Pro-Choicers: What makes a person?

[Sinaijon]

A fetus isn't a person


This statement comes up pretty frequently in abortion debates from the Pro-Choice side of things, and I'm curious just how exactly do you define a 'person'? Is that definition exclusive to just fetuses, or does it apply universally?

First, I assume there is a distinction being made between life (whether a viable biological process or a religious soul) and a person (recognized by society as having rights).

Second, I'm assuming the people declaring this believes that 'personhood' is relevant to abortion rights. If the fetus was declared a 'person', that would have some effect on the mother's rights over her own body. ( I know some Pro-Choice people believe that the status of the fetus is irrelevant, and that the woman's rights over her own body are supreme.)

To me, the obvious definition (from their point of view) would be 'inside = not a person; outside = person". Personally, I think this a poor definition because it defines a person, not by what they are, but rather where they are, and there are also seem to be some obvious loop holes in that definition. I don't want to waste my time with strawmen, though.

So, if you are Pro Choice and believe that the status of the fetus matters, is this definition more or less correct? Do you have a different definition?

[Blut Aus Nord]

I'm pretty sure this was addressed in the other topic on abortion.

* Main Entry: 1man
* Pronunciation: \ˈman, in compounds ˌman or mən\
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural men \ˈmen, in compounds ˌmen or mən\
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English man, mon human being, male human; akin to Old High German man human being, Sanskrit manu
* Date: before 12th century

1 (2) a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family; broadly : any living or extinct hominid d (1) : one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood

What separates humans from animals from both a scientific and philosophical perspective is the mind. Therefore, when the brain has developed to a point of potentiality where cognitive processes unique to the human mind can begin to develop, the fetus has begun its growth process as a human being. This is, what, 6 months in or something? I don't know when the brain activity shifts in the fetal stage, but it's somewhere around there.

From another incorporeal perspective, our reason and will separate us from the instinctive animals. But the potential for this growth can only begin to develop at a certain point in the process, as mentioned earlier. Assigning the value of being human to a non-human entity is degrading to us, and therefore there is a distinction between early stages in the development of a fetus and the growth of a human being.

I'm pretty sure this was agreed upon, but some people even claim that the potential for the mind's growth doesn't begin until born. Either way, zygotes are out.

[Angel of the Lord]

I define a person as an individual who is at least minimally aware of their surroundings. Alternately, a person can be defined as someone to whom a person of the first definition is viscerally attached.

Therefore, to me, a fetus in the early stages of development is not a person according to the inherent (first) definition. However, if the mother is attached to the fetus--if she wants the eventual child, if she considers the fetus a person--then, for legal purposes, IMHO, the fetus should be considered a person. Deliberately inducing a miscarriage in a woman who wants to carry the pregnancy to term should be a serious legal offense.

In the later stages, it gets iffy. I personally wouldn't have an abortion much past the first trimester--that's what adoption's for--but I wouldn't condemn a woman who disagreed. It's her body. She has no obligation to allow another being--person or not--to reside inside it, to suck nourishment from it. She is no more legally obligated to keep that fetus/person in her body than you are to house homeless people in your living room. Or--maybe more appropriately--no more obligation to do so than a parent has to donate a kidney to their child, or a brother has to donate to his sister, or you have to donate to a complete stranger.

Yes, there may be moral obligations--indeed, I certainly believe there are. It's not a choice that I would make. But it is a choice I should be allowed to make. And, if I am not going to allow an inviable fetus to stay in my body, then the only kind thing to do is to make sure there's no chance of suffering.

So, personhood is a dividing line for me, but not for the legal status of abortion. But my definition is above.

[MOIDALIZE]

What makes a man, is it the woman in his arms? JUST CAUSE SHE HAS BIG TITTIES?
Or is it the way he fights everyday? NO, IT'S PROBABLY THE TITTIES!

[Whack-a-Mole]

As I noted in another thread the answer is partly objective and partly subjective.

I think it is abundantly clear that anyone can see the difference between a blastocyst and a fetus 1 day away from birth.

Something changed during those nine months so we move forward from the fertilized egg and backwards from the nearly born fetus to find where the line is drawn.

Eventually we get to a gray area. The earliest a fetus is viable outside the womb is around 6 months of gestation. Of course modern medical science allows that. One hundred years ago I doubt such a premature baby would have a chance in hell of surviving.

So, where is the bright line drawn where one moment we say "not a person" and the next where we say "person"?

Birth itself is about the only actual bright line but I think few people could view the fetus 10 seconds before birth as devoid of personhood than it is 10 seconds later after birth.

In the end, as with so many things in society, we need to balance different rights. Seems reasonable giving a woman six months to make up her mind is more than sufficient to protect her rights to her body and her choice. Eventually though the rights of the fetus supplant hers in most cases (life of the mother being an exception I'd say).

Where is it a person? No one can say with certainty.

Hell, try to come up with a hard and fast definition of "life" (which I think you can substitute for "person" in this context). Seems simple but actually it is an elusive target and to date has not really been done despite the efforts of a lot of smart philosophers and scientists.

[begbert2]

Siccinctly, I think if you don't have a functioning human brain, you're not a person. I gather that "6 months in" is a good marker for that, though I admit I haven't looked into it much. Even if that varies a little it from case to case I think that would be a fine legal demarcation for defining when elective abortions cease to be available.

Supposing that "A seed is a tree!" and "my pastor says so!" aren't good arguments, is there any argument for an earlier cutoff?

[AHunter3]

This question is partially a red herring. I say "partially" because certainly some people who are pro-choice do indeed consider it important to their view on the subject that the fetus ( / embryo / blastocyte) is "not a person".

But only some of us.

Me, I'm comfortable making the following stipulations:


a) To be human is to be a person. It's a social construct, a category WE'VE invented that only has whatever meaning WE glue onto it, yadda yada, but sure, why split hairs (even potential hairs)? A fetus (yea, even an embryo or blastocyte) is a person in a sense that a fingernail clipping, an entire finger, a spermatozoon, or a dead body are NOT a person.

b) Abortion is killing. It is other things, too (medical procedure; termination of unwanted medical condition; exercise of the right to make one's own reproductive decisions; etc) but except in the case where the implanted conception-product is already dead, abortion kills it.

c) Abortion is therefore the killing of a person.


I'm pro-choice. I think abortion should be legally available to any pregnant person. Period. No qualifiers. I'm OK with Roe v Wade as a compromise.

I ask for the following stipulations from anyone who is NOT pro-choice:

a) Not all killing is murder, or even immoral. While I am not going to point to any specific example as being just like abortion (nothing precisely is), it is generally held that to kill in one's self-defense is neither immoral nor murder; it is held by the majority of people, if not by everyone, that to kill in combat as a soldier in wartime is also neither immoral nor murder; and in triage considerations (military or medical) it is generally accepted that it is sometimes necessary to cause the death of some via the taking of action designed to save the lives and/or establish the goals of others.

b) We have a general abhorrence towards the killing of human beings, but it does not have the status of an "absolute value". When and where it is wrong, it is wrong for a reason. Normatively it is an assault upon the person who is being killed insofar as that person has a consciousness containing plans, history, and intentions, all of which investments are lost prematurely when the person is killed. Normatively it is also an assault upon the person's family friends associates and community as well, insofar as that person has understandings and skills, relationships utilitarian and emotional, and has likely been the subject of investments of time and resources, all of which are again lost prematurely when the person is killed. Perhaps there are other reasons whereby it might be concluded that it is wrong to kill a person, but the argument has to be asserted and defended; establishing simply that a person would be killed does not ipso facto make something morally wrong.

c) There may therefore be legitimate grounds and legitimate perspectives from which any given abortion may be deemed appropriate and necessary and not immoral. A decision is therefore required, either across-the-board (applying to all abortions) or categorical (in which case abortion situations must be categorized, and therefore categorized by someone), or individually (in which case each individual abortion situation must be evaluated on its own merits independently). Therefore it is a matter of critical importance to decide who should be making those decisions, and whether to try to make them once for all situations, to create a categorical structure and a decision-making structure for evaluations situations to categorize them, or to deal with each individual case on its own merits.

[Voyager]

A fetus becomes a person sometime between the start of brain activity and the ability to survive outside the womb. Never before the beginning of brain activity, though, even if technology advanced to allow development from a petri dish.

However this is all my opinion, and I wouldn't force it on any woman who is actually carrying a fetus. Sometimes it is okay to say there is no real answer to a question like this.

[Der Trihs]

Personhood is a matter of mental function; of awareness, thought. When, exactly a fetus achieves what level of mental functions isn't something science can define well yet. But it certainly requires a brain that has its basic functions up and running. Six months is about where it starts showing human brainwaves, but that's so basic that it probably doesn't qualify as a person yet. And it's unlikely that there's a neat, objective bright line that one can point to.

And yes it applies universally, which is why it's moral to dismember the brain dead for their organs. THEY are gone; only the biological machinery remains. One reason I oppose the pro-birth definition of human life is that it inevitably defines the brain dead as people too. And as said, it degrades personhood to define personhood that way.

