A Fetus is not a Person

[Lemur866]

I’m not a Christian, so your arguments about when Christians celebrate Christmas are pretty much irrelevant. But the “Annunciation”, when Mary is supposed to have recieved the news that she was going to produce Jesus is equivalent to Jesus’s conception, and actually is celebrated by Christians.

And no, all our laws do NOT indicate that personhood begins at birth. If you kill an unborn baby you can be prosecuted for murder…although often you’ll be charged with manslaughter rather than murder 1 or murder 2. So contrary to your statement unborn babies are protected by our laws and the common law.

Our language does not strictly differentiate between fetuses who are merely things and born babies who are human beings. Haven’t you ever heard a pregnant woman refer to the entity inside her uterus as a “baby”? Have you ever talked to a pregnant woman? Have you ever talked to any woman? If language always and only treated fetuses as objects, the phrase “unborn baby” would be nonsensical. However, since you have some understanding of what I mean when I say “unborn baby” it cannot be that a person still inside their mother’s womb is a contradiction in terms.

The truth is that our “laws, social norms, language conventions, economic policies, regulations and more” gradually begin to recognize the personhood of an unborn baby as that baby develops. The attempt to create a bright dividing line…either at conception, or at birth…is misguided. In my personal opinion a fertillized egg isn’t really a human being, neither is a clump of undifferentiated cells. That doesn’t mean that a 7 month old fetus is just an inhuman thing. You have no problem recognizing a premature baby born at 7 months as a person do you? So why should an identical 7 month baby be an object just because they’re still in their mother’s womb?

I don’t agree that human life begins at conception. But no one besides you believes that human life begins exclusively at birth. Sure, we could just declare that human life begins at birth, but that will lead us to a host of nonsensical conclusions that common sense requires us to reject. Therefore, common sense tells us that a fetus gradually assumes personhood sometime between conception and birth…but there are not and cannot be any bright dividing lines between persons and objects. Some entities are unambigiously persons, some entities are unambigiously objects, other entities are ambigious. Deal the with the ambigiuity. You can’t just define it away.

[monavis]

In response to Beatle dave;
Yes, I have helped mother’s; with food,taken care of their children, cleaned their houses etc. for free, had my children baby sit for free so they could get away, and yes, I have done a lot for women who live in shelters, not only making clothes for the children, giving money. I had no room to take them in but gladly support them in their efforts, but see no simularity,to a battered woman to a woman in distress about a pregnancy. I know why a woman wants to get away from an abusive husband, but cannot know her mental state, physical,financial, or emotional state so I leave that up to her and her doctor.

Many seem to be very concerned (in this country) about a woman’s right to choose.or not, yet we do not do much about helping the ons’e who choose or are forced to go through a pregnancy, or offer her birth control. When I see thousands of born babies in Africa slowly starving to death, and abused babies in this country, and read that the birth control is not available to some places because it"might" carry the cost of abortion. I wonder just what life they are concerned with, surely not the mother’s or the born babies.

There is life in a man’s sperm, yes it is human life, and could be a potintial human given the right circumstance.
Life is a passed on thing, human life from ancestor to ancestor to the present day person that is you ,I or any one alive.

Because a woman is already born, and if she has children already born, they should be considered over a potential being that may cause hardship to her or the others in her family. Unless she feels she can take care of them. That should be her right, she is more than a brood mare, and shouldn’t be reduced to being such.

Monavis

[Malacandra]

Whereupon monavis decides not to stick to the subject of the OP after all :rolleyes:

[kanicbird]

IIRC death or a person is medically defined w/ the stopping of brainwaves, so I think that the beginning of brainwaves would be the start of ‘personhood’.

[Malacandra]

I think a nice rule-of-thumb definition would be “round about the age at which, if it were born prematurely and desperately wanted, we would fight tooth and nail to keep it alive, and have some hope of succeeding”, with maybe a week or two margin for error.

[rayh]

@Malacandra

I think a nice rule-of-thumb definition would be “round about the age at which, if it were born prematurely and desperately wanted, we would fight tooth and nail to keep it alive, and have some hope of succeeding”, with maybe a week or two margin for error.

