Silent Acorns

An embryo/fetus is a "work in progress".

Claudia

Abortion can be the less wrong of several wrong options. And it is the mother who must decide which is the less wrong option.

PopeInTheWoods

Is a fetus human? If you define "human" as "of the species homo sapiens sapiens", then yes. But now comes the much more relevant question of whether a fetus is a person....

Andy

edited for puncutation only

yguy

So is an infant.

Bob Stewart

Before we get too far into a discussion of the status of 'the thing in the womb' during a human pregnancy, why don't we agree to some terminology that will enable us to avoid having to spend time on questions such as "What is it, a reptile?"

Following an implicit suggestion by PopeInTheWoods, let us use the word "person" to mean, minimally, "entity with a right to life at least as strong as the right to life that you and I (normal human adults) now have".

All that this 'rights' talk is intended to do is to provide a convenient way of addressing one aspect of the issue of whether or not having an abortion that one knows will terminate the living fetus is comparable to killing me, an adult human being who is a person.

The question of the status of the entity that is a primary focal point in discussions about the permissibility abortion can then be phrased as

At what point in my (our) development did I (we) become a person(s)?

We can then phrase one approach to the question of the status of the human fetus as

"What are the other 'properties' something that is human must have in order to be a person?"

There is no question about the fact that the human fetus is biologically human, not biologically reptilian. (note well that I did not use the phrase "biologically a human". The same is true of the human conceptus, the human zygote, etc. But, it is also clear that being biologically human is not sufficient for being a person-- my heart his biologically human, but not a human. The same is true of my ear, liver, etc.

I have tried to set the stage for further discussion here without begging any questions against any view. So let us see what happens.

Bob Stewart

Silent Acorns

Yes, so is an infant. But I'm sure that you will agree that it is much further along than a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. You and I have had this discussion before, but I'll repeat it anyway.

First, I'm sure that we both agree that a single sperm and a single egg collectively are not a human life before fertilization. Individually, they therefore have no right to life. Secondly, I'm sure we also agree that a 20 year-old human fully qualifies as a human being and therefore has a right to life. Where we disagree is the point at which a fetus becomes a person with an individual right to life equal to all others.

Based on what I've read here, I'm confident that you believe that a human soul is created at the moment of fertilization, and it is the presence this soul that grants the fetus a right to life. Now, of course, I don't believe that souls exist and so I define the beginning of "personhood" differently.

The minimal qualifications for personhood (an thus a right to life equal to all other persons) for me are:

1. All organs are present and distinguishable
2. These organs should be functional (e.g. the heart should be actually pumping blood)
3. The most important organ, the brain, should be active (i.e. neural activity must have initiated)
4. The fetus should be viable outside of the womb
5. The brain should be conscious and self-aware

When all these can be shown to be true I wouldn't hesitate to call the fetus a person. (1), (2) and (3) are relatively objective. We know the point in fetal development that they occur and so I have no ethical complaint with abortion before this point (at this moment I can't tell you how many weeks this is - hopefully someone here can give me a number). (4) changes with advances in technology and (5) is such a mystery that I won't pretend to know at which point it arises (although I am pretty sure it happens some time before a person's 20th birthday).

I therefore fully support first trimester abortions, get uneasy with second trimester, and would reserve third trimester abortions to medical need - where "medical need" is defined by the medical profession. I also fully support any initiatives that would allow a woman to make her decision and take action on it (should she choose to do so) as soon as possible. I therefore consider that educational material, and drugs like "morning after pills" and RU-486 should be easily available to all women.

PopeInTheWoods

I think we may have touched on this issue before, yguy. I make a distinction between a fetus and an infant because a fetus is solely dependent on, and is a direct threat to the life and health of, exactly one other specific person (namely its mother). Could you please refresh me on your objection to this distinction?

Andy

yguy

Wrong. I have no idea whether a soul is always (or ever) present at fertilization.

Neither does anyone else. That's the problem. If it could be determined reliably that an embryo or fertilized egg possesses no trace of human consciousness, I wouldn't have a problem with destroying it.

Silent Acorns

I still need more clarification to understand your position. Are you saying that the possability that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus has a soul is sufficient reason to outlaw abortion, or that the possability that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus has a trace of human consciousness is suffient reason to outlaw abortion?

Or do you consider the two the same thing (i.e. soul = human consciousness)?

It's my position that there is no such thing as a "soul" and that the only way to have human consciousness is to be in possesion of a functioning human brain. A fertilized egg cannot have a functioning human brain and is therefore not conscious.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
The minimal qualifications for personhood (an thus a right to life equal to all other persons) for me are:

1. All organs are present and distinguishable
2. These organs should be functional (e.g. the heart should be actually pumping blood)
3. The most important organ, the brain, should be active (i.e. neural activity must have initiated)
4. The fetus should be viable outside of the womb
5. The brain should be conscious and self-aware

Toss #1 and #2. People can live with a missing organ. If a kidney doesn't develop for some reason it has no bearing on personhood. Is LadyShea not a person because she donated a kidney??

#3 can be tossed as it's implied in #5.

Personally I don't see #4 as relevant.

I therefore fully support first trimester abortions, get uneasy with second trimester, and would reserve third trimester abortions to medical need - where "medical need" is defined by the medical profession. I also fully support any initiatives that would allow a woman to make her decision and take action on it (should she choose to do so) as soon as possible. I therefore consider that educational material, and drugs like "morning after pills" and RU-486 should be easily available to all women.

I don't have a problem with second-trimester, either, but I don't like third trimester. I'm not sure that the trimester line is the dividing point, though.