[Cat Fight]

To me, the obvious definition (from their point of view) would be 'inside = not a person; outside = person". Personally, I think this a poor definition because it defines a person, not by what they are, but rather where they are, and there are also seem to be some obvious loop holes in that definition.

As AHunter points out, we may not define 'person' based on location, but we certainly use it to determine where their lives and deaths fit on the scale of 'most tragic' to 'least tragic.' See: enemy troops, civilian casualties, slave labor, developing countries, elder care, prisoners.

[YogSosoth]

A fetus is a person when society says it is, so a person like me who believes in choice must always fight to keep that definition to fetuses.

Lets face it, when it comes to what humans "believe", everything is subjective. We could define rape as simply looking at a woman when she doesn't want to and that will be the definition of rape. So I'm not at all impressed by the pro-life argument that a person could be then defined to be anyone who is unconscious of his surroundings such as the infirm or the mentally challenged. Keep the definition to that of fetuses pre-birth and keep abortion legal for that and I'll be fine with it.

Personally, I think as long as the mother's still physically attached to the kid somehow and feeding it off her own body, its hers to do what she wants. I'm for abortion anytime before birth AND before the cord is cut; either or one doesn't make it for me.

My atheistic views convinces me that death isn't a bad thing by itself; dying is what sucks. So if a fetus dies and it cannot really have experienced the loss, then its not a bad thing for the fetus. So the death of a fetus = meh.

[El Zagna]

Short answer: A fetus becomes a person some time between conception and birth.

Long answer: Well...

The question seems to assume that there is a discreet point at which a fetus becomes a human, and I see that as one of the great obstacles in discussing the abortion issue. If only it were that easy, then we could define what it means to be human and draw a line at that point.

I think that everyone other than the most ideologically driven in the abortion debate recognize the difference between a zygote and a fetus at 9 months. There's really not a point at which person-hood happens, but rather a process of becoming a person.

[begbert2]

Me, I'm comfortable making the following stipulations:


a) To be human is to be a person. It's a social construct, a category WE'VE invented that only has whatever meaning WE glue onto it, yadda yada, but sure, why split hairs (even potential hairs)? A fetus (yea, even an embryo or blastocyte) is a person in a sense that a fingernail clipping, an entire finger, a spermatozoon, or a dead body are NOT a person.Wait, what? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Among other various problems, "To be human is to be a person" means that removing a fingernail clipping is murder, because it's a human fingernail clipping.

You can't just handwave away the question of whether the thing in question is a fetus, a baby, a person, or a tumor. If we're talking about something that is human but not a person, then it's simply not a person, and we shouldn't entertain the idea for any reason. Doing so just invites people to base arguments on the error.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

A fetus is a person when society says it is, so a person like me who believes in choice must always fight to keep that definition to fetuses.

Lets face it, when it comes to what humans "believe", everything is subjective. We could define rape as simply looking at a woman when she doesn't want to and that will be the definition of rape. So I'm not at all impressed by the pro-life argument that a person could be then defined to be anyone who is unconscious of his surroundings such as the infirm or the mentally challenged. Keep the definition to that of fetuses pre-birth and keep abortion legal for that and I'll be fine with it.

Personally, I think as long as the mother's still physically attached to the kid somehow and feeding it off her own body, its hers to do what she wants. I'm for abortion anytime before birth AND before the cord is cut; either or one doesn't make it for me.

My atheistic views convinces me that death isn't a bad thing by itself; dying is what sucks. So if a fetus dies and it cannot really have experienced the loss, then its not a bad thing for the fetus. So the death of a fetus = meh.

You sicken me.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Personally, I think as long as the mother's still physically attached to the kid somehow and feeding it off her own body, its hers to do what she wants. I'm for abortion anytime before birth AND before the cord is cut; either or one doesn't make it for me.


Once the baby is born and the cord is cut the baby is still hugely dependent on its mother (or at least some adult). If the mother breast feeds the baby is still feeding off the woman's body. More than that the baby now requires more care than when it was insider her (changing diapers, waking at all hours of the day and night to feed it or rock it, need to expend resources to clothe it and so on).

So, by your rationale the mother (or whatever adult that needs to expend their own resources to keep the baby alive) should be free to bash it in the head and be done with it.

Only once the child is no longer sucking resources from its keepers can the child be said to have rights of its own.

Pretty messed up thinking there.

[BrandonR]

Once the baby is born and the cord is cut the baby is still hugely dependent on its mother (or at least some adult). If the mother breast feeds the baby is still feeding off the woman's body. More than that the baby now requires more care than when it was insider her (changing diapers, waking at all hours of the day and night to feed it or rock it, need to expend resources to clothe it and so on).

So, by your rationale the mother (or whatever adult that needs to expend their own resources to keep the baby alive) should be free to bash it in the head and be done with it.

Only once the child is no longer sucking resources from its keepers can the child be said to have rights of its own.

Pretty messed up thinking there.

Except anyone can feed the baby formula from a can. It's not dependent on the (original) mother the same way an undeveloped fetus is, which is what I can assume YogSosoth was referring to. Once a baby is born it no longer exclusively depends on a single person for continued development. If that were the case, adopted kids would surely not exist.

[Sinaijon]

Only once the child is no longer sucking resources from its keepers can the child be said to have rights of its own.

There's a little bit of overlap there. When a baby is born it can be anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes before the umbilical cord is cut. So a baby might very well be cradled in its mothers arms while still sucking resources through the umbilical cord.

[Sinaijon]

Me, I'm comfortable making the following stipulations:


So, am I understanding correctly that (to paraphrase) you believe the question of personhood is a separate question from the right to abortion? (A fetus may be classified as a person, but a woman may still choose to abort?)

[Sinaijon]

Only once the child is no longer sucking resources from its keepers can the child be said to have rights of its own.



There's a little bit of overlap there. When a baby is born it can be anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes before the umbilical cord is cut. So a baby might very well be cradled in its mothers arms while still sucking resources through the umbilical cord.

Sorry, just to clarify, I know that this quote isn't your position on things, I was just trying to expand on it. Even a 'born' baby might be directly sucking resources...

[begbert2]

There's a little bit of overlap there. When a baby is born it can be anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes before the umbilical cord is cut. So a baby might very well be cradled in its mothers arms while still sucking resources through the umbilical cord.After a certain point, laws kick into place preventing parents from denying their child sufficient support, which goes a fair bit beyond breastfeeding, unless they go throug a legal procedure that moves those legal responsibilities elsewhere. However, best as I can tell, the point those laws kick in is birth, or at least closer to birth than conception.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Except anyone can feed the baby formula from a can. It's not dependent on the (original) mother the same way an undeveloped fetus is, which is what I can assume YogSosoth was referring to. Once a baby is born it no longer exclusively depends on a single person for continued development. If that were the case, adopted kids would surely not exist.

Sure any adult can do it but some adult has to do it or the baby will die. As such the child is siphoning resources from some caretaker. Time and money.

YogSoth's POV seems to be the fetus is a parasite and as such lives or dies at the whim of the mother (caretaker) right up to the instant before the umbilical cord is cut.

Thing is after the umbilical is cut the baby's needs increase from when it was in the mother. It requires active effort on the part of caretakers to live. It requires more resource outlays for its survival (clothes at the least). Its status as a parasite continues minus the physical connection to the mother after birth.

So, if it is a parasite its caretakers should have the choice of life or death over it by his logic.

[BrandonR]

Well I do think there is some gray area between the time when a fetus is essentially a parasite, completely dependent upon the host to continue to develop, and when it's a baby that can be taken care of by anyone that's willing. That time is probably the third trimester, and personally I'm against third trimester abortions because by that point the baby could be born (prematurely) but still be developed enough to not solely depend on its mother for development.

My take on this issue is that up until the point where a baby can be born and survive on its own (obviously with care) it's not a person, it's an undeveloped grouping of cells and tissue. To me, preventing the continued development of a jumble of biological matter incapable of survival without you and only you is not murder. If it were, masturbation would be considered genocide. You're not taking life away from something, you're merely preventing life from occurring in the first place.

But I certainly don't expect to win anyone over in this discussion. Abortion is just one of those topics that 90% of people's opinions are essentially set in stone.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Well I do think there is some gray area between the time when a fetus is essentially a parasite, completely dependent upon the host to continue to develop, and when it's a baby that can be taken care of by anyone that's willing. That time is probably the third trimester, and personally I'm against third trimester abortions because by that point the baby could be born (prematurely) but still be developed enough to not solely depend on its mother for development.

My take on this issue is that up until the point where a baby can be born and survive on its own (obviously with care) it's not a person, it's an undeveloped grouping of cells and tissue. To me, preventing the continued development of a jumble of biological matter incapable of survival without you and only you is not murder. If it were, masturbation would be considered genocide. You're not taking life away from something, you're merely preventing life from occurring in the first place.

But I certainly don't expect to win anyone over in this discussion. Abortion is just one of those topics that 90% of people's opinions are essentially set in stone.

To be clear I am not arguing with you but YogSoth's take on it. He departs from us in that he feels the mother should be allowed to kill the baby right up to the instant before the umbilical is cut. As such I think he is stretching the notion that it is a parasite thus at the whim of the mother out of all recognition. I merely extended that notion to try to portray its absurdity and show how it is morally bankrupt.

By-and-large I personally feel the same as you on the subject (as you just described it).

[begbert2]

Well I do think there is some gray area between the time when a fetus is essentially a parasite, completely dependent upon the host to continue to develop, and when it's a baby that can be taken care of by anyone that's willing. That time is probably the third trimester, and personally I'm against third trimester abortions because by that point the baby could be born (prematurely) but still be developed enough to not solely depend on its mother for development.

My take on this issue is that up until the point where a baby can be born and survive on its own (obviously with care) it's not a person, it's an undeveloped grouping of cells and tissue. To me, preventing the continued development of a jumble of biological matter incapable of survival without you and only you is not murder. If it were, masturbation would be considered genocide. You're not taking life away from something, you're merely preventing life from occurring in the first place.

But I certainly don't expect to win anyone over in this discussion. Abortion is just one of those topics that 90% of people's opinions are essentially set in stone.Personally I don't see survivability as being relevent to personhood - it's relevent to responsibility for that person's survival. That is, there is a level of hardship we do not ask people to do, even to save another person's life. So, if we presume a fetus has finally become person, then we shouldn't kill it on a whim - which explains why most pro-choicers oppose casual abortion in the third trimester.

For most of us, the key issue is whether the fetus counts as a person yet. I suppose some people could base this on viability, but that doesn't make sense to me; I do it by cognition and levels of intelligence. Below a certain level, it's not a person to me, and I feel it can be killed with impunity regardless of it's viability. An adult cow is certainly a viable independent organism, and I'm fine with it being killed for trivial reasons.

Now, it is worth noting that viability could effect whether an abortion is the best way to unburden a woman of a fetus or zygote. If a woman wants to shed herself of a fetus and it can be put into an incubator and brought to term (without having to slice up the woman too horribly to get it out), then I say, feel free! There's no moral obligation to do so, but so long as you take full responsibility for the result, I don't mind incubatoring rather than aborting. However, forcing the woman to be an incubator for you is reprehensible on a level precisely equivalent to grabbing people and stealing their 'redundant' organs.

[Chronos]

Whatever personhood is, it has to be something related to our minds, so a thing without a mind cannot be a person. Exactly what level of mind is necessary is a gray area, and difficult to pin down: A five year old dog has, in most respects, greater mental capacity than a newborn human, and yet most will agree that the newborn human has a greater degree of personhood than the dog. But certainly a human zygote or embryo before the development of nervous tissue cannot be a person, and probably not one before the start of brain activity.

Personhood cannot be defined in terms of being human, because doing so fails to account both for nonhuman persons and nonperson human things. In the former case, angels, aliens, artificially intelligent computers, and elves (without comment on whether any of those exist) should all be regarded as persons, even though none of them are human. By contrast, a HeLa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa) culture is undoubtedly human in a biological sense, and is alive and self-sufficient, but can't by any stretch be called a person.

[jsgoddess]

I'll ignore the abortion part for the moment since, like AHunter3, I don't consider personhood necessary or sufficient for that debate.

A person, to me, is an individual life form with a certain level of mental ability and a personality. Hypothetically, a machine could be a person and hypothetically a Homo sapiens might not be.

To borrow from Star Trek, a Vulcan is a person. A Borg? Maybe not (maybe all Borg together form a single person). V'ger? Yes.

[Maia's Well]

Now, it is worth noting that viability could effect whether an abortion is the best way to unburden a woman of a fetus or zygote. If a woman wants to shed herself of a fetus and it can be put into an incubator and brought to term (without having to slice up the woman too horribly to get it out), then I say, feel free! There's no moral obligation to do so, but so long as you take full responsibility for the result, I don't mind incubatoring rather than aborting. However, forcing the woman to be an incubator for you is reprehensible on a level precisely equivalent to grabbing people and stealing their 'redundant' organs.

This brings up an interesting point to me (as have many other posts in this thread). I've often wondering if there is any research going on anywhere into transplanting human embryoes. Research I've done shows that it is done with animals (cattle and such). I recognize that there are ethical considerations (for example, we don't know what detrimental effect this might have on the embryo), but it seems to me, for those who feel very strongly that abortion is murder and want to save babies, it seems like that might be one way to do it. Does anyone know if there is such research being done? Or can anyone explain to me why that's not an option?

Hope this isn't too much of a "Hi, Jack!" If it is, I could mebbe start a thread...

[Maia's Well]

To borrow from Star Trek, a Vulcan is a person. A Borg? Maybe not (maybe all Borg together form a single person). V'ger? Yes.

Whadda about Data, hm?

:p

[Der Trihs]

Whadda about Data, hm?

:p"If you prick me, do I not . . . leak?"

[jsgoddess]

Whadda about Data, hm?

:p

You can tell I'm into TOS since I didn't even think of Data! :D

[AHunter3]

So, am I understanding correctly that (to paraphrase) you believe the question of personhood is a separate question from the right to abortion? (A fetus may be classified as a person, but a woman may still choose to abort?)

I thought that was overwhelmingly obvious from my post.


I need to work on that "unintentional subtlety" thing.

[Sinaijon]

I need to work on that "unintentional subtlety" thing.

I'm thinking more of the 'brevity' thing. :)

I thought it was obvious too, but was second guessing myself when paraphrasing it down into a single sentence.

[Knorf]

I often get the impression from anti-abortion types that their point of view is dependent upon the existence of a "soul" or something like that. Since the person-defining "soul" has zero scientific validity, it can been asserted as existing arbitrarily whenever, even at conception. Clump of cells + soul = person. Whether they use the word "soul" or not, it seems to me that many (most?) anti-abortion types treat the word "person" magically and indefinably, quite literally akin to the word "soul."

If you don't believe in souls, as I do not, defining a person is far more problematic. Clearly, if cognition (or, potential cognition) is an essential component to being a person, then a late-term fetus which might be viable has a much stronger claim to personhood than a zygote.

The next question is simply what does the law require regarding protecting the rights of a fetus to the degree a fetus is definable as a person. In short, a person is what the Law (to the degree it is enforceable by the State) says it is. Presently, in the U.S. and in most industrialized nations, a fetus is not a person with rights endowed by the State, but a baby is. There will never be a clear line that can be drawn to the satisfaction of everyone, unless God himself comes down and defines an ultimate Law. Since that has not and will not happen, we're stuck with human Law.

What becomes obvious in any discussion like this is that there will be no agreement on any of these points.

[Der Trihs]

I often get the impression from anti-abortion types that their point of view is dependent upon the existence of a "soul" or something like that. Since the person-defining "soul" has zero scientific validity, it can been asserted as existing arbitrarily whenever, even at conception. Clump of cells + soul = person. Whether they use the word "soul" or not, it seems to me that many (most?) anti-abortion types treat the word "person" magically and indefinably, quite literally akin to the word "soul." Another problem with that argument is that even if they do have souls, so what? If a mindless lump of cells can have a soul, that's just an argument for souls not being important. They might as well argue that rocks have souls so we shouldn't dig mines.

[Chronos]

Souls don't make the question any simpler, since you still have to have some way of determining what things have and do not have souls. That determination has to be made either based on observable characteristics of the thing, in which case you could just use those characteristics directly as your basis for comparison, or it has to be decreed by some authority, and the most-recognized such authority in the US, the Bible, is silent on the matter (it does imply that a fetus has a soul some time before birth, but not precisely when).

[kanicbird]

This is very spiritual and IMHO:

The attraction that m/f have for each other I believe is the desire of the woman to give life to a certain aspect of that man, to have a child - regardless of what her mind says it's her heart that desires the child. As such the female selects the child her soul/heart wants and desires. The child is part of the soul of the father at this time. During the sexual union that child is being coaxed to separate him/herself from the man and become a total person. Once that child agrees with that a new person is formed totally complete. IMHO Physically this would happen at ejaculation.

[begbert2]

Souls don't make the question any simpler, since you still have to have some way of determining what things have and do not have souls. That determination has to be made either based on observable characteristics of the thing, in which case you could just use those characteristics directly as your basis for comparison, or it has to be decreed by some authority, and the most-recognized such authority in the US, the Bible, is silent on the matter (it does imply that a fetus has a soul some time before birth, but not precisely when).Come now, souls make things very simple. You simply declare that your god told you that zygotes get souls at conception, so they're babies and people and miscarrages are murder. Done!

And liberals quoting the bible don't count as an authority; only his pastor paraphrasing what might be in the bible is. It's divine inspirationed interpretation, see.


On preview: Aaand there you have your divine inspirationed interpretation! Pastor-free! (And wet dreams are murder!)

[Locrian]

Ha! Begbert2, I love your posts.

For me, it's about survival status. Here's how I break it down:

Embryo, Zygote, fetus-- anything in the womb is clearly not a person. It won't survive at it's present state if removed.

Babies - ALSO not people. They are not capable of making decisions providing care for themselves. They need a grown person to provide.

I can only consider beings capable of surviving on their own as people. Not necessarily in a society sense. I don't care how much their money earning potential is. :)

And no, souls don't exist just because you want them to.

