At what point is an embryo or fetus a human life?

[Lam]

I think we can reasonably agree that, at some point during development, a fetus meets all of the biological criteria of being a human life and deserves protection. However, it's obvious to me that an embryo the moment after conception isn't the equivalent of a cogent human life, for example. Just as there is plenty of historical precedent for abortions being allowed and not legally considered the same as taking a human life.

We can easily dismiss individuals who want to disregard the human life equation entirely and frame abortion solely as an issue of "legal rights", but that still leaves the question of determining at what point a human life comes into being, and how to decide that.

 

[reinaert]

It's human life at fertilization. It's just not a person. It isn't a person until it leaves an actual person's body.

Any other conclusion reduces women to incubators, property and second class status.

But, let's assume full personhood at conception.

So what?

 

[Lam]

It's human life at fertilization. It's just not a person. It isn't a person until it leaves an actual person's body.

We already address this. I'm dismissing the line of reasoning which tries to disregard the life equation entirely in favor of purely legal definitions of "personhood".

Any other conclusion reduces women to incubators, property and second class status.

Nonsense.

 

[iguanaman]

I think we can reasonably agree that, at some point during development, a fetus meets all of the biological criteria of being a human life and deserves protection. However, it's obvious to me that an embryo the moment after conception isn't the equivalent of a cogent human life, for example. Just as there is plenty of historical precedent for abortions being allowed and not legally considered the same as taking a human life.

We can easily dismiss individuals who want to disregard the human life equation entirely and frame abortion solely as an issue of "legal rights", but that still leaves the question of determining at what point a human life comes into being, and how to decide that.

The standard of viability outside the womb is the most honest way of determining when a fetus becomes a person and should be protected. Anything else is just religious nonsense. A person cannot be a parasite of another. Even the bible talks of the "breath of life" and an individual's life begins with their first breath. Do you celebrate your birth or your conception?

 

[MamboDervish]

... but that still leaves the question of determining at what point a human life comes into being, and how to decide that.

Easy! With the first breath. Your birthday is your breath day - your breath day is your birthday. It's the day you join humanity. It is the same day you will celebrate every year for the rest of your life. It is the day your identity is bestowed upon you. It's the day you exit the womb. It is the day you are given a name. It's the day you are welcomed into this world. It's the day you arrive!

And not one day before.

 

[reinaert]

We already address this.

No, we did not. A blastocyst is a fully human stage of life. Full stop.

In good faith, I answered your question. It's a beggared question, certainly, and so oft answered as to be cliché, which is why it becomes necessary to establish more robust parameters for discussion.

Of course, a blastocyst is human. My wife's cancer nodules were also 100% human. Both get to be cut out because they are not persons. So, a better way of understanding how to discuss abortion is to center its use on which person has the autonomy, severalty and self-posession needed to contract for or receive that medical procedure. Which human life has real, actionable autonomy.

And that boundary is very clear: only the pregnant person, unless, of course, Leviathan is deployed to constrain and punitively restrict her autonomy.

I'm dismissing the line of reasoning which tries to disregard the life equation entirely in favor of purely legal definitions of "personhood".

Yeah, no one wrote anything about 'legal personhood'. When my wife was fighting cancer, and when she was pregnant, I could talk to only her. Neither the blastocyst nor the tumor could engage me as persons.

Nonsense.

A confession, this reaction. You know, I think, that the whole project is about depriving women of autonomy.

 

[Lam]

No, we did not. A blastocyst is a fully human stage of life. Full stop.

In good faith, I answered your question. It's a beggared question, certainly, and so oft answered as to be cliché, which is why it becomes necessary to establish more robust parameters for discussion.

Of course, a blastocyst is human. My wife's cancer nodules were also 100% human. Both get to be cut out because they are not persons. So, a better way of understanding how to discuss abortion is to center its use on which person has the autonomy, severalty and self-posession needed to contract for or receive that medical procedure. Which human life has real, actionable autonomy.

We are not talking about being "human" in the sense of "having human DNA" or whatever definition you're using. I'm arguing that, during some point in development, a fetus meets the criteria of personhood.

And that boundary is very clear: only the pregnant person, unless, of course, Leviathan is deployed to constrain and punitively restrict her autonomy.



Yeah, no one wrote anything about 'legal personhood'. When my wife was fighting cancer, and when she was pregnant, I could talk to only her. Neither the blastocyst nor the tumor could engage me as persons.



A confession, this reaction. You know, I think, that the whole project is about depriving women of autonomy.

Being a person isn't based on "autonomy" or whatever definition you're using.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I think we can reasonably agree that, at some point during development, a fetus meets all of the biological criteria of being a human life and deserves protection. However, it's obvious to me that an embryo the moment after conception isn't the equivalent of a cogent human life, for example. Just as there is plenty of historical precedent for abortions being allowed and not legally considered the same as taking a human life.

We can easily dismiss individuals who want to disregard the human life equation entirely and frame abortion solely as an issue of "legal rights", but that still leaves the question of determining at what point a human life comes into being, and how to decide that.

21.

 

[reinaert]

We are not talking about being "human" in the sense of "having human DNA" or whatever definition you're using. I'm arguing that, during some point in development, a fetus meets the criteria of personhood.

That's easy for you to scribble out because you curiously abstain from a definition of personhood.

Being a person isn't based on "autonomy" or whatever definition you're using.

Of course it is. If you have ever had a screaming infant on your shoulder at 3 in the morning, its shit running down your pant legs, its vomit in your hair, and its cries breaking your heart, you know with a justified certainty that it, and its pain, are separate from you, and that you must find a way to bridge the incommensurateness of that gulf to salve its hurt, and maybe, just maybe get your also separate self an hour of sleep before shower drive work coworker who don't stop droning too short lunch stupid boss stupider boss's boss drive home exhaustion crying baby again.

A fetus, not so much.

 

[Lam]

The standard of viability outside the womb is the most honest way of determining when a fetus becomes a person and should be protected. Anything else is just religious nonsense. A person cannot be a parasite of another. Even the bible talks of the "breath of life" and an individual's life begins with their first breath. Do you celebrate your birth or your conception?

Nope, "Parasite" has a definition in biology, and a human fetus does not meet that criteria. You're just using that world in a nonsensical, rhetorical term.

Parasitism - Definition, Types and Examples | Biology Dictionary

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship, or long-term relationship between two species, where one member, the parasite, gains benefits that come at the expense of the host member. The word parasite comes from the Latin form of the Greek word παράσιτος (parasitos), meaning "one who eats at...

biologydictionary.net

And yes, a person can, under the law, be required to depend for another. A parent can be required to provide for a 2-year old child, and held legally accountable if they let the child die. Pretty simple.

 

[Lam]

That's easy for you to scribble out because you curiously abstain from a definition of personhood.

Of course it is. If you have ever had a screaming infant on your shoulder at 3 in the morning, its shit running down your pant legs, its vomit in your hair, and its cries breaking your heart, you know with a justified certainty that it, and its pain, are separate from you, and that you must find a way to bridge the incommensurateness of that gulf to salve its hurt, and maybe, just maybe get your also separate self an hour of sleep before shower drive work coworker who don't stop droning too short lunch stupid boss stupider boss's boss drive home exhaustion crying baby again.

A fetus, not so much.

Oh please, a robot could illicit that reaction from you, but that wouldn't make a robot a "person. The definitions need to have some biological basis, not absurd ones such as "autonomy".

 

[BirdinHand]

It’s a fetus until it’s born.

Once born, it’s a baby and a new person.

Until birth, there is zero way of knowing if a fetus is going to live through birth and be able to survive outside the womb.

Fetuses die in birth. Fetuses die at birth. Fetuses die the morning a mother is scheduled to give birth. Sometimes, Birth kills . It’s a complex process. Fetuses undergo physiological changes during birth that allows them to live outside the womb. Sometimes these go wrong.

None of those fetuses are given birth dates or birth certificates. They’re never acknowledged as a person legally anywhere. Can they be mourned and are they mourned? Often incredibly so.

Birth is the point of differentiation and no sooner.

 

[Lam]

It’s a fetus until it’s born.

Once born, it’s a baby and a new person.

That's appealing to the law, I'm not talking about the law.

Until birth, there is zero way of knowing if a fetus is going to live through birth and be able to survive outside the womb.

Fetuses die in birth. Fetuses die at birth. Fetuses die the morning a mother is scheduled to give birth. Sometimes, Birth kills . It’s a complex process. Fetuses undergo physiological changes during birth that allows them to live outside the womb. Sometimes these go wrong.

None of those fetuses are given birth dates or birth certificates. They’re never acknowledged as a person legally anywhere. Can they be mourned and are they mourned? Often incredibly so.

Birth is the point of differentiation and no sooner.

So you're skirting the biological equation entirely.

 

[BirdinHand]

So you're skirting the biological equation entirely

This sentence actually made my eyes roll

 

[reinaert]

Oh please, a robot could illicit that reaction from you, but that wouldn't make a robot a "person. The definitions need to have some biological basis, not absurd ones such as "autonomy".

Heh. Shenanigans.

But thank you for admitting that you see no distinction between a crying infant and a robot.

 

[acco40]

The issue, as I see it is there is conception (well defined but difficult for others to determine an exact time) and birth - easily determined time wise.

Everything developmental stage between those events is somewhat fuzzy. That’s why, from a practical perspective our laws should be based on either conception or birth events. But conception, due to its vague determination is problematic. So we have a cornucopia of laws - quickening, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 15 weeks, first trimester, second trimester, etc. All trying to assuage the issue that the vast majority of folks do not want to legalize an induced abortion on an otherwise healthy fetus at 36 weeks nor outlaw an abortion of an eight cell zygote.

So some struggle to define a timeline to ameliorate their uneasiness with the issue. But that’s really a fools game. Either make abortion legal (at all stages) or illegal (at all stages). We are now seeing the issues that arise with restrictive abortion laws and most of us don’t want a woman/girl kill an otherwise healthy fetus days before a scheduled birth. So what do we do as a society?

For me, the answer is easy. Treat abortions like a prescription. Make it legal but require a doctor to “prescribe” the procedure. In other words, the decision to abort or carry to term is between the woman and her physician. But a woman can’t obtain an abortion without a physician’s prescription.

 

[Lursa]

I never understand how this basic grammar school question continually ends up being brought up re: this issue.

If it's implanted inside a human woman, it is an individual, living Homo sapiens at fertilization/implantation. This is a biological fact. Note: this has nothing to do with the abortion issue. It's merely scientific categorization. Biology does not recognize rights or value for any species at any stage of development.

It's the wrong question to ask regarding the legal issue of abortion. It's also the wrong question to asked regarding its moral aspects.

 

[Noodlegawd]

It's human life at fertilization. It's just not a person. It isn't a person until it leaves an actual person's body.

Any other conclusion reduces women to incubators, property and second class status.

But, let's assume full personhood at conception.

So what?

Too many people make it about semantics, which is just begging the question. In my opinion the only questions you need to ask yourself are the following:

1. What are the characteristics of a human being AFTER it is born that make us believe it should be illegal to kill it?

2. When, if ever, does an embryo or fetus have enough of those characteristics to justify limitations on the freedom of the mother in order to protect it BEFORE it is born?

I think most rational people would agree that a 10-12 week old fetus has no more of those characteristics than what a lot of us ate for dinner, and therefore no restrictions on the freedom of the mother are warranted in order to protect it.

On the other hand, I also think that most rational people would agree that a 39 week old healthy fetus has pretty much all of those characteristics, to the point where it potentially justifies a week of restriction on the freedom of the mother.

 

[iguanaman]

Nope, "Parasite" has a definition in biology, and a human fetus does not meet that criteria. You're just using that world in a nonsensical, rhetorical term.

Parasitism - Definition, Types and Examples | Biology Dictionary

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship, or long-term relationship between two species, where one member, the parasite, gains benefits that come at the expense of the host member. The word parasite comes from the Latin form of the Greek word παράσιτος (parasitos), meaning "one who eats at...

biologydictionary.net

And yes, a person can, under the law, be required to depend for another. A parent can be required to provide for a 2-year old child, and held legally accountable if they let the child die. Pretty simple.

2 year olds are persons no argument there. You can't own another person's body though, anything growing inside you is yours and yours alone.

 

[KingLeo]

To me it is about viability. And most all legal and medical definitions places that at between 20 and 25 weeks of the pregnancy.

 

[Lursa]

Too many people make it about semantics, which is just begging the question. In my opinion the only questions you need to ask yourself are the following:

1. What are the characteristics of a human being AFTER it is born that make us believe it should be illegal to kill it?

Man-made concepts of rights and laws that determine it. Why does the reason have to be based on human characteristics?

