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

[reinaert]

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.

I don't think we can restrict the self-possession of someone who is known to be an autonomous person in favor of someone who only might be. And as is there is no agreement - or, right now, even an opportunity for one - on when a fetus attains this theoretical parity with a born person, it seems prudent to maintain that birth is the boundary event.

Let's maybe approach this another way, and as a caveat I'm using this example from (kinship) familiarity and to emphasize something like a state of continued dependence:

The autonomies of adults are and can be restricted for any number of causes, the most notable of which is becoming parents; in short, people with children are expected to and compelled to surrender some autonomy and not a little self-possession and freedom of movement in order to care for, and provide for, their born children. This obligation is both affirmative (they must do it, and are broadly protected in that exercise) and negative (there are varying penalties for not doing it).

This obligation becomes especially evident in the case of adult children who have their legal majority and self-possession deprived, limited or withdrawn, say for a person with Down's Syndrome who has been placed into guardianship, or whose majority has been forestalled. The legal guardians - quite often birth parents - still have the restrictions of their full freedom of movement, autonomy and self-possession in place; they must provide for and may not neglect another person, for whom they are compelled to care, who is otherwise adult.

This is not especially problematic, because they have accepted full responsibility for persons they created, in choosing to bring them to bear, in an ethical and legal climate where that choice was freely exercised.

But this will not and cannot be true for persons compelled to bring to birth other persons whom they do not want, and for whom they do not want to or cannot care.

And it is not true of any given fetus, the existence of which may be accident, a product of violation and abuse, non-viable, or subject to changing circumstance like war, divorce, plague, death of a partner, threats to health, biological defect, loss of assets, or a dearth of medical providers.

So it just seems best, I think, to keep the boundary where all autonomies are known, and the fewest are curtailed in the service of mere potential.

 

[MamboDervish]

I don't think we can restrict the self-possession of someone who is known to be an autonomous person in favor of someone who only might be. And as is there is no agreement - or, right now, even an opportunity for one - on when a fetus attains this theoretical parity with a born person, it seems prudent to maintain that birth is the boundary event.

Correct. Moreover, it is the singularly defining event.

Let's maybe approach this another way, and as a caveat I'm using this example from (kinship) familiarity and to emphasize something like a state of continued dependence:

The autonomies of adults are and can be restricted for any number of causes, the most notable of which is becoming parents; in short, people with children are expected to and compelled to surrender some autonomy and not a little self-possession and freedom of movement in order to care for, and provide for, their born children. This obligation is both affirmative (they must do it, and are broadly protected in that exercise) and negative (there are varying penalties for not doing it).

This obligation becomes especially evident in the case of adult children who have their legal majority and self-possession deprived, limited or withdrawn, say for a person with Down's Syndrome who has been placed into guardianship, or whose majority has been forestalled. The legal guardians - quite often birth parents - still have the restrictions of their full freedom of movement, autonomy and self-possession in place; they must provide for and may not neglect another person, for whom they are compelled to care, who is otherwise adult.

This is not especially problematic, because they have accepted full responsibility for persons they created, in choosing to bring them to bear, in an ethical and legal climate where that choice was freely exercised.

But this will not and cannot be true for persons compelled to bring to birth other persons whom they do not want, and for whom they do not want to or cannot care.

And it is not true of any given fetus, the existence of which may be accident, a product of violation and abuse, non-viable, or subject to changing circumstance like war, divorce, plague, death of a partner, threats to health, biological defect, loss of assets, or a dearth of medical providers.

So it just seems best, I think, to keep the boundary where all autonomies are known, and the fewest are curtailed in the service of mere potential.

Essentially accurate, and well expressed.

 

[BirdinHand]

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

Women aren’t having purely elective abortions of viable fetuses.

No one is walking into the hospital at 28 or 38 weeks of gestation and going “eh, I changed my mind”

And *if* there is the one in a million case where they do - even then - placing restrictions around the procedure that do nothing but hamper ethical doctors when abortions are needed for medical reasons (be they the reasons concerning the fetus or the mother) does nothing but cause more harm than good.

 

[Noodlegawd]

it seems prudent to maintain that birth is the boundary event.

So "prudent" that almost no one agrees with this.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Women aren’t having purely elective abortions of viable fetuses.

No one is walking into the hospital at 28 or 38 weeks of gestation and going “eh, I changed my mind”

And *if* there is the one in a million case where they do - even then - placing restrictions around the procedure that do nothing but hamper ethical doctors when abortions are needed for medical reasons (be they the reasons concerning the fetus or the mother) does nothing but cause more harm than good.

Only a handful of infants are intentionally drowned each year. Does that mean we should make it legal, just so we don't deter parents from bathing their children?

 

[reinaert]

So "prudent" that almost no one agrees with this.

That's a fine declaration you've got going there.

 

[BirdinHand]

Only a handful of infants are intentionally drowned each year. Does that mean we should make it legal, just so we don't deter parents from bathing their children?

Perhaps we should make bathtubs illegal to prevent that from happening.

That’s the obvious answer.

 

[Noodlegawd]

That's a fine declaration you've got going there.

Fine enough to be true. The vast majority of countries don't allow it, and only about a fifth of Americans believe third trimester abortions should generally be available.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Perhaps we should make bathtubs illegal to prevent that from happening.

Don't forget sinks, stock pots, buckets, plastic storage bins, fountains, and puddles.

 

[BirdinHand]

Don't forget sinks, stock pots, buckets, plastic storage bins, fountains, and puddles.

Agree.

 

[acco40]

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.

I view an induced abortion like many other medical procedures. We don't allow women (or men, boys or girls) to get operated on, take prescription drugs, etc. without the guidance of (regulated) medical professionals.

As a parent, I may not perform an appendectomy on my own child (I'm not a physician). My stance has nothing to do with women's rights but it does have something to do with safety.

Now in reality, we're saying the same thing. You state the procedure should be carried out safely by a licensed physician. That's my point. How do we as a society make that happen? Today, we require a physician to make that decision or carry it out - what I've broadly classified as a "prescription."

 

[Lursa]

So "prudent" that almost no one agrees with this.

The federal govt does. The Const recognizes it.

 

[acco40]

. . . only about a fifth of Americans believe third trimester abortions should generally be available.

Source?

Should be available? Yes. Should be generally available? What do you mean by that? If you ask "Should third trimester abortions be available on demand." I'm guessing the vast majority of women and obstetrician would say no.

A May 1-24, 2023, survey asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy and found about two-thirds of Americans saying it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose legal abortion in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.

The above is from a Gallup poll. The wording would mean different things to different people.

 

[Lursa]

Source?

Should be available? Yes. Should be generally available? What do you mean by that? If you ask "Should third trimester abortions be available on demand." I'm guessing the vast majority of women and obstetrician would say no.

A May 1-24, 2023, survey asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy and found about two-thirds of Americans saying it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose legal abortion in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.

The above is from a Gallup poll. The wording would mean different things to different people.

Exactly. They are very rare. 97.5% of all abortions take place early. And almost all of them later are medically necessary.

Good luck finding any data showing women having elective abortions of healthy, viable (~24 weeks). They're medically necessary and still very rare.

--They're 10x more expensive ($600 vs $6000)​

--Doctors a) dont have to do them and b) only a few clinics in the country can do such late term abortions, most doctors arent trained to do them.​

--They're more painful and dangerous than natural labor (for ex. the cervix does not dilate)​

And...​

--A woman can get $10,000 to $30,000 for a baby in a legal private adoption.​

If a woman medically needs an abortion that late...it's of a wanted pregnancy and she/couple will be grieving the loss of an anticipated family member. Why on earth should we create unnecessary laws that will only cause more pain and suffering to those that wanted to have a baby?

 

[Individual]

I view an induced abortion like many other medical procedures. We don't allow women (or men, boys or girls) to get operated on, take prescription drugs, etc. without the guidance of (regulated) medical professionals.

As a parent, I may not perform an appendectomy on my own child (I'm not a physician). My stance has nothing to do with women's rights but it does have something to do with safety.