[simster]

You proceed from a false assumption - that pro-choicers feelings about "what makes a person" or when a "fetus" is a "person" makes any difference.

To me - being pro-choice is recognizing that my feelings and beliefs have no role in those of the person doing the choosing - I could feel/believe that every sperm is sacred and its only purpose is to be shoved into a vagina for procreation - but that has no bearing on what someone else might believe, or what they should choose to do with the parasite that is growing within them.

That is what Pro-Choice is about - allowing people to choose the medical procedures they want for the purposes they want them - all other arguments about "sanctity of life" , "fetus = human with rights", etc are all diversions from the point at hand.

[Miller]

I can only consider beings capable of surviving on their own as people. Not necessarily in a society sense. I don't care how much their money earning potential is. :)

I can neither hunt, nor farm. I can only survive because other people do these things for me. Does that mean I'm not a person?

[Eliahna]

YogSoth's POV seems to be the fetus is a parasite and as such lives or dies at the whim of the mother (caretaker) right up to the instant before the umbilical cord is cut.

Thing is after the umbilical is cut the baby's needs increase from when it was in the mother. It requires active effort on the part of caretakers to live. It requires more resource outlays for its survival (clothes at the least). Its status as a parasite continues minus the physical connection to the mother after birth.

So, if it is a parasite its caretakers should have the choice of life or death over it by his logic.
This is my POV, somewhat, but I don't agree with your conclusion. The fetus is a parasite and until it is viable the mother should be able to choose to eject it from her body. Once it is viable and no longer needs to be attached to the mother to survive, I'm against termination. Viability is difficult to define - 23 weekers have survived on rare occasions, and in my mind there's a question mark over whether a very prem baby can be called viable if it's early birth is likely to result in moderate to severe health problems and disabilities. That's something that would need to be hashed out after a lot more research than I'm prepared to do this morning.

A parasite is something that will die without being attached to a host. A newborn is not attached to a host and can be passed from one carer to another without difficulty. Therefore, I do not believe that even a helpless newborn can be called a parasite, they are simply a dependant.

[Locrian]

I can neither hunt, nor farm. I can only survive because other people do these things for me. Does that mean I'm not a person?

You have the capability of learning if you really have to. I love steak, but I don't know how to kill a cow. If I'm stranded on an island only with cows, I'll try my best to figure it out. If I'm 3, I'll cry till I'm dead.

[begbert2]

Ha! Begbert2, I love your posts.

For me, it's about survival status. Here's how I break it down:

Embryo, Zygote, fetus-- anything in the womb is clearly not a person. It won't survive at it's present state if removed.

Babies - ALSO not people. They are not capable of making decisions providing care for themselves. They need a grown person to provide.

I can only consider beings capable of surviving on their own as people. Not necessarily in a society sense. I don't care how much their money earning potential is. :)

And no, souls don't exist just because you want them to.Thanks!

Though, I disagree that survival status is a valid way of defining personhood, largely because my survival status is dependent on the environment just as much as a zygote's. If you tear me away from my Walmarts and my bank accounts and my refridgerator and my water faucets, I'll be aborted within a week.

Since I'm a little leery of any definition of personhood which excludes myself, I'll stick with the one based on brain activity. I'm fairly sure I have brain activity...

[Locrian]

That is what Pro-Choice is about - allowing people to choose the medical procedures they want for the purposes they want them - all other arguments about "sanctity of life" , "fetus = human with rights", etc are all diversions from the point at hand.

I think you put it best. :)

[Locrian]

Thanks!

Though, I disagree that survival status is a valid way of defining personhood, largely because my survival status is dependent on the environment just as much as a zygote's. If you tear me away from my Walmarts and my bank accounts and my refridgerator and my water faucets, I'll be aborted within a week.

Since I'm a little leery of any definition of personhood which excludes myself, I'll stick with the one based on brain activity. I'm fairly sure I have brain activity...

Oh, I'm soooo domesticated too that I doubt I'd survive alone even on a ready to harvest farm. The brain activity you mention is the key. A toddler might know how to pick a strawberry without being told, but he/she probably won't know when it's ripe, how to wash it, how to harvest a lot at once, etc.

[Blut Aus Nord]

Ha! Begbert2, I love your posts.

...
I can only consider beings capable of surviving on their own as people. Not necessarily in a society sense. I don't care how much their money earning potential is. :)

But what about the mentally retarded or the physically handicapped? Does their dependency rob them of their person-hood?

[begbert2]

Oh, I'm soooo domesticated too that I doubt I'd survive alone even on a ready to harvest farm. The brain activity you mention is the key. A toddler might know how to pick a strawberry without being told, but he/she probably won't know when it's ripe, how to wash it, how to harvest a lot at once, etc.Heck man, I wouldn't know when it was ripe. (I'm a nightmare in a kitchen, seriously.) At this point you are talking about deficiencies in knowledge, experience, and/or education, and if that's where we're going then I'm going to start slowly edging out of the room again, before somebody blindsides me with a question about european history or something and decides I'm subhuman based on the results.

[JThunder]

I often get the impression from anti-abortion types that their point of view is dependent upon the existence of a "soul" or something like that.For some, that's surely true. Then you have people like Dr. Bernard Nathanson, (http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html) who left NARAL to join the pro-life side. He did so while still an atheist, so presumably, the notion of a soul had no bearing on his decision.

Since the person-defining "soul" has zero scientific validity....If you mean that it cannot be detected by science, that's true... but only because science is the wrong instrument to use. The soul, if it exists, is non-material; hence, its existence is a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one. Beauty, ethics, and morality cannot be detected by science either, yet few of us would dismiss these notions are being nonsensical.

[Miller]

You have the capability of learning if you really have to.

I'd still need someone to teach me, making me dependent on the teacher.

I love steak, but I don't know how to kill a cow. If I'm stranded on an island only with cows, I'll try my best to figure it out. If I'm 3, I'll cry till I'm dead.

Sure, if I were stranded on an island populated with the docile and domesticated end result of ten thousand years of animal husbandry, I'd probably be able to get by, too. But I'm still relying on the work of ten thousand years worth of cattle farmers to get by. If I have to hunt down a wild aurochs for dinner, my survivability is significantly impaired.

Of course, the issue of disease and injury puts an entirely different spin on your definition of personhood. About two years back, I had to have surgery to correct a life threatening condition. It's not something I could have done myself, even if I had medical training. Did I lose my status as a person for the duration of my medical treatment?

[jsgoddess]

Does that mean I'm not a person?

Well, I didn't want to be the one to tell you, Zerblix...

[Locrian]

But what about the mentally retarded or the physically handicapped? Does their dependency rob them of their person-hood?

Hmmm... still a societal way of classification. I'm stuck thinking on the survivability stuff. If they were alone after a disaster or stranded, no they wouldn't survive. They would need a society to care for them. Since we HAVE a society, yes they're people. I don't believe that people need a function to define themselves as people. Hell, I'm still unemployed and I consider myself a person. (!)

Too bad Eunice Kennedy Shriver passed. I'd like to know what she would think on this.

[BrandonR]

If you mean that it cannot be detected by science, that's true... but only because science is the wrong instrument to use. The soul, if it exists, is non-material; hence, its existence is a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one. Beauty, ethics, and morality cannot be detected by science either, yet few of us would dismiss these notions are being nonsensical.

But beauty, ethics, and morality CAN be contributed to series of electrical pulses in the brain. The soul, on the other hand, is a completely made-up concept that just encompasses anyone who's living. It's what people thought was inside a human before science told us that various parts of the brain are behind different thoughts.

[Knorf]

The soul, if it exists, is non-material; hence, its existence is a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one. Beauty, ethics, and morality cannot be detected by science either, yet few of us would dismiss these notions are being nonsensical.

Beauty can be analyzed by science--it is something that influences real human behavior and its causes and antecedents are well within the province of science. Ethics and morality are both components of human evolution and the development of human society, and have been objects of legitimate scientific interest for some time. Something akin to moral and ethical systems have been identified in other primate groups, for example.

The soul is something mystical with nothing observable in the real world that can account for it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but allowing for mystical objects to influence law-making leads down a path to insanity. Anyone can invent a mystical object; then all one must do is get enough people to believe it. It remains something that someone made up with no basis in reality, nonetheless.

[Voyager]

This is very spiritual and IMHO:

The attraction that m/f have for each other I believe is the desire of the woman to give life to a certain aspect of that man, to have a child - regardless of what her mind says it's her heart that desires the child. As such the female selects the child her soul/heart wants and desires. The child is part of the soul of the father at this time. During the sexual union that child is being coaxed to separate him/herself from the man and become a total person. Once that child agrees with that a new person is formed totally complete. IMHO Physically this would happen at ejaculation.

I think you haven't thought this through.

Mother soul to child soul: Come on now, I want you to be my baby. Separate, please.
Child soul: But it's comfortable here. I want to stay.

Mother soul: It will be good. You'll see the world. You'll grow up. You'll do things.

<nothing>
You'll get to suckle.

Child soul: You convinced me. I'm on my way.