That was originally the thinking behind the abortion laws in this country. If the fetus was viable outside the womb, then it was too late for an abortion. I believe the advances in medical science has now lowered the age at which a fetus is viable outside the womb, but the abortion laws have not been changed.

Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, if there is a substantial risk to the woman’s life or if there are foetal abnormalities there is no time limit.

To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children.

[WhyNot]

@rayh

That was originally the thinking behind the abortion laws in this country. If the fetus was viable outside the womb, then it was too late for an abortion. I believe the advances in medical science has now lowered the age at which a fetus is viable outside the womb, but the abortion laws have not been changed.

The current age of viability is still generally considered around 27 weeks, and that’s where most legal abortion laws end. But it varies according to which hospital you’re at.

(the following information is from The Premature Baby Book by William Sears, et. al, published June of 2005, page 9.)

35 weeks is when any hospital which has a obstetrics department will be expected to save most of the babies, barring any respiratory or significant medical problems.

32 weeks is the age at which a large urban hospital or most large rural regional medical centers can realistically expect to save most of the premature babies. This would be a hospital with a Specialty Care NICU, formerly known as a Level II NICU.

A major university hospital in a large city with a Subspecialty NICU, formerly known as a Level III NICU, can be expected to save earlier premature babies with moderate to severe complications, including major birth defects (end of info from Sears’ book) Just how early they can save then varies widely from hospital to hospital, but our neonatologist told us that generally speaking, at 27 weeks they can expect to save 98% of the ones without major birth defects (in a Subspecialty Care NICU).

A few babies born before that can live. WhyBaby was born at 23 weeks and 6 days, and she’s made it without (so far knockonwoodgodforbidpraiseallah) significant problems. The numbers our neonatologist gave us were as follows: at 23 weeks, we can save 30% of babies and see them go home. By the end of 24 weeks, we can save 70% and see them go home. Of those that go home (in both groups) 30% will develop significant developmental delays, handicaps, blindness, deafness or mental retardation or die within the first 3 years.

I have found one report of a 22 weeker who survived, but no long term information on disabilities or survival until age 3. Also no information on how late in the 22nd week, or the birth weight. It could very well have been a mistaken doctor and a 23 or 24 week pregnancy.

So, considering that saving a baby before 32 weeks is only an option if you’re lucky enough to live near a major university hospital, or have the resources to get there, I don’t think 27 is a bad legal point for viability at this time. As this number moves back and the percentages reach that of full term babies (as I’ve said before on the board) I do think we will need to rethink our laws to reflect current *widely accessable *technology.

And, if it’s worth anything from someone who’s watched it happen, I think Lemur866 is right. There is a gradual movement towards philosophic personhood, even in a baby born. WhyBaby wasn’t really what I’d consider a “person” when she was “from her mother’s womb untimely ripped”. She was a bizzare little human without skin, eyes or ears who had no spirit inhabiting her. She couldn’t breathe, eat or eliminate on her own, and she never had. I loved her lots and lots right away, but she wasn’t a person - she was still a pre-person. She gradually became a person as her spirit entered and she became capable of surviving on her own, little by little. I watched it with other babies and other families, too. There’s a point - somewhere around 30 weeks, for those counting - at which every parent would come in for the day and exclaim, “Oh my goodness! He’s like a real baby now!” That’s when you knew they had become people.

Legally, of course, you’re a person whenever the laws we people write and pass say you are. Semantic games aside, that’s at 27 weeks of pregnancy, in most states.

[beagledave]

@kanicbird

IIRC death or a person is medically defined w/ the stopping of brainwaves, so I think that the beginning of brainwaves would be the start of ‘personhood’.

So personhood starts at week nine or so ?

Man that’s gonna be a bummer for Roe v Wade which pretty much gives unfettered access to abortions through week 24

That’s even gonna make late 1st trimester abortions tricky if you think “personhood” is the golden ticket to get any rights.

I suspect at this point (based upon similar threads in the past) there will be some modification in your definition of “personhood” (to include some mumbo jumbo about “sentience”, for example) to have a friendlier fit with Roe

[AHunter3]

Dang, I get my licks in in the 2nd post of the thread, and a zilliion people come in and post to make similar points, but do I get any acknowledgments?

Fooey. ::kicks hamster cage::

[Measure_for_Measure]

@beagledave

So personhood starts at week nine or so ?

