When is it a person?

[molten_dragon]

Reading through the abortion debate threads that are present here, one of the most common issues brought up is the issue of when a fetus becomes a person. Some people argue that it's as soon as the egg is fertilized, some say it's not until birth, and there's a myriad of opinions somewhere in between. It's so common, that I thought I'd start a new thread just to debate that fact. So, in your opinion, when does an embryo/zygote/fetus/etc. become a person, and why?

 

[prometeus]

At birth.
Because that is the way it has always been. Our history, traditions, societal attitude has always been so as are the laws. Sure it can be or could change, but at this time the implications would be far more negative than the alleged benefit society could possibly gain by the change.

 

[lizzie]

To me, it's a person when the egg is fertilized. To most, that will make no sense, but to me, an anencephalic baby is a person, and someone elderly, sick, and comatose is a person, the severly retarded are persons, and those injured in horrible accidents who are clinically "brain-dead" are people. I don't view the sick and dying as anymore "becoming un-people" than I view the fetuses as "becoming people".

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

When it has parents-- in other words, when someone has given that child their family name.

 

[prometeus]

When it has parents-- in other words, when someone has given that child their family name.

Do you agree that that point is in most cases immediately after birth? Do not all born get the name automatically anyway?
I do understand you reasoning as you have elaborated on it in the past.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Do you agree that that point is in most cases immediately after birth? Do not all born get the name automatically anyway?

I don't think it should be immediate. Better to wait a couple of days to be certain, and have the opportunity to have tests first. But yes, in most cases it is immediate and birth is "close enough" especially seeing that the supply of adoptable healthy newborns does not meet the demand.

 

[phattonez]

At birth.
Because that is the way it has always been. Our history, traditions, societal attitude has always been so as are the laws. Sure it can be or could change, but at this time the implications would be far more negative than the alleged benefit society could possibly gain by the change.

So a few days before the baby is born, when the baby could still conceivably live if born, it is not a person? So the only thing that decides life is which side of the vagina you're on? Wow.

Personally, I think that since we don't know when human dignity comes about, that we shouldn't kill that which has been conceived.

 

[Agnapostate]

It becomes a person when it gains an awareness of its own existence...so no, an infant isn't a person either, but it possesses extrinsic moral value that a fetus lacks.

 

[phattonez]

It becomes a person when it gains an awareness of its own existence...so no, an infant isn't a person either, but it possesses extrinsic moral value that a fetus lacks.

Why is that?

 

[Agnapostate]

Why is that?

Because its parents tend to value it in a way that a pregnant woman would not value a fetus, as it's been deliberately carried to term, and because it can be adopted by others, while a fetus cannot.

 

[1069]

Reading through the abortion debate threads that are present here, one of the most common issues brought up is the issue of when a fetus becomes a person. Some people argue that it's as soon as the egg is fertilized, some say it's not until birth, and there's a myriad of opinions somewhere in between. It's so common, that I thought I'd start a new thread just to debate that fact. So, in your opinion, when does an embryo/zygote/fetus/etc. become a person, and why?

Birth.


_______

 

[Agnapostate]

Birth.

I don't quite get that one. If an infant's born three months prematurely, why is it more of a person than a fetus in the late third trimester? Maybe you wanted to make my point about extrinsic moral value instead?

 

[prometeus]

So a few days before the baby is born, when the baby could still conceivably live if born, it is not a person? So the only thing that decides life is which side of the vagina you're on?

And that the born child is breathing and living on his or her own organs and is at that point recognized by the law, and has documented identity.

Personally, I think that since we don't know when human dignity comes about, that we shouldn't kill that which has been conceived.

And you are welcome to that belief and it should be respected up to the point it is not pushed on others as policy or coercion.

 

[prometeus]

I don't quite get that one. If an infant's born three months prematurely, why is it more of a person than a fetus in the late third trimester? Maybe you wanted to make my point about extrinsic moral value instead?

Birth is truly a magical event. The born child is breathing and sustaining life with own organs. That ability is in the least essential in my view to be considered like one of us.

 

[Agnapostate]

And that the born child is breathing and living on his or her own organs and is at that point recognized by the law, and has documented identity.

Perhaps, but dependence on nourishment from others remains. If a mother has an infant in a remote region where means for nourishment are scarce, should there be a legal mandate that she feed it? That wouldn't seem to be markedly different than a legal mandate that she sustain a fetus.

