brighid

A fetus is, at some point human. It is not however, a human being when say in the blastocyst stage it only a few hundred cells that happen to contain human DNA. That is why we have legal standards regarding regulation of abortion. In the earliest stages of development their is nothing distinguishably human about the product of conception, as time goes by the developing fetus naturally acquires more and more the necessary framework to exist outside of the womb. In some cases, specifically that of genetic or fetal abnormality that development does not take place, and although a normal or undisturbed pregnancy in the 7th or 8th month would produce a fetus with the ability to function outside of the womb, the necessary biological equipment are severly malformed or non-existent. Therefore that fetus, as determined by a competant medical professional and the woman (and/or her partner) base the level of "personhood" upon those particular circumstances. That is why we have guidelines and why the later stages of pregnancy have more restrictions on abortion, but it also why the Supreme Court was unable to over turn late-term (or as it is improperly labeled "partial birth") abortion.

A person who is brain dead, is still a human being and even has "living" organs but the person is, or will soon die a completely bodily death. A fetus, without a brain or nervous system developed beyond the ability for basic organ function, development or reflective reaction is human, but not a "person". Neither the brain dead person, or the developing fetus has any self-awareness, although the fetus may have the ability to grow to be a person and the brain dead individual will never recover. However, in the case of the fetus it lives as a parasite within the body of it's FULLY human mother, who in fact has rights and the rights of the FULLY human person supersede the rights of the fetus.

If a woman choses to terminate a pregnancy at any stage of development she may, although later stages have restrictions as they should. A fetus is not more important than it's mother, unless the mother choses to forfeit her rights or life willingly for her the unborn child. It is immoral to take away the rights of a fully human person because they have the ability to support the life of another being, that is not yet a person.

See this article: http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/11/features-wertheim.php - for some insight.

Brighid

Loren Pechtel

I don't think we know.

However, to me the only real difference between us and the animals is our brain. Therefore, personhood must reside in the brain. Therefore there is no way that personhood can exist until there is a functional brain and conciousness--which sets a lower bound at about 6 months gestation.

crocodile deathroll

I honestly think that you are not threatened unless you feel threatened and a 3 month old fetus is in no position to feel threatened.

long winded fool

But no one has given the exact moment when a human being attains the right to life, or the exact moment when a non-human fetus becomes human. If you don't know whether or not a fetus has the right to life, then how can it be killed? Since a fetus is alive, shouldn't we be sure that it is not an innocent human being with inalienable rights? Is it a safe practice to legally allow certain humans to grant and withdraw the right to life from other humans for their own convenience? If the unborn thing is not human, is a human, then, something more than a homo sapiens sapiens? The dictionary defines a human being as a member of the family hominidae of the group homo. If there is more than this required for a human to have the right to life, what is required? Where is the line drawn and by what authority? If scientists can't figure out exactly when a fetus becomes the species of human, or if politicians can't decide which humans have rights and which do not, then how is it that a thirteen year old girl has the authority to declare it? This is not rational. The only way abortion would make legal sense is if humanity is not present in the fetus until a certain point. But this opens up many difficult questions such as, "What is the point of humanity/rights exactly?" and "If it is not human, what is it?"

The argument of the hunter applies here. If a hunter hears a rustle in a nearby bush, can he fire into the bush indiscriminantly, or should he see what's in there first? If it is on his own property, does this have any bearing on whether or not he needs to make sure that what he's killing is not a human?

dk

First I ask myself what is a detached embroy. Well, if it is alive. then the only suitable answer must be a human being.

Second I ask what is a human life worth? Well, I value my life, and the life of my children and spouse above my own life. Of course this doesn't mean I can steal, lie, and murder my neighbor because I value mine over theirs. The very proposition devalues everyone's life, because my neighbors would come to realize the threat mine poses to theirs. Actually If value human life, then I can't kill anyone intentionally unless they present an eminent threat, and even then I really don't want to kill them, but eliminate the deadly threat they intentionally impose upon mine.

Third, how can anybody intend to kill another human being without making human life arbitrary. I don't know, it doesn't seem possible to me.

Loren Pechtel

Note that I defined a lower bound rather than an exact value.

long winded fool

But there must be an exact value where it's safe to kill it and not be guilty of murder. If the thing in the bush doesn't respond to shouts and the bush is relatively small, is the hunter then entitled to shoot since there is only a very small chance that the thing in the bush is human? Note that it can't be legally killed unless it is definitely not an innocent human. If it is human, a "ballpark" range is not enough to assume a given human has no rights and another does. Do human rights depend on consciousness and a fully functional brain? Aren't there humans who do not have fully functional brains who have equal rights to those that do? Does being unconscious nullify any rights?

It is not rational to kill a thing for the sake of convenience if no one knows whether or not it is a human and entitled to human rights. Simply declaring it to be inhuman and destroying it should be illegal if the laws of this country follow logically. Until science agrees on the point at which a non-human fetus becomes human, or when politicians agree which humans have rights in this country and which do not, abortion should be illegal. The very crux of the issue rests on this, and since we don't know, it is only logical that abortion be outlawed until we do.

Isn't this rational? Am I missing a key point in this seemingly air-tight argument?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
But there must be an exact value where it's safe to kill it and not be guilty of murder.

Correct. Since we don't currently know what the exact value is we need to choose a value we are sure is on the safe side of it--that's what I'm doing.

Do human rights depend on consciousness and a fully functional brain? Aren't there humans who do not have fully functional brains who have equal rights to those that do? Does being unconscious nullify any rights?

I define personhood to be from the first conciouosness to the last conciousness. Outside that range it is not a person. (Yes, that means that patients who will never wake up again I consider dead.)

Until science agrees on the point at which a non-human fetus becomes human,

They can't--it's a matter of definition. Science can tell you what meets your definition but it can't make the definition.

The very crux of the issue rests on this, and since we don't know, it is only logical that abortion be outlawed until we do.

Isn't this rational? Am I missing a key point in this seemingly air-tight argument?

You are missing the key point that the fundamental issue here is one of defiinition, not science or politics.

You seem to be arguing that since people can't agree we should take the most restrictive definition. How about the following:

1) Banning abortion is an imposition on a woman's right to obtain health care. We can't agree on what is acceptable so we should take the most conservative answer--no imposition is permitted. Abortion is ok at any time.

or to take it to another extreme:

2) The technology currently exists to turn human cells into people. (Whether cloning has actually occured or not is moot, we certainly know how.) For a doctor to casually destroy cells which could have been saved is murder. All forms of blood test are prohibited.

or another approach:

3) Denying the egg it's needed sperm is failure to take adequate care. Not having unprotected sex every month from puberty to menopause (unless already pregnant) is child abuse the same as not feeding or providing medical care for your child would be.

long winded fool

So what you're saying is that humans don't have inalienable rights, persons have inalienable rights. And you define person as a conscious human. Here is a question; is it considered murder to sneak into a hospital and pull the plug on a patient who will never wake up again? Keep in mind that I'm not asking if you think it should be murder, I'm asking if it IS murder. Can I be charged with murder if I attack a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage before her unborn child is conscious? Shouldn't this be aggravated assault at worst? If I kill a pregnant woman, shouldn't it be unconstitutional to charge me on a double count of murder? The laws say one thing, and then they contradict themselves.

So then human rights are subject to individual interpretation? I don't think this is how it works. I think science and politics do give us definitions. And these definitions are ones that all have to respect. Science and politics have told me that dark-skinned people are persons the same as light-skinned; therefore I have to honor this if I want to stay out of trouble, regardless of my personal opinion.

Banning abortion is only a restriction on women's rights if the aborted life form is not human or is a human with no human rights. This must be proven. Until it is, it must be assumed to be a human (see the hunter analogy) and women's rights become included in the fetus' rights. There's no such thing as "women's rights." There are human rights. A woman has a right to do what she pleases with her body the same as a man. She does not have the right to do what she pleases with someone else's body, even if they are not conscious. If women did have this right, then I would have the right to do what I want to a woman's body, or prevent her from doing what she wants to her own body. Do you see the contradiction? Women and men have equal rights. A woman cannot obtain health care at the expense of another's life, unless the other person is directly threatening her life. Therefore, it is logical to ban abortion in all but situations involving life-threatening complications. If the fetus has human rights, its right to life logically supercedes the mother's right to happiness.

Since human cells are not humans, it is not murder to destroy them. Since neither a human egg nor a human sperm are a human being, it is not murder to destroy either. Since all homo sapiens sapiens are humans, and since there is currently no restriction on the right of an innocent human to life, abortion ought to be banned. Since preventing life is not destroying life, contraception is not analogous to abortion.

openeyes

[QUOTE]Originally posted by long winded fool




"There's no such thing as "women's rights." There are human rights. A woman has a right to do what she pleases with her body the same as a man. She does not have the right to do what she pleases with someone else's body, even if they are not conscious. "

You seem to be ignoring that this other "body" is using the woman's body for sustenance, and will continue to be strongly attached with the woman's life (in healthy situations) for many years.

Realistically, we as a society do not treat three month old fetuses as people. When a woman has a "spontaneous abortion", better known as a miscarriage before 12 weeks (estimated one in four or five pregnancies end that way), we don't publish obituaries, hold a funeral, tell the world, etc. It's just handled privately. We instinctively know there wasn't really a child present yet.

For those of us like me who think there is more to being human then a bunch of cells that are working together in a certain way with certain DNA, terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a much better choice than bringing a child into the world which you aren't prepared to raise properly.