Also what makes you think the reasoning is based only on the unborn? The woman also factors into ANY action upon the unborn by the state...the state cannot kill or protect the unborn inside a woman without her consent...which is also based on the concept of rights.

2. When, if ever, does an embryo or fetus have enough of those characteristics to justify limitations on the freedom of the mother in order to protect it BEFORE it is born?

See above. You'll have to make some argument first, why killing depends on some kind of 'characteristics.' What do you propose?

I think most rational people would agree that a 10-12 week old fetus has no more of those characteristics than what a lot of us ate for dinner, and therefore no restrictions on the freedom of the mother are warranted in order to protect it.

Are you kidding? Several states now ban abortion at 6 weeks. A bunch more ban it period, except if the woman's life is in immediate danger. It adds up to almost half of all states now.

There's no way you can substantiate that opinion.

On the other hand, I also think that most rational people would agree that a 39 week old healthy fetus has pretty much all of those characteristics, to the point where it potentially justifies a week of restriction on the freedom of the mother.

No women have elective abortions at that point so again, you are posting useless BS.

What is your argument? Please present it.

 

[Aristaeus]

We already address this. I'm dismissing the line of reasoning which tries to disregard the life equation entirely in favor of purely legal definitions of "personhood".

I know you're banned, but maybe you'll read this.

Dismissing this line of reasoning is wrong because personhood is essentially a legal/social definition, not a biological one.

Human life begins at conception, but one isn't a person until birth. Once a fetus reaches viability, it is given some legal protections, but it is still not a person.

 

[acco40]

To me it is about viability. And most all legal and medical definitions places that at between 20 and 25 weeks of the pregnancy.

Using viability and from there a point on a timeline is problematic. Humans, unlike say a can of Bud Light, don’t come with a “conceived on date” and a “born on date” isn’t known until after the event has past.

Also, when I was born, the point of viability was over 30 weeks. Babies born under 4 lbs had minimal if any chance of survivability.

Now with improved technology and more knowledge, babies born 26 weeks and barely over 1 lb have a chance, albeit small, at survival.

So the viability litmus test is a moving window and not something I’d base a law on.

Additionally, let’s say a woman 5 months pregnant goes to a large social gathering and as a result contracts an influenza virus. Her body, sensing an illness (the host is dying!) goes into labor. The doctors can’t prevent her from giving birth and her one pound baby girl with immature lungs doesn’t survive more than 36 hours outside of the womb, Should she be prosecuted for negligent homicide? Her negligent action definitely led to her daughter’s death in some folks eyes. What if instead of attending a large social gathering the women shot up heroin and again went into labor resulting in her daughters death?

Do we really gain anything for prosecuting women in these scenarios?

 

[Individual]

The issue, as I see it is there is conception (well defined but difficult for others to determine an exact time) and birth - easily determined time wise.

Everything developmental stage between those events is somewhat fuzzy. That’s why, from a practical perspective our laws should be based on either conception or birth events. But conception, due to its vague determination is problematic. So we have a cornucopia of laws - quickening, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 15 weeks, first trimester, second trimester, etc. All trying to assuage the issue that the vast majority of folks do not want to legalize an induced abortion on an otherwise healthy fetus at 36 weeks nor outlaw an abortion of an eight cell zygote.

So some struggle to define a timeline to ameliorate their uneasiness with the issue. But that’s really a fools game. Either make abortion legal (at all stages) or illegal (at all stages). We are now seeing the issues that arise with restrictive abortion laws and most of us don’t want a woman/girl kill an otherwise healthy fetus days before a scheduled birth. So what do we do as a society?

For me, the answer is easy. Treat abortions like a prescription. Make it legal but require a doctor to “prescribe” the procedure. In other words, the decision to abort or carry to term is between the woman and her physician. But a woman can’t obtain an abortion without a physician’s prescription.

I disagree, abortions should be solely a decision made by the individual Woman, but carried out safely by a licensed physician.
Prior to birth, no one including government should have any say at all in the decision but the individual Woman, post birth the physician may provide the Woman with information relative to the health of the newborn that might result in Her choosing to allow the new born to expire peacefully. Once past that point of decision making, government begins to have a voice based on laws and Rights applicable to all individuals.
Birth is NOT an individual Right, but simply a choice made by each individual Woman.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

So.......I guess you're not going to be posting here anymore huh?