 

[prometeus]

Perhaps, but dependence on nourishment from others remains. If a mother has an infant in a remote region where means for nourishment are scarce, should there be a legal mandate that she feed it? That wouldn't seem to be markedly different than a legal mandate that she sustain a fetus.

An interesting scenario. while it is true that the infant does entirely depend on "goodwill" at least the goodwill is used by the child's own organs and metabolism. While in utero it is the woman's organs that do all that work with no choice in the matter.
Yes, there should be a mandate to feed that infant as the very existence of the infant is a result of the woman's willingness and decision to carry the pregnancy to term.
Also we must keep in mind that while such rare scenarios while worthwhile to discuss and consider, they should not be the basis of policy. It is also a reality that in some rare scenario a bad or undesired outcome will result and every once in a while life does pull the unfair card on us.

 

[lizzie]

So the only thing that decides life is which side of the vagina you're on? Wow.

Interesting isn't it? Did you ever imagine that women had so much power? A simple little 1-2-3 PUSH and you have made a person.:shock:

 

[Agnapostate]

An interesting scenario. while it is true that the infant does entirely depend on "goodwill" at least the goodwill is used by the child's own organs and metabolism. While in utero it is the woman's organs that do all that work with no choice in the matter.

Where is the moral difference? There is still a dependency on the mother that exists either way.

Yes, there should be a mandate to feed that infant as the very existence of the infant is a result of the woman's willingness and decision to carry the pregnancy to term.

Really? What if there were simply no safe abortion facilities available? Plenty of unwanted infants are born.

Also we must keep in mind that while such rare scenarios while worthwhile to discuss and consider, they should not be the basis of policy. It is also a reality that in some rare scenario a bad or undesired outcome will result and every once in a while life does pull the unfair card on us.

That is the case, but they can also highlight inconsistencies in certain ethical positions that should be remedied.

 

[OKgrannie]

Where is the moral difference? There is still a dependency on the mother that exists either way.

There is a dependency upon someone, but that someone can be anyone. It JUST HAPPENS to be the mother in your scenario, but if the infant were left in isolated circumstances with an aunt, for instance, would she not be obligated to attempt to care for the infant?

 

[Agnapostate]

There is a dependency upon someone, but that someone can be anyone. It JUST HAPPENS to be the mother in your scenario, but if the infant were left in isolated circumstances with an aunt, for instance, would she not be obligated to attempt to care for the infant?

If we're considering a remote area where resources for feeding are scarce, how would there even be a transfer from the mother to an aunt?

 

[prometeus]

Where is the moral difference? There is still a dependency on the mother that exists either way.

The moral difference is only evidenced in principle not in the actual practice in a very unique situation. In other words, the scenario you put forth in not the only infant and mother in the world and how they relate to each other must be based on a more general premise, while allowing for the special circumstance if that is possible.
In a different circumstance while living on a remote mountain top I am not allowed to kill my companion because no one will miss him or her, because the "rules" were not made for such unique circumstances. Now if only the two of us existed, that makes the situation entirely different.

Really? What if there were simply no safe abortion facilities available? Plenty of unwanted infants are born.

As I said, sometimes life is like a female dog.

That is the case, but they can also highlight inconsistencies in certain ethical positions that should be remedied.

But a perfect world is not attainable and some inconsistencies will always remain. We have to strive to correct as many as we can, and I certainly am not in a position or have the competence to do so.

 

[OKgrannie]

If we're considering a remote area where resources for feeding are scarce, how would there even be a transfer from the mother to an aunt?

Oh, for Heaven's sake. You IMAGINED the scenario in the first place, now your imagination just quit! Suppose the aunt was babysitting for an afternoon, took the infant for a ride on a mountain when suddenly a flood of a rainstorm occurred washing deep gullys in the road and leaving her stranded on the mountainside.

Geez, after all this, I've forgotten what the question was.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Personally, I think that since we don't know when human dignity comes about, that we shouldn't kill that which has been conceived.

In my experience, most people never develop human dignity. It's not a very good criterion for determining whether or not it's okay to kill them.

 

[phattonez]

In my experience, most people never develop human dignity. It's not a very good criterion for determining whether or not it's okay to kill them.

I'd suspect that you'd rather not kill them anyway just to be sure.

 

[1069]

I'd suspect that you'd rather not kill them anyway just to be sure.

I don't think you know the esteemed Korimyr very well. :2wave: