Just trying to get a sense of how human pro-lifers think fetuses and/or frozen embryos are.
Sua
How about ripe eggs and mature sperm? I object to everyone placing zygotes on a higher level than gametes!
I guess a die-hard pro-lifer could argue that they shouldn’t on the basis that they don’t have SSNs (and thus dodge the issue).
Yes, we’re only interested in the human pro-lifers thoughts. We know that the aliens think zygotes are like caviar.
They’re not getting off that easy.
Should fetuses and embryos have SSNs?
Can I claim my sperm as dependents for tax purposes?
Well, since each gamete carries half the genes necessary to form a human zygote, I see nothing wrong in declaring half your sperm or oocytes as dependents. (This also makes it easier to get into the carpool lane on the freeway.)
I think the OP is misguided. There is no inherent reason why the census must be solely dependent on human status. The census counts those who it is relevant and convenient to count.
A better question would be whether to allow fetuses to own property. (In fact, what are the rules in this regard?). But even for this, I see no reason why the human status for purposes of the value of human life might not be differentiated from other rights and privileges.
I once saw a comic strip where you see one guy saying “life begins at conception!” And the next guy is saying “life begins at birth!”. And the third, a teenager, is saying “life begins at 18, when you get your driver’s license.”
I would disagree. The OP is certainly not misguided, and is extremely relevant. From the Census Bureau:
Do you really wish to argue that accurate knowledge of the birth rate is not relevant to “what is happening” and is unimportant to planning?
MR
You are missing the point. To repeat (a bit louder) “There is no inherent reason why the census must be solely dependent on human status”.
What you are saying is that you feel it is a good idea to count fetuses, for planning purposes. OK. But that has nothing to do with whether they have human status.
Since this seems to be Philip K. Dick week on the boards, Izzy’s post reminds me of a PKD story, IIRC, “The Pre-Persons”. The core of this short story is that abortion is legal until the young human reaches a certain stage of development which distinguishes him or her from the lower animals. The bar is set as something like ability to understand abstract mathematical concepts. So the parents can decide to “abort” at any point up to the child passing a conceptual test. Chilling and though provoking.
Whether a fetus is a human or not, it is very impratical for the Census Bureau to count them. A census taker’s job is tough enough trying to get people to give out personal information without having to ask any female over the age of 9 if she’s started menstruating and if she’s pregnant.
Someone who thinks along similar lines is Princeton University Professor of Bioethics Peter Singer, though he doesn’t go up to such an advances age.
The OPer may be misguided. The OP I think is OK. 
But the census doesn’t count merely those “relevant and convenient” to count:
The Constitution mandates a count of everybody. The question is, are fetuses and frozen embryos a subset of “everybody”?
No idea about property rights. IIRC that in New York, at least, a child born within 9 months of the death of the (putative) father is entitled to an equal inheritance with that of children born before the father died. That law, of course, bars inheritance by a frozen embryo that is thawed out and implanted after the father’s death.
But back to the census. The Constitution mandates that all persons be counted. The only two limitations - 3/5 of slaves and non-taxed Indians - are no longer applicable. So, if they are persons, they should be counted.
I don’t see the difficulty at all. For pregnant persons, just add to the questionnaire “Please note the number of pregnant persons in the household”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if a similar question isn’t already on the long-form questionnaire that around 1/6 of U.S. households already get. For frozen embryos, a one-line questionnaire to hospitals and fertility clinics “Please note the number of frozen embyros stored in your facility.” I would be pretty disturbed if hospitals and fertility clinics didn’t already have this information at hand.
Sua
Izzy, we have been through this before, but when you are wrong, repeating something louder makes no difference whatsoever.
Since it is a good idea to count fetuses for planning purposes, we must ask ourselves why they aren’t being counted. After all, it is monumentally impractical to count the homeless, the unemployed, and the indigent poor, yet extremely costly measures are implemented to do just that. So if fetuses are “free persons,” as choice enemies would suggest, why aren’t they being counted? Surely the government must extend every effort to count all free persons.
Again, there is nothing whatsoever “misguided” about the OP.
IzzyR wrote:
Well, considering that most States don’t allow anyone under the age of 18 to own property in his own name…
SuaSponte
Not so. Even the most diehard anti-abortionist would not claim that the word “person” as commonly used by ordinary people and constitution writers, includes fetuses. It was clearly not used in this manner in the Constitution, and it would take an extraordinarily brazen bit of judicial activism to retroactively reinterpret the Constitution to mean this. Again, this has nothing to do with whether from a moral standpoint a fetus has the status of a human.
(BTW, my question about fