Writer@Large

You misunderstand the original statement:

I think the fetus becomes human when it is able to survive on its own, outside the womb.

Emphasis mine. Yes, nowadays, a fetus can be maintained outside of the womb, but only on machines that mimic womb functions. The fetus is still not surviving on its own.

No one is saying that a baby should be denied life until they can earn a wage or slay a deer, and I think you know that. "<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=viability" target="_blank">Viablity</a>" in this case simply means "Capable of living outside the uterus," as I think you well know. To read more into it is to be facetious.

See above. Your attempt to draw out this analogy borders on a strawman.

--W@L

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]</p>

GeoTheo

Ok, let me clear up a misconception.
I see why people think I gave a definition.
Sorry for the ambiguity. What I meant was that people wrongly seem to define personhood on the basis of being wanted. And that is why people abort unwanted fetuses and also somtimes want to euthanize unwanted elderly and disabled persons. I do not consider this a valid definition. I mean rather that implicitly or in practice this is how many people actually define personhood, This is not my definition.

GeoTheo

Have you read Alonzo's post?
Was that a straw man also?

Bible Humper

But it's no longer so simple now that the genetic genie is running amok!

The difference between a human and a chimp is very small. The most important differences are in the homeotic genes, the genes that control the expression of other genes, thus determining which cells in a developing embryo are going to specialize as liver cells or as neurons, and how the structures built out of specialized cells are going to be laid out within an anatomical frame.

If you have an alternative control mechanism which could take over the work of these controlling genes, they would become redundant, and as long as the embryo you're working with has the stocks of genes required to make all the specialized kinds of cells you need, you can make any kind of embryo grow into any form you required.

You could make human beings out of pigs, cows, tigers, elephants, rats, bats, etc!

The important thing is that these embryos would develop into beings every bit as human as we are, because humanity is determined almost entirely by the development of the embryo.

We are, after all, merely nature's humans.

The embryos of most farm animals, not to mention pets, are potentially also human!


The genie not only came out of his bottle, he brought his brood!

echidna

There are many full-term pregnancies which don’t qualify to that definition, most of whom today grow into healthy individuals. Given the broad separation in society between physical health & mental ability, it seems a fairly arbitrary way of deciding who makes the cut & who doesn’t.

Writer@Large

I wasn't responding to Alonzo's post; I was correcting your apparent misunderstanding of CuriosityKills' definition.

--W@L

echidna

Hey, if someone decides to start fiddling with human DNA to make homo sapiens with wings, or a prehensile tail, then let’s go over the functional stuff again to determine whether human consciousness and intelligence is there as well. But until then, human DNA is quite sufficiently distinct to make the identification.

Writer@Large

Granted. But before we define someone as a person, don't we by neccessity identify them as "human"? So the issue is germane to the point.

I disagree. I think we can safely differentiate between "on its own" and "on its own with the help of technology."

Indeed. And until it no longer needs that artificial fetus, it is not surviving on its own.

I disagree with your analogy. You can leave a newborn in its crib for the night, and it will still live the next morning. A fetus cannot survive that long independant of the womb or a suitable aritificial substitute.

--W@L

Writer@Large

I am not suggesting [I could never suggest, and nor could anyone else] that the divide between "life" and "not life" or "person" and "not person" is anything but an arbitrary barrier. If there were an objective and unquestionable definition, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

--W@L

Alonzo Fyfe

"By necessity?" No. It is often done, but it is an error. To make "human" a necessary criterion of personhood does not make sense -- it would deny personhood, for example, to an extraterrestrial species, if there are any.


What is the time range you are talking about here?

Is something with the capacity to survive 12 hours a person? And something that can survive only 11 hours not a person? 10 hours? 10 minutes?

Even a conceptus can survive for a little while outside the womb.

And, again, what of the individual on life support?


So, the man with the pacemaker has no rights.


I hold that external criteria, such as ability to survive without technology or outside assistance, is irrelevant to personhood. The only relevant criteria are internal -- facts about the being itself. Otherwise, moral worth (personhood) can be given or taken away merely by changing a person's environment. Put a man at the bottom of a lake. He needs technology to survive. He still has rights. I see no relevant difference between this man at the bottom of a lake and a fetus taken out of a womb. A being's capacity or incapacity to survive if you change its environment is not a relevant foundation for moral status.