Father pulls out, being a Catholic or something.

Child soul: Oh, shit .....

[Bryan Ekers]

So, am I understanding correctly that (to paraphrase) you believe the question of personhood is a separate question from the right to abortion? (A fetus may be classified as a person, but a woman may still choose to abort?)

I have the same position, myself. Go ahead and call a fetus a person if you want, I don't care. It's a person that is inside the body of another person and the "host" may or may not want it to stay there. If trespassing laws codify that a property owner has to right to remove intruders from his land, I find it hard to imagine a similar (if not far greater) right to self-determination doesn't apply to one's own body.

[Der Trihs]

I think you haven't thought this through.

Mother soul to child soul: Come on now, I want you to be my baby. Separate, please.
Child soul: But it's comfortable here. I want to stay.

Mother soul: It will be good. You'll see the world. You'll grow up. You'll do things.

<nothing>
You'll get to suckle.

Child soul: You convinced me. I'm on my way.

Father pulls out, being a Catholic or something.

Child soul: Oh, shit .....Not to mention the fact that a great many conceptions end in miscarriage, typically without the woman knowing it. From 30%-70%; estimates vary wildly because of the fact that so often no one knows it was there at all. But the estimates have been going up as medical science's ability to detect pregnancy improves.

[Voyager]

Not to mention the fact that a great many conceptions end in miscarriage, typically without the woman knowing it. From 30%-70%; estimates vary wildly because of the fact that so often no one knows it was there at all. But the estimates have been going up as medical science's ability to detect pregnancy improves.

That does it. You've stepped on my joke once too often. Please turn in your anti-rapture helmet and Irony Meter when the black helicopter pays you its next visit. You are hereby drummed out of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, which of course does not exist.

Humph.

[tomndebb]

You sicken me.While not specifically an insult, this stand alone comment in a post does nothing to promote civil discussion.

If you have an overwhelming need to comment on another poster, open a Pit thread.

[ /Modding ]

[Guinastasia]

I think you haven't thought this through.

Mother soul to child soul: Come on now, I want you to be my baby. Separate, please.
Child soul: But it's comfortable here. I want to stay.

Mother soul: It will be good. You'll see the world. You'll grow up. You'll do things.

<nothing>
You'll get to suckle.

Child soul: You convinced me. I'm on my way.

Father pulls out, being a Catholic or something.

Child soul: Oh, shit .....

Or, if someone's not a Catholic, what about using a condom? Or if Mom's on birth control? ;)

[Voyager]

Or, if someone's not a Catholic, what about using a condom? Or if Mom's on birth control? ;)

See the sperm segment in Woody Allen's Everything you Wanted to Know About Sex.. BTW, gags don't go through peer review, just so you know.

*wanders off muttering about goyim and humor ... *

[athelas]

I have the same position, myself. Go ahead and call a fetus a person if you want, I don't care. It's a person that is inside the body of another person and the "host" may or may not want it to stay there. If trespassing laws codify that a property owner has to right to remove intruders from his land, I find it hard to imagine a similar (if not far greater) right to self-determination doesn't apply to one's own body.The fact that the "host" knowingly undertook a process that would put themselves in that situation means that it's not morally equivalent to finding an intruder in your home. It would be more like dragging someone in, or at least putting up a lot of "GARAGE SALE" signs and then acting all surprised when people show up.

[Bryan Ekers]

The fact that the "host" knowingly undertook a process that would put themselves in that situation means that it's not morally equivalent to finding an intruder in your home. It would be more like dragging someone in, or at least putting up a lot of "GARAGE SALE" signs and then acting all surprised when people show up.

Sure, they can show up, but they don't get to stay for nine months. They don't in fact, get to legally stay any longer than the homeowner wants them to. For that matter, picture having a garage sale and people come and go. Then the homeowner discovers while checking the attic that one of them left a child behind. The homeowner isn't legally required to give the child room and board for the better part of a year.

[athelas]

By your argument they don't even get to come. I'm perfectly within my rights to invite everyone over and then unceremoniously boot them off my property. In real life this would be considered quite the dick move, and I'm not even killing my would-be guests.

[jsgoddess]

By your argument they don't even get to come. I'm perfectly within my rights to invite everyone over and then unceremoniously boot them off my property. In real life this would be considered quite the dick move, and I'm not even killing my would-be guests.

If it makes you happy, I'm sure women could tell them to leave first.

[Bryan Ekers]

By your argument they don't even get to come. I'm perfectly within my rights to invite everyone over and then unceremoniously boot them off my property.

As jsgoddess points out, you can be as polite about it as you want, but it's a simple enough concept - do you have the right to remove people from your property?

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

You're not a person until you're in my phone book.
















(Thanks again, Bill Hicks)

[Der Trihs]

The fact that the "host" knowingly undertook a process that would put themselves in that situation means that it's not morally equivalent to finding an intruder in your home. Somehow I doubt many women set out to get pregnant, then have an abortion.

And no, having sex is not only about having children. Humans are not built to have sex only for reproduction; we aren't cattle. We are built to have lots of sex which will only occasionally result in children, even without birth control.

[yelimS]

wait for it... wait for it... waaaaiiiit fooor iiit.... THERE! personpersonpersonperson!

I love how Peter Singer dared even arguing for infanticide being less of a moral problem than the killing of some animals. There's no magic dividing lines, killing just becomes more and more problematic the more the "victim"/victim becomes entangled in this "life"-thing. Being more open to judge each ethical dilemma on its own would save us a lot of inessential and misleading discussion of definitions.

[Krokodil]

Here's a question for anti-abortion advocates: Does a fertilized egg have a soul? Is it entitled to every consideration that a breathing baby gets?

I once read a rather surprising (to me) statistic (No cite available; it was in a newspaper over 20 years ago. Sorry.): The average fertile, sexually active woman is "pregnant" a couple of dozen times in her life, but her body spontaneously aborts most of these fertilized eggs without the mother ever even knowing they were in her. Do these miscarriages rate a full funeral service?

Prior to 1869 (their first formal prohibition of all abortion), the Catholic Church recognized something called "quickening," when the unborn baby passed a threshold of viability. After about thirteen weeks, the fetus was hardy enough that it would probably be born alive, and at this point the Church considered it to have a soul and to be a person.

Not sure why they abandoned this viewpoint, but it makes sense to me.

[monavis]

What happens to the soul of a frozen embryo? Does it freeze? Does it hang around the embryo until it is inserted in a womb? Can the souls pop in and out? If the embryo is not placed in a womb and is not baptized, what happens to it? What is the difference between soul and life? If the life leaves the embryo does the soul still remain?

[athelas]

Somehow I doubt many women set out to get pregnant, then have an abortion.

And no, having sex is not only about having children. Humans are not built to have sex only for reproduction; we aren't cattle. We are built to have lots of sex which will only occasionally result in children, even without birth control.Sure, people do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. I even hear people dress up as animals and go to conventions.

Nevertheless, if you're old enough to be having sex, you're old enough to realize that that's where babies come from and there's a nonzero chance of you getting pregnant. The problem I have with the "intruder in your home" argument is the faux-surprise element, as though babies rain from the sky and there's nothing you can do to avoid 'em. I'm sure we can all agree that if you don't want to be pregnant, it's worse to be pregnant than not-pregnant, both for the woman and for the fetus (whose personhood, at least at some stage of abortionable development, has been conceded upthread). A woman who has sex, however, has accepted a probabilistic risk of pregnancy, and thus cannot be said to have zero responsibility for the existence of the fetus.

Now you can say that this nonzero responsibility still isn't big enough to justify having the woman carry the baby to term. But you can't play upon the idea of an intruder whom the homeowner did not invite inside. Again, it's not like you walk down the street and hey, surprise, baby!

[Dusty Rose]

I believe in souls, and that our soul is what makes us who we are. My beliefs are a bit different from the mainstream, but I think the soul enters the body at the moment of birth and not before. The last transformation from potential to actual personhood.

[StaudtCJ]

The analogies being used are flawed. It's not like having a random visitor for 9 months. It's like you accidentally invited in your wife's 2nd cousin, and he decides not only to stay for nine months (whether you want him to or not), but to rip out a few walls (leaving large holes), reposition the door, break half the windows, and water your couch. Not only that, he steals and hides your food, laces everything you do get to eat with hot peppers, and randomly walks up to you and smacks you hard enough to make your nose bleed. If you're going to use a houseguest/property analogy, you have to take into account the involuntary changes made to the "house" and the internal damage done. A woman who gets pregnant LITERALLY has the nutrients ripped from her bones to create/build this new life. I'm not putting a toe in on whether abortion should be done or not, just trying to make people realize the severity of the "intrusion".

[Bryan Ekers]

A woman who has sex, however, has accepted a probabilistic risk of pregnancy, and thus cannot be said to have zero responsibility for the existence of the fetus.

So? Along with that responsibility, she has (or I see no valid argument why she should not have) full authority to continue or terminate the pregnancy.

Now you can say that this nonzero responsibility still isn't big enough to justify having the woman carry the baby to term. But you can't play upon the idea of an intruder whom the homeowner did not invite inside. Again, it's not like you walk down the street and hey, surprise, baby!

