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

[Andrew Wiggin]

I'll second the folks who have said that a pre-viability fetus is a complex teratoma. It has potential to become human, but is not yet human, regardless of being composed of human tissue.

I believe a child begins to be human when viable outside its mother, and comes into its full set of human rights when it achieves the capacity for rational thought.

As a proxy for rational thought, I'd be willing to substitute an age at which one would usually expect a child to think rationally, for example the age at which we'd legally allow a child to choose to die for a cause, 18 or so. (military service eligibility)

Willingness to put your life on the line implies taking ownership and responsibility for that life, as well as the capacity to think of things greater than one's own immediate needs. The problem comes in that some folks will never, regardless of age, reach that point.

I've wondered at times if the system Heinlein set up in his 'starship troopers' novel wouldn't be a good way to sort this out. Everyone is born with the basic 'life, liberty, pursuit of happiness' sorts of rights. The only ones who have the full franchise though are those who have completed a term of public service.
A

 

[Manopolus]

I've wondered at times if the system Heinlein set up in his 'starship troopers' novel wouldn't be a good way to sort this out. Everyone is born with the basic 'life, liberty, pursuit of happiness' sorts of rights. The only ones who have the full franchise though are those who have completed a term of public service.
A

Well, I've been in the army, and I don't necessarily agree that veterans are necessarily better than anyone else. I rather liked the movie though... especially the multisex showers!

 

[tourmaline]

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?

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?

I might agree that it is a human at conception becuse it is an organism that contains all the nececary genetic material and potential to develop into adulthood naturaly. But I dont think that every such organism should be born.

 

[Cavemonster]

I've wondered at times if the system Heinlein set up in his 'starship troopers' novel wouldn't be a good way to sort this out. Everyone is born with the basic 'life, liberty, pursuit of happiness' sorts of rights. The only ones who have the full franchise though are those who have completed a term of public service.
A

Part of my problem with that is that at times in history, to serve in the army has been to actively further goals that may be against what I perceive to be in the best interests of my country. But that's for another thread.

 

[Clownshoes]

I in no way religious but I tend to believe we should at least give them a chance to live and become something. Whats the point of snuffing out their life when they have so much potential to do amazing things? Who knows they might be the next Feynman.

 

[Cavemonster]

I in no way religious but I tend to believe we should at least give them a chance to live and become something. Whats the point of snuffing out their life when they have so much potential to do amazing things? Who knows they might be the next Feynman.

The problem is that the same logic applies easily to contraception, or even to abstinence if you stretch it a bit.

 

[tourmaline]

The problem is that the same logic applies easily to contraception, or even to abstinence if you stretch it a bit.

Yeah if people are not trying to get laid then its murder

 

[Manopolus]

Yeah if people are not trying to get laid then its murder

Yeah, I agree... if every sperm doesn't have at least a CHANCE to get to an egg, it's a bad thing. By law we should be required to get laid at least every other day.

(added)

I'm not sure whether I'm being sarcastic or not, but it was definately an attempt at humor.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Part of my problem with that is that at times in history, to serve in the army has been to actively further goals that may be against what I perceive to be in the best interests of my country. But that's for another thread.

Regardless of the way it was implied in the somewhat related movie of the same name, public service didn't just imply military. It did imply working for the betterment of your fellow man, but not neccesarily by means of shooting at them. Lots of avenues to public service.

A

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Well, I've been in the army, and I don't necessarily agree that veterans are necessarily better than anyone else. I rather liked the movie though... especially the multisex showers!

The book's argument wasn't based on the concept that veterans of public service were better, or more suited, but more that they'd self selected as having an interest in successful outcomes for the species as a whole, not just themselves. Very pragmatic: you put the people in charge who have demonstrated that the outcome matters to them in more than a personal sense.

A

 

[Manopolus]

Regardless of the way it was implied in the somewhat related movie of the same name, public service didn't just imply military. It did imply working for the betterment of your fellow man, but not neccesarily by means of shooting at them. Lots of avenues to public service.

A

Yeah, there are actual countries which require this to some extent if I am not mistaken. Paraguay comes to mind... seems like I remember an old friend from there saying something about it, anyway.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Yeah, there are actual countries which require this to some extent if I am not mistaken. Paraguay comes to mind... seems like I remember an old friend from there saying something about it, anyway.

If I recall, Switzerland requires it in the literal 'here's your gun, you're in the army now' sense. Not sure how they handle consciencious objection and such. I'd probably be an objector under those terms.

A

 

[tourmaline]

Yeah, I agree... if every sperm doesn't have at least a CHANCE to get to an egg, it's a bad thing. By law we should be required to get laid at least every other day.

(added)

I'm not sure whether I'm being sarcastic or not, but it was definately an attempt at humor.

Wow I'd never thought I'd be both enthusastic and disturbed by posible sincerity.

But humorous anyway

 

[SeanDamnit]

The problem is that the same logic applies easily to contraception, or even to abstinence if you stretch it a bit.

I'd argue that the fact that life is already forming makes the logic distinct from contraception. It's my belief that given the extremes "it starts human" and "not until birth", all choices in between are arbitrary. I feel it needs to be one or the other, and I favor the former.

Not a lot of athiest pro-lifers out there...I wonder why that is? Is pro-life just such a popular talking point for the religious right that it drowns out secular opinions on the matter?

 

[Lothian]

I see there is no poll option here but I would go for somewhere between 4-5 years old.

 

[Soapy Sam]

How long is a piece of string?
Twice the distance from one end to the middle.

 

[Loss Leader]

Do you see the problem?

Nope.

 

[Belz...]

Personally, the moment "thinking" becomes "possible" isn't particularily noteworthy because we don't know if the child "really" thinks at this point.

Foetus viability might be a nice cut-off point, assuming it's easy to determine.

ETA: I see Ausmerican and Skeptigirl... er... Ginger... have already made this point.

 

[Belz...]

Baleeted. Should've read further. Also, off-topic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Some of you really might want to read that article I linked by Sagan and Druyan.

They mention the viability of a fetus to live outside the mother and rule that out based on the idea that it is a sliding scale based on technology.

If the fetus at a certain stage of gestation would be viable outside the womb, the argument goes, then the right of the fetus to life overrides the right of the woman to privacy. But just what does "viable" mean? Even a full-term newborn is not viable without a great deal of care and love. There was a time before incubators, only a few decades ago, when babies in their seventh month were unlikely to be viable. Would aborting in the seventh month have been permissible then? After the invention of incubators, did aborting pregnancies in the seventh month suddenly become immoral? What happens if, in the future, a new technology develops so that an artificial womb can sustain a fetus even before the sixth month by delivering oxygen and nutrients through the blood--as the mother does through the placenta and into the fetal blood system? We grant that this technology is unlikely to be developed soon or become available to many. But if it were available, does it then become immoral to abort earlier than the sixth month, when previously it was moral? A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality; for some, it is also an unacceptable morality.