Now in reality, we're saying the same thing. You state the procedure should be carried out safely by a licensed physician. That's my point. How do we as a society make that happen? Today, we require a physician to make that decision or carry it out - what I've broadly classified as a "prescription."

It's a decision only the Woman has a Right to make.

 

[acco40]

It's a decision only the Woman has a Right to make.

Everyone has a right to make such a decision. However, only the woman and her physician should have the right to act on such a decision.

 

[Ganondagan]

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".


Nonsense.

It's human life that needs protection, not a subjective definition of personhood.

 

[acco40]

It's human life that needs protection, not a subjective definition of personhood.

When the medical community is able to clone folks will our fingernails, hair, dandruff and other such items that contain our DNA, will those items need protection?

If not, how does that differ from a four cell zygote?

 

[MamboDervish]

So "prudent" that almost no one agrees with this.

Well, actually the state certainly agrees that birth is a boundary event. It's when your identity is issued.

But far beyond that, science recognizes exactly how much of a boundary event it is by the multiple physiological change that occur at birth. Thanks to Weaver II for the list.

These are just some of the changes in a fetus at the moment of birth

LUNGS, HEART, AND BLOOD VESSELS
In the fetal stage, oxygen and carbon dioxide flow through the blood in the placenta. Most of it goes to the fetal heart and flows directly through the foramen oval in the heart into the fetus's body. At birth that opening between the chambers of the heart immediately shuts and blood is forced to flow to the lungs.
Fetal lungs are filled with fluid. They are not inflated. Once the baby takes the first breath, a number of changes occur in the infant's lungs and circulatory system:
*Oxygen in the lungs causes a decrease in blood flow resistance to the lungs.
*Blood flow resistance of the baby's blood vessels also increases.
*Fluid drains or is absorbed from the respiratory system.
*The lungs inflate and begin working on their own, moving oxygen into the bloodstream by inhaling and removing carbon dioxide by exhaling.

BODY TEMPERATURE
A fetus has no need for a mechanism to regulate body heat. After delivery, the newborn must immediately start to regulate it's own body temperature. Burning stores of brown fat, a type of fat found only in fetuses and newborns temporarily provide body heat until the ingestion of food can provide body heat control.

LIVER
The fetal liver acts as a storage site for sugar (glycogen) and iron. When the baby is born, the liver
*produces substances that help the blood to clot.
*begins breaking down waste products such as excess red blood cells.
*It produces a protein that breaks down jaundice inducing bilirubin.

GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT
A fetal gastrointestinal system has no need to absorb nutrients since blood carrying needed nutrients enters directly from the placenta. At birth the intestines must immediately start to absorb nutrients from food.

URINARY SYSTEM
At birth the kidneys must start to maintain the body's fluid and electrolyte balance.

ENDOCRINE SYSTEM
A precisely timed endocrine system is activated during birth releasing the specific hormones that change a fetus into a baby.
summarized from: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001911.htm

According to the Science of Obstetrics; if the above changes do not take place at birth, the result is not a dead baby, it never changed into a baby. It is a dead fetus.

 

[Lutherf]

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.

To be fair, you don't know if you're going to live through the day either. You could get plowed down by a bus while crossing the street and that lack of certainty doesn't make you any less of a person.

 

[Pound4abrown]

when it is viable sans machinery outside of the womb.

 

[BirdinHand]

To be fair, you don't know if you're going to live through the day either. You could get plowed down by a bus while crossing the street and that lack of certainty doesn't make you any less of a person.

Well, to be fair, if I get hit by a bus and die… I cease to be a person anymore don’t I?

 

[reinaert]

when it is viable sans machinery outside of the womb.

But only when it is no longer in a womb.

 

[Lursa]

It's human life that needs protection, not a subjective definition of personhood.

So's is the woman's.

 

[Individual]

Everyone has a right to make such a decision. However, only the woman and her physician should have the right to act on such a decision.

The Woman makes Her choice and the physician performs the procedure in a safe and sterile way.