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

[Belz...]

Of course. Somebody is bound to argue that humans aren't viable anyway, because we all end up dead at some point.

 

[TimCallahan]

I've always heard it referred to as "thinking man." Or something like that... anyway, it was about definition, and not particularly pertinant, but an attempt to be witty by being overly literal. I suppose it failed.

Specifically, sapiens is the gerund form of the verb sapare. In English we designate gerunds by adding "ing" to the end of the verb root. So "thinking" is a direct one-to-one translation of sapiens.

 

[TimCallahan]

One criterion for a fetus becoming legally a person might be - and I believe someone has already mentioned this - when all the neurons in the brain link up and the synapses are all active, thus meaning that the brain is now an active unit, rather than a mere collection of nerve cells.

That said, it might be better to err on the side of caution and limit abortion to the first trimester except in cases that endanger the mothers life or in cases of gross defects incompatible with life, such as anencephaly.

I'm surprised that none of the Christians on this forum have ventured an opinion on this matter.

 

[Robin]

I know what you mean... my mother is a special education consultant, so believe me, it's not through any hateful prejudice that I make that distinction.

However, the definition of "human" is directly linked to logic and thought -- which requires language. It is assumed by the roots of the word, itself.

Not true though, I can completely plan out in my mind the best way of acheiving the task like climbing onto my roof and putting something over the chimney without using any words at all. I don't even know the word for the stuff I am putting over the opening, but I don't need to since I have an image in my mind of what it is.

I only need to use words to describe it when I get to the hardware shop to buy it.

So rational thought does not require language.

 

[Trent Wray]

Of course. Somebody is bound to argue that humans aren't viable anyway, because we all end up dead at some point.

I like this!

Reminds of a saying in cardiology, "the only stable rhythm is asystole"

 

[Cainkane1]

While I believe abortion should be legal I personally would prefer the woman to have the baby unless the womans life is in danger or if the baby was conceived as the result of rape. However its the womans (or girls) choice not mine.

I personally feel that a fetus is at least human enough to deserve life at any stage of developement. I stress though I would not prevent a woman from aborting her baby even if I had the power to do so.

 

[Manopolus]

Nope.

Ah, well. Lawyers often have this blind spot. The law is always right in a court of law. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

(added) Please ignore the suggestive ad homenim in this... perhaps a response to your appeal to self authority earlier. In any case, just let it go.

 

[Manopolus]

On another note I guess I'd probably better drop out of this one, since the abortion question is particularly irrelevant to me. I could live in both a system where it was legal and in one where it was illegal without really being notably affected by the issue either way. My participation here has been more one of humor and a side issue more than anything else. As such, I don't belong in this one and am removing myself... good luck coming to any conclusions.

(added) I guess my stance on abortion is: "I really don't care."

 

[blutoski]

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.

The prevailing secular pro-choice moral argument is that it is the right of a woman make decisions about her body, and that this supercedes a fetus' right to live because its dependence is an outsider's demand on her body.

Given this axiom, the father has no right to make demands for the same reason the government has no right to make demands.

This is an argument from the [fetus is a person]/[abortion is morally permissible] quadrant.



The common counterargument for this is that it's not just the woman's body in question (that the fetus is a person whose body is affected by the decision), and that protection of a person supercedes the temporary inconvenience and statistically low risk associated with pregnancy.

This is an argument from the [fetus is a person]/[abortion is not morally permissible] quadrant.



We're all familiar with the [fetus is not a person]/[abortion is not morally permissible] quadrant. It's pretty self-explanatory.



Surprisingly, there is a [fetus is not a person]/[abortion is not morally permissible] quadrant with some arguments. The most common one is the potentiality argument: that a fetus has the potential to become a person, so should be treated as a person. This is the weakest argument quadrant, in my opinion. However, it has implications for other moral dilemmas such as whether we are human when asleep or knocked unconscious, or when in a coma with or wihout prospects for recovery.

 

[blutoski]

Okay, to bring it back to what I was originally talking about, is it an individual human being from the point of conception? If so, why?

Biologically human. But so's a tumour.

If it's not human, either philosophically or under the law, at the point of conception, when does it become human? At the end of the first trimester? At the end of the second? At no time prior to birth?

The question is usually phrased as asking if a fetus is a person.

However, it's important to understand that the current moral arguments rarely revolve around this determination anyway, as they are almost always couched in secular terms before the courts.


Here's something: the most internally consistent secular description of personhood is self-awareness or a resonable expectation of the imminent establishment of self-awareness, which means that even neonates are not defined as 'persons'. This also includes those in comas or vegetative states without prospects of recovery.

 

[uruk]

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.

It's not entirely you. It is only 50% you. The "teratoma" DNA sequence deviates from you by half of it's chromosomes.
And though it does paracitize you it is not the same as a tape worm. How many tape worms are geneticaly related to you by 50%?

 

[uruk]

I liked this post from this thread.

Even the point at which the fetus is capable of feeling pain is an arbitrary line. Does the fact that you are causing it any pain any more significant than the results of terminating it?

It sounds like the concern is more with the fact that we would know that we were causing pain to a living organizim. Yet there is less concern about termination?

Would it be more moral if we anestitized the fetus before termination?

 

[uruk]

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.

Bingo. The definition of person varies depending on the situation.

It will always been an arbitrary line.

BTW look up the contiuum fallacy. I think it may apply in the OP case.

 

[Trent Wray]

Apart from the idea of a "soul" and the idea that a person "might become the next _________ and greatly benefit society" ...

... would abortion be such a hot topic if humans were, say, marsupial? Or perhaps we layed (sp) multiple eggs with shells into an external nest that could be easily stepped on or destroyed?

Obviously the health of the mother would still be an issue, but would we view the "sacredness" or rights of the fetus/egg/etc with the same veracity, given that it was exposed to the elements and outside forces that could cause the abortion much more easily? It seems because our babies are "hidden" until ready to come out (and also that we have such small "litters" on average), we debate on whether or not they are "something" worth anything at all while in the hidden state, when we might not think twice about losing a couple eggs in a nest or a fetus crawling out of the pouch in the middle of the night and dying by morning.

 

[uruk]

Biologically human. But so's a tumour.

A fetus is not quite a tumor. How many tumors develop into a separate human being?

 

[Belz...]

A fetus is not quite a tumor. How many tumors develop into a separate human being?

I don't know. Maybe we should let one live long enough and find out!

 

[Beerina]

Even if you accept the magic of "ensoulment" at the point of conception, that still doesn't solve the problem.

There are rare humans called "chimeras" who are the ultimate in conjoined twins -- two genetically different, fertilized eggs that begin to develop, but then become mingled, yielding one single body with a mixture of the cells all over the place.

This isn't where there's an extra leg, or extra something internal. Just normal flesh, but made up of two genetically different cells (insofar as fraternal siblings would be different.)

It's very, very rare (like 30-some known cases???) and the "twist" ending to a number of crime dramas (and a House episode ) with DNA evidence. But also very real.


So where did the extra soul go? Did God take it away to Heaven? Or maybe both and added a 3rd? Or not bother ensoul-ing both because He knew it would become a chimera? Or is there a bizarre, unimagined state for two to co-exist somehow?

 

[uruk]

Of course. Somebody is bound to argue that humans aren't viable anyway, because we all end up dead at some point.

Well I'm all for abortion up to the 99th year of fetal development.

 

[blutoski]

A fetus is not quite a tumor. How many tumors develop into a separate human being?

How many fetuses do?

In any case: that's the potentiality argument I mentioned earlier.

One weakness of the potentiality argument is the premise that we treat something as the thing it might become.

The argument in practice:

P1: IF [A] can become THEN we treat [A] as if it is already
P2: [a fetus] can become [a seperate human being]
C: so we treat [a fetus] as if it were [a seperate human being] already

Here's other applications of the potentiality argument:

P1: IF [A] can become THEN we treat [A] as if it is already
P2: [a child] can become [a criminal]
C: so we treat [a child] as if it were [a criminal] already

Looks like there's something wrong with P1.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I like this!

Reminds of a saying in cardiology, "the only stable rhythm is asystole"

From the same folks who gave us 'all bleeding stops, sooner or later' no doubt.

A