All birth control methods have a failure rate and some women will be subjected to rape. For them, the baby is a "surprise". I don't see the value in punishing these women just so we can teach a lesson to, you imply, some irresponsible slut who gets herself knocked up. Yes, I definitely can play upon the unwanted intruder idea, because as I believe one should have the right to control who or what stays in one's home (even if the situation is partly or wholly of one's own creation), an even greater imperative exists to control who or what stays in one's body (even if the situation is partly or wholly of one's own creation).

[monavis]

I believe in souls, and that our soul is what makes us who we are. My beliefs are a bit different from the mainstream, but I think the soul enters the body at the moment of birth and not before. The last transformation from potential to actual personhood.

What is a soul composed of? When one dies, it is believed that the soul leaves the body;where does the life go,and what is the difference? Does the soul invade the body like some believe a demon does?

Doesn't one's genetic makeup and enviroment have something to do with what one becomes?

[Sinaijon]

You proceed from a false assumption - that pro-choicers feelings about "what makes a person" or when a "fetus" is a "person" makes any difference.

Well, there seems to be a mix of 3 opinions in this thread. I think the question of 'what makes a person' is pretty vital, because, regardless of which camp you are in, at some point in time, a fetus goes from existing solely at its mother's discretion to having rights of its own, despite what the mother wants.

For some people ('Fetus isn't a person' ), this only happens presumably at birth. But the problem with that is that 'birth' is also a drawn out process. The loop holes I see with this logic:

1) How much of the fetus needs to be out before it has rights of its own? 100%? People who support partial-birth abortion seem to argue for that. As long as some part of the fetus is still in the mother, the mother has the right to not only remove it, but also over its very existence. What about other body parts that are placed in the mother. She obviously has the right to have them removed, but does she have the right over it's very existence because it is inside her? Is it the umbilical cord that makes the difference?

2) A baby that is recently born is still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord for several minutes. What is the state of the baby at this point? Does it have rights of its own? I think most people would say yes. If so, the umbilical cord seems to be irrelevant. How does this square with #1?

For other people(quite a few in this thread, it seems, and I would think most people at large, as well), the 'personhood' happens along the way, and that it affects the mother's rights. This the toughest to define, but it seems to require that at least some sort of measurable thing, an 'event', has changed in the fetus. Brain activity, quickening, etc. For those with this position:

1) Do you think that testing for the particular 'event' is reasonable before allowing an abortion?
2) Does a mother have the obligation to abort before that time, or else forfeit those rights?
3) Does the fetus ever acquire squatters rights? (Adverse possession) after that 'event'?


The last group ('personhood' doesn't matter) is probably the one I understand least. If 'personhood' doesn't matter, why should it _ever_ matter? Catfight listed a bunch of conditions where we, as a society, might force a death upon someone, but it seems to me that in all those cases, there was still 'personhood' and the associated rights being protected. There never was the opportunity for a single person to exercise a life/death decision on someone else without satisfying societies preconditions first.

[Dusty Rose]

What is a soul composed of? When one dies, it is believed that the soul leaves the body;where does the life go,and what is the difference? Does the soul invade the body like some believe a demon does?

Doesn't one's genetic makeup and enviroment have something to do with what one becomes?

I don't want to hijack this thread, and like I said above, my beliefs aren't mainstream. I don't pretend to know all of the answers by any means, all I can say is what I believe.

I don't know what a soul is composed of. I don't believe it can be measured or quantified by science, though.

And, I suppose, according to how I imagine it, it would be along the lines of a demon invasion. That it enters the body and resides there, so yes. :)

And certainly genetics and environment play a huge role in who you become. Your soul retains the deeper, larger life lessons.

When you die, your soul goes to the other side to rest. To recharge. To review. To come back when it's ready. That you determine the general path for your next life time in order to best learn the lessons you haven't finished learning. The school of life, I suppose.

I don't believe you have to have religion. I don't believe everyone is on the same path, or that anyone is learning the same lessons at the same time. I think that we are too deep to only have one life, or that when we die we're just gone. I don't think we just sit around heaven for eternity playing harps. Eternity is a really long time and that would get boring.


Can I prove any of it? No. It is what it is. No one really knows what happens when we die, this is just my belief. The only thing that makes sense to me at my core.

[Bryan Ekers]

The last group ('personhood' doesn't matter) is probably the one I understand least.

Picture a cyst inside your body. It won't kill you, but it is growing and will becoming an increasing physical burden. If you express a desire to have it removed, someone blocks you while claiming the removal is not God's will.

Who should make the final decision; you, or them? It's not any more complicated than that.

[Mtgman]

You proceed from a false assumption - that pro-choicers feelings about "what makes a person" or when a "fetus" is a "person" makes any difference.Pro-choicers, like any group of humans, have a spectrum of motivations and viewpoints on this issue. Painting them as all having the same opinion does them a disservice and weakens your argument.That is what Pro-Choice is about - allowing people to choose the medical procedures they want for the purposes they want themSo does being pro-choice have automatic implications for one's opinion on euthanasia, vaccination, or elective surgeries a la Michael Jackson or the girl who wanted to look like a Barbie?

We restrict people's choices for medical treatments all the time, and just try to live in a modern society without vaccinations, and see how enormous the pressure of society can be.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Sinaijon]

Picture a cyst inside your body.

Isn't that more of an argument for "A fetus isn't a person' than 'personhood doesn't matter'?

[AHunter3]

1) How much of the fetus needs to be out before it has rights of its own? 100%?

I think there should be a ceremonial, if not literal, opportunity for the new Mom to cut the cord and declare the newborn baby to be alive. If she says it's not, it's officially not, regardless of any assessments to the contrary that medical science might make. (she can avail herself of information that medical science is capable of providing her with, though).

Once she says it's alive, it acquires the rights of citizens and is entitled to protections etc.

I believe I already said I'm OK with Roe v Wade as a compromise. RvW says the gov can restrict abortion rights to an increasing extent as the trimesters tick on, and by the time of birth the opportunity for abortion is long long gone.

[Bryan Ekers]

Isn't that more of an argument for "A fetus isn't a person' than 'personhood doesn't matter'?

Fine, then picture a person inside your body. The key factor here isn't what's inside your body, but that there is something inside your body and whose decision will it be as to whether or not it stays there.

[Revenant Threshold]

A woman who has sex, however, has accepted a probabilistic risk of pregnancy, and thus cannot be said to have zero responsibility for the existence of the fetus. I don't see why you can't say the same about owning a home. A certain number of the people who own homes are going to be broken into at some point; it is the risk you take when you make that decision. Certainly, you could make every effort to try and make your home as secure as possible; likewise, you could leave your door open to all-comers and make the analogy fairly unpleasant. I don't see why you can't play upon the idea; in both cases, the person has one outcome in mind whilst (presumably) knowing that another outcome is possible. Buy a house and you accept a probabilisitic risk, too.

[Der Trihs]

1) How much of the fetus needs to be out before it has rights of its own? 100%? People who support partial-birth abortion seem to argue for that. As long as some part of the fetus is still in the mother, the mother has the right to not only remove it, but also over its very existence. What about other body parts that are placed in the mother. She obviously has the right to have them removed, but does she have the right over it's very existence because it is inside her? Is it the umbilical cord that makes the difference?It's the fact that the fetus in question is already dead, will be dead soon and/or will kill the mother if it isn't removed. "Partial birth abortion" is a right wing political phrase not a medical term; used because outlawing "removing dead fetus" or "saving a woman's life" sounds harder to justify. People who oppose it are trying to kill women, even if they are too ignorant to realize that's what they are doing.

[Sinaijon]

But that there is something inside your body and whose decision will it be as to whether or not it stays there.

But abortion rights extend beyond simple removal, especially if 'personhood' is established at a point after viability.

Picture this. Consensual sexual intercourse where the woman changes her mind mid event. There is a person partially inside her. She has the right for removal, but does she have any rights beyond that? I think it would be hard to argue that she also has the right to terminate the life of her partner, because the partner also has his own rights.

Or in the case of partial birth abortion (I don't know your particular stance on this). The fetus is already being removed.

The right to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of the status of the fetus, seems to me to extend far beyond mere privacy and control of body rights.

[Sinaijon]

It's the fact that the fetus in question is already dead, will be dead soon

argumentum a python montius. I'm not dead yet.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is no such thing as "partial-birth abortion." The procedure called "intact dilation and extraction" is performed in the second trimester. Elective abortions don't happen in the third trimester. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare, only occur for urgent medical reasons, and the fetus is usually already dead or dying.

The image of healthy, full-term "babies" being callously aborted by cackling "abortionists" seconds before delivery is pure, anti-choice, outrage fantasy. It's no more real than Obama's "death camps."

I say it's entitled to legal status as a person when it is no longer living in another person's body. The woman (not "the mother," since there is no child) is entitled to have it removed from her body. After it's out, the state can call it whatever it wants. 99.99% of the time, it's still going to be dead, though.

[Trans Fat Og]

This is very spiritual and IMHO:

The attraction that m/f have for each other I believe is the desire of the woman to give life to a certain aspect of that man, to have a child - regardless of what her mind says it's her heart that desires the child. As such the female selects the child her soul/heart wants and desires. The child is part of the soul of the father at this time. During the sexual union that child is being coaxed to separate him/herself from the man and become a total person. Once that child agrees with that a new person is formed totally complete. IMHO Physically this would happen at ejaculation.Boy, your posts are fun!

(IMHO) ;)

What if there is a premature ejaculation? Such as one the fiancé has when his gal says yea to his bended-knee proposal? Or one the hapless boyfriend has the moment they cross the threshold... into the drive-in? :p

Sorry, I just couldn't hold it in ...resist!
:D

[Sinaijon]

I say it's entitled to legal status as a person when it is no longer living in another person's body.

So where along the process of birth does that occur? After the umbilical cord is cut?

[jsgoddess]

Picture this. Consensual sexual intercourse where the woman changes her mind mid event. There is a person partially inside her. She has the right for removal, but does she have any rights beyond that? I think it would be hard to argue that she also has the right to terminate the life of her partner, because the partner also has his own rights.

If you can get the other person out without killing it or greatly increasing your risks, I have no problem with requiring that.

This once again goes back to my "You can ask it nicely to leave" point.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So where along the process of birth does that occur? After the umbilical cord is cut?
When it's out of her body (just so you know, the umbilical cord is no longer connected to the mother after birth, so it's pretty much irrelevant too HER body if you cut it off the baby or not. The other end just comes out with the afterbirth anyway).

This is a bogus question, though, since abortions don't occur in the 3rd trimester.

[cosmosdan]

When it's out of her body.

This is a bogus question, though, since abortions don't occur in the 3rd trimester.

What? Ever? Seriously?

Never mind. I should have read more before I posted.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What? Ever? Seriously?
Not elective abortions. no.

something like 1/16 of 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester -- that's not 1/16 of abortions, it's 1/16 of a single percent.

Those very rare abortions are performed only for urgent medical reasosn, and the fetus is usually already dead or dying.

Elective abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in most states (Roe allows restrictions in the 3rd trimester), and there are only like 3 clinics in the US which will perform 3rd trimester abortions even then (it might be down to 2 now. Dr. Tiller was one of them, and he just got murdered).

[begbert2]

For other people(quite a few in this thread, it seems, and I would think most people at large, as well), the 'personhood' happens along the way, and that it affects the mother's rights. This the toughest to define, but it seems to require that at least some sort of measurable thing, an 'event', has changed in the fetus. Brain activity, quickening, etc. For those with this position:

1) Do you think that testing for the particular 'event' is reasonable before allowing an abortion?
2) Does a mother have the obligation to abort before that time, or else forfeit those rights?
3) Does the fetus ever acquire squatters rights? (Adverse possession) after that 'event'?
The major problem with your question 1 here is that it counfounds decision-making. Suppose for a moment that the "quickening" (we'll call it, to bypass the discussion of what we're speificially testing) can happen at any point between month two and month 8. So, some women could in theory wait until the last minute, and some wouldn't be able to, depending on when quickening happened. And you'd only know if you'd passed the point of no return if you did the test and found out it was too late.

So, what does this leave us with? Prudent people would have to always make their decision before month 2, to be sure, and you'd get a lot of other people who dawdled and then protested when the rug was yanked out from under them. To say nothing of the issues if the 'quickening' happened unexpectedly between the last test and the abortion, and somebody found out and decided to litigate...

To problematic. Better to make a single absolute rule and stick with that. Wether you arbitrarily set the cutoff at the average quickening time, before the earliest known quecking time, or one or two standard deviations before is, of course, up to the law makers, but in any case I think a fixed time that people can anticiapte and plan for is the best way to go.

As for 2 and 3, presuming we mean the fixed point rather than the unpredictable point, then yes and yes - barring health issues for the mother. There's a difference between having the right to squat and the right to wreck the place.



But abortion rights extend beyond simple removal, especially if 'personhood' is established at a point after viability.

Picture this. Consensual sexual intercourse where the woman changes her mind mid event. There is a person partially inside her. She has the right for removal, but does she have any rights beyond that? I think it would be hard to argue that she also has the right to terminate the life of her partner, because the partner also has his own rights.

Or in the case of partial birth abortion (I don't know your particular stance on this). The fetus is already being removed.

The right to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of the status of the fetus, seems to me to extend far beyond mere privacy and control of body rights.In my opinion this comes down to the difficulty of removal without killing the person. If the woman can't get them man to pull out, regardless of her protests, it becomes rape, and it might become arguable that extreme force to remove the intruder would be justified.

I personally hope that nobody's serious about the woman having the right to "abort" right up to the moment the umbilical is cut.

[Cat Fight]

Picture this. Consensual sexual intercourse where the woman changes her mind mid event. There is a person partially inside her. She has the right for removal, but does she have any rights beyond that? I think it would be hard to argue that she also has the right to terminate the life of her partner, because the partner also has his own rights.


'But babeee, if we don't do it I'll get blue balls and DIE!'

[Sinaijon]

When it's out of her body (just so you know, the umbilical cord is no longer connected to the mother after birth, so it's pretty much irrelevant too HER body if you cut it off the baby or not. The other end just comes out with the afterbirth anyway).

That is not correct. A baby continues to draw resources from the umbilical cord even after it is born, even if it is breathing. The placenta itself does not begin to detach until after birth, and can take quite some time to actually do so.

[Sinaijon]

'But babeee, if we don't do it I'll get blue balls and DIE!'

That totally doesn't work, BTW.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That is not correct. A baby continues to draw resources from the umbilical cord even after it is born, even if it is breathing. The placenta itself does not begin to detach until after birth, and can take quite some time to actually do so.
I've seen three children being born, and cut three umbilical cords. The placenta detaches pretty much immediately. It's immaterial whether the baby is drawing anything from the umbilical cord (which it isn't really). The umbilical cord is drawing nothing fom the mother. It's attached to nothing but hamburger, and it only takes a few minutes to discharge.

[Sinaijon]

I've seen three children being born, and cut three umbilical cords.

That's nice. So have I. Is that relevant some how?


The placenta detaches pretty much immediately


I guess that's why nobody bothers about managing third stage of labor and postpartum hemorrhaging isn't a big deal.


It's immaterial whether the baby is drawing anything from the umbilical cord (which it isn't really).

If that's the case, then there wouldn't be any reason not to immediately cut the cord. Unfortunately, medical literature (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17374818) indicates otherwise.

In any case, I notice you still haven't answered the question.

[Triskadecamus]

The actual differentiation only matters in the legal sense.

If you legally define any zygote with human dna as a person, then you have to provide that person with all the rights of any other person.

And since the inside zygote has no ability to represent its own interest, you have to have legal jurisdiction over the person inside of which the newly defined person exists. The state becomes the default guardian of the rights of that zygote. The state must exercise its authority over any woman who might have such a person inside of them. Procreation becomes a function of state authority.

Of course that is entirely acceptable to a fairly large percentage of the population.

Tris

[Chronos]

The major problem with your question 1 here is that it counfounds decision-making. Suppose for a moment that the "quickening" (we'll call it, to bypass the discussion of what we're speificially testing) can happen at any point between month two and month 8. So, some women could in theory wait until the last minute, and some wouldn't be able to, depending on when quickening happened. And you'd only know if you'd passed the point of no return if you did the test and found out it was too late.I expect that most "quickening" events occur on a regular enough schedule to make this essentially a moot point. If a fetus hasn't developed brain wave activity by 8 months, it's never going to, and in fact would probably have been spontaneously aborted long before that.

[YogSosoth]

I'll do this backwards

To be clear I am not arguing with you but YogSoth's take on it. He departs from us in that he feels the mother should be allowed to kill the baby right up to the instant before the umbilical is cut. As such I think he is stretching the notion that it is a parasite thus at the whim of the mother out of all recognition. I merely extended that notion to try to portray its absurdity and show how it is morally bankrupt.


You're right in that I see it as a parasite. I don't see how that's morally bankrupt but whatever, you and I differ on that point.



My take on this issue is that up until the point where a baby can be born and survive on its own (obviously with care) it's not a person, it's an undeveloped grouping of cells and tissue. To me, preventing the continued development of a jumble of biological matter incapable of survival without you and only you is not murder.


I used to think that way until I realized that with better technology, someday we might be able to remove a fetus from a mother so early that abortion of any sort would be shot down due to that clause. I don't want people in 50 years to be able to use the argument that a fetus can survive in the first trimester so abortion should be illegal. I value the right of choice; the fetus's survival has no bearing on it, that's why abortion should be legal up until the cord is cut and the baby is out.



Thing is after the umbilical is cut the baby's needs increase from when it was in the mother. It requires active effort on the part of caretakers to live. It requires more resource outlays for its survival (clothes at the least). Its status as a parasite continues minus the physical connection to the mother after birth.

So, if it is a parasite its caretakers should have the choice of life or death over it by his logic.

Yeah that's basically it. Other things I frequently compare a fetus to are fingers: they are yours in every sense of the word, but they are a distinct part of your body and cutting it off should be your right.

Except anyone can feed the baby formula from a can. It's not dependent on the (original) mother the same way an undeveloped fetus is, which is what I can assume YogSosoth was referring to. Once a baby is born it no longer exclusively depends on a single person for continued development. If that were the case, adopted kids would surely not exist.

Not just a single person, but the person from which the fetus was created. I dont want some lawyer to be able to spuriously define who takes care of the fetus if somebody happened to help out the mother. That's why I strictly provide that abortion should be legal up to the point of voluntary birth and the cutting of the cord.


So, by your rationale the mother (or whatever adult that needs to expend their own resources to keep the baby alive) should be free to bash it in the head and be done with it.

Only once the child is no longer sucking resources from its keepers can the child be said to have rights of its own.

Pretty messed up thinking there.

It might seem distasteful, but think about what the fetus will miss if it dies. Nothing. Has a fetus ever, at any moment in its brief life, been subject to thoughts like we have ourselves? Does anyone alive remember when they were born? If it wasn't for pictures, for all intents and purposes, you did not exist prior to your first memories. It is absolutely impossible for you to know anything from that time, so if you lack it, you do not actually lose anything. People do not sit around worrying about their lack of existence prior to being conceived. I do not worry that was wronged for not being born a hundred years ago, or a thousand. I didn't exist, thus I cannot miss it. A fetus cannot miss its life any more than you can miss not being born in the era of the Romans or the ancient Egyptians. Thus its death is not a bad thing, it is nothing, it is neutral.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's nice. So have I. Is that relevant some how?



I guess that's why nobody bothers about managing third stage of labor and postpartum hemorrhaging isn't a big deal.



If that's the case, then there wouldn't be any reason not to immediately cut the cord. Unfortunately, medical literature (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17374818) indicates otherwise.

In any case, I notice you still haven't answered the question.
I did answer the question -- when the baby is out of the mother. The cord is only attached to the baby at that point, so it doesn't matter to the mother if you cut it or not. It will come out regardless.

[begbert2]

I expect that most "quickening" events occur on a regular enough schedule to make this essentially a moot point. If a fetus hasn't developed brain wave activity by 8 months, it's never going to, and in fact would probably have been spontaneously aborted long before that.Moot or not, I still want deadlines you can plan for. If the variance is low it just makes it easier to set them.

[Cat Fight]

It might seem distasteful, but think about what the fetus will miss if it dies. Nothing. Has a fetus ever, at any moment in its brief life, been subject to thoughts like we have ourselves? Does anyone alive remember when they were born?

I don't think it's distasteful (big surprise). In fact, it's always been a comfort to me. But I think a lot of people don't deal well with 'What ifs?' especially when it comes to life-altering events like childbirth. There is some amount of superstition, and a hefty dose of caution against playing God in these debates, something I've noticed since the very first argument that included the old chestnut 'You just aborted Beethoven and saved Hitler!' If that's the crux of someone's anti-abortion argument, then giving women reproductive freedom not only allows them to live their own lives as they see fit, it allows them to alter the entire course of history. That's a hell of a lot of power to give man's 'helper.'

[YogSosoth]

I don't think it's distasteful (big surprise). In fact, it's always been a comfort to me. But I think a lot of people don't deal well with 'What ifs?' especially when it comes to life-altering events like childbirth. There is some amount of superstition, and a hefty dose of caution against playing God in these debates, something I've noticed since the very first argument that included the old chestnut 'You just aborted Beethoven and saved Hitler!' If that's the crux of someone's anti-abortion argument, then giving women reproductive freedom not only allows them to live their own lives as they see fit, it allows them to alter the entire course of history. That's a hell of a lot of power to give man's 'helper.'

Being atheist, I've never gotten the whole "playing god" argument for, well, anything. So what if that's what we're doing? We do that when we execute don't we? When we change our surroundings for more comfortable living, kill animals to eat, have sex to create life, isn't that all playing god? If abortion is playing god, then playing god should be ok.

[Chronos]

Moot or not, I still want deadlines you can plan for. If the variance is low it just makes it easier to set them. Right, I mean that they're probably consistent enough that you wouldn't have to actually do an EEG of the fetus before an abortion, or whatever: You could just count a certain number of days from the woman's last period or from the date of intercourse.

[Sampiro]

Short answer: brain waves (as stated many times).

Long answer:

“Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?”
or “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”
by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan (http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml)

Excerpts:

Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.


Moneyshots are on the final page:


...brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

...
Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester--except in cases of grave medical necessity--it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life.

[cosmosdan]

Not elective abortions. no.

something like 1/16 of 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester -- that's not 1/16 of abortions, it's 1/16 of a single percent.

Those very rare abortions are performed only for urgent medical reasosn, and the fetus is usually already dead or dying.

Elective abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in most states (Roe allows restrictions in the 3rd trimester), and there are only like 3 clinics in the US which will perform 3rd trimester abortions even then (it might be down to 2 now. Dr. Tiller was one of them, and he just got murdered).

I saw the ORielly clips on Tiller. He made it sound like it happened all the time and Tiller was just in it for the dough.

[Bryan Ekers]

But abortion rights extend beyond simple removal, especially if 'personhood' is established at a point after viability.

Do they?

Picture this. Consensual sexual intercourse where the woman changes her mind mid event. There is a person partially inside her. She has the right for removal, but does she have any rights beyond that? I think it would be hard to argue that she also has the right to terminate the life of her partner, because the partner also has his own rights.

I'd like to firmly establish that regardless of the outcome, you're conceding that she can demand the removal. I'm willing to concede that she has no right of destruction over the penis or fetus or baby once it is removed from her body.

Or in the case of partial birth abortion (I don't know your particular stance on this). The fetus is already being removed.
My stance is that "partial birth" is a misleading description. As I understand the procedure, it's only ever performed when medical necessity requires. I can imagine (with difficulty) a woman seeking and a doctor performing a purely election late-term abortion, but this is so ridiculously rare that I don't feel compelled to support a law that specifically bans it.

As it stands, Canada has no such law and a purely-elective late-term abortion is technically legal here. I don't know if it ever actually occurred, though. I doubt it. If it did, I'd find it hard to summon any outrage over it.

The right to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of the status of the fetus, seems to me to extend far beyond mere privacy and control of body rights.

And you're perfectly free to feel that way, but I ask you to consider the ramifications if such beliefs get written into law. If you are female, can you picture having an unwanted pregnancy? If male, can you picture a female relative having an unwanted pregnancy? On what basis and to what extent can the state interfere?

[Revenant Threshold]

There is some amount of superstition, and a hefty dose of caution against playing God in these debates, something I've noticed since the very first argument that included the old chestnut 'You just aborted Beethoven and saved Hitler!' Technically, if we have the capability to "play God", then deciding to use it or not use would both be playing God. It's the power of the decision as much as the power of the actual act.

[monavis]

Technically, if we have the capability to "play God", then deciding to use it or not use would both be playing God. It's the power of the decision as much as the power of the actual act.

There are a lot of things we humans do every day that could be called playing God.
We have surgery,use oxygen, etc. Maybe God wants a person to die of a decease and we prevent it?

According to the psalmist we are gods. so I would say if one believes the OT, we are not just playing god but are, Jesus backed this up when He was accused of calling God His father. To each his own, it is a belief and every one is entitled to their own beliefs, but should not force another to follow their beliefs.

One should not be forced to have an abortion nor should one be forced not to because someone differs with them.

Many abortions could be avoided if they had birth control or the morning after pill available to them if they wished.

Some women have their tubes tied and some men vasectomies to prevent having children they do not wish to have, some religions forbid this although there were eunochs who were made so by humans according to Paul, and it wasn't. considered a sin by him.

[monavis]

I don't want to hijack this thread, and like I said above, my beliefs aren't mainstream. I don't pretend to know all of the answers by any means, all I can say is what I believe.

I don't know what a soul is composed of. I don't believe it can be measured or quantified by science, though.

And, I suppose, according to how I imagine it, it would be along the lines of a demon invasion. That it enters the body and resides there, so yes. :)

And certainly genetics and environment play a huge role in who you become. Your soul retains the deeper, larger life lessons.

When you die, your soul goes to the other side to rest. To recharge. To review. To come back when it's ready. That you determine the general path for your next life time in order to best learn the lessons you haven't finished learning. The school of life, I suppose.

I don't believe you have to have religion. I don't believe everyone is on the same path, or that anyone is learning the same lessons at the same time. I think that we are too deep to only have one life, or that when we die we're just gone. I don't think we just sit around heaven for eternity playing harps. Eternity is a really long time and that would get boring.


Can I prove any of it? No. It is what it is. No one really knows what happens when we die, this is just my belief. The only thing that makes sense to me at my core.
So, Is life on the other side too? Where does it go? Where does the life of plants, animals etc. go? Where is the other side? Is it in another universe? Is life a continous thing that becomes what it was before it was in a human, plant or animal? If there is a soul, why was the punishment (according to the OT) death, not loss of soul?

Your beliefs are fine with me, and you have every right to believe that way. Just as others and myself believe differently.