I would think that personhood would have something to do with the capacity for thought.

From Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions, source: here:

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain–principally in the top layers of the convoluted “gray matter” called the cerebral cortex… The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn’t begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy–the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject’s head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But 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.

Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we’ve rejected the extremes of “always” and “never,” and this puts us–like it or not–on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.

It is, in fact, a very conservative definition: Regular brain waves are rarely found in fetuses.

Note the use of the modifier “regular”, as opposed to “first detectable”, as found in beagledave’s quote.

[monavis]

@Malacandra

Whereupon monavis decides not to stick to the subject of the OP after all :rolleyes:

The subject of the OP was when a fetus becomes a person, and I was answering Beagle Dave. Being a person fits well in my post, as I see it the basis of the debate were: Why different people have a different conception of when a fetus becomes a person and why a woman can’t choose for herself.

Monavis

[beagledave]

@Measure for Measure

I would think that personhood would have something to do with the capacity for thought.

Note the use of the modifier “regular”, as opposed to “first detectable”, as found in beagledave’s quote.

Well it wasn’t MY post that drew the line at “the beginning of brainwaves”…but like I suspected…somone would come along and modify the standard to have a more comfortable fit with Roe.

(As I’ve said several times already…“personhood” arguments are philosophical in nature, heavily dependent on the culture of the day. That’s why I don’t make an appeal to personhood to argue my case. I haven’t seen any of the other regular pro life posters do so either.)

[Malacandra]

@monavis

The subject of the OP was when a fetus becomes a person, and I was answering Beagle Dave. Being a person fits well in my post, as I see it the basis of the debate were: Why different people have a different conception of when a fetus becomes a person and why a woman can’t choose for herself.

Monavis

No, you were off on a good old moan about starving infants in the Sudan and why there should be readier access to abortion on that account, and a woman’s right not to be a brood mare.

@monavis

Many seem to be very concerned (in this country) about a woman’s right to choose.or not, yet we do not do much about helping the ons’e who choose or are forced to go through a pregnancy, or offer her birth control. When I see thousands of born babies in Africa slowly starving to death, and abused babies in this country, and read that the birth control is not available to some places because it"might" carry the cost of abortion. I wonder just what life they are concerned with, surely not the mother’s or the born babies.

There is life in a man’s sperm, yes it is human life, and could be a potintial human given the right circumstance.
Life is a passed on thing, human life from ancestor to ancestor to the present day person that is you ,I or any one alive.

Because a woman is already born, and if she has children already born, they should be considered over a potential being that may cause hardship to her or the others in her family. Unless she feels she can take care of them. That should be her right, she is more than a brood mare, and shouldn’t be reduced to being such.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@beagledave

(As I’ve said several times already…“personhood” arguments are philosophical in nature, heavily dependent on the culture of the day. That’s why I don’t make an appeal to personhood to argue my case. I haven’t seen any of the other regular pro life posters do so either.)

…and arguments from potential are heavily dependent upon the technology of the day.

I would put it differently:

“Personhood” leads to a discussion of mental capabilities. As 3 month fetuses have less mental capacity than a retarded chicken, anti-abortionists prefer to argue out of a different territory. Largely irrelevant territory to my way thinking but, hey, this is a pretty contentious issue.

[monavis]

@Malacandra

No, you were off on a good old moan about starving infants in the Sudan and why there should be readier access to abortion on that account, and a woman’s right not to be a brood mare.

The reason I wrote that is because it is the argument of the pro birth people that they are fighting for life, if they are pro birth, and when person hood begins is a big thing to them. If they are pro life then all life would be considered. To me, a fetus is not a person until it is able to be born with all it’s facilities or able to survive with a incubator assisting them, if they are in the last trimester.I do not like abortion at all and think if birth control was available there would be little need for an abortion ,and for some women it is a matter of self preservation.

I made no statement that there should be a readier access to abortion, if it seemed that way to you, you misunderstood me. it was because of the birth control not being available that there are more abortions or children starving than is necessary. To have a child be born then let it slowly die of starvation to me is far
worse than abortion, abortion is the lesser of two evils.

People already born in the Sudan, this country, and all over the world should be our first priority, then we wouldn’t worry about potential persons or personhood

Monavis