the idea of a man ordering an abortion against the mother's will to avoid child support, but do we really need to get into everywhere that falls down? Isn't it stunningly obvious?

I'm not saying a man should be able to force an abortion, though. The question is, if I have no choice, by the fact that my having sex implies responsibilities, then why should they have a choice? I demand that the law be consistent in these matters.

Personally, I think that abortion probably isn't a good thing ethically, but I also don't think that it is the government's responsibility to intervene. I also don't think it's the governments responsibility to intervene in child support in situations where there has never been a marriage nor an agreement to have children.

I hope I've clarified the issue.

 

[Loss Leader]

The women have many options -- abortion, adoption, etc., but men have none, when the aforementioned financial responsibility is assumed.

A baby cannot be adopted away from a father without his consent (or, at least, a showing of persistent neglect coupled with an attempt to repair the parent-child relationship).

A father's financial responsibility to a child is equal to the mother's.




I am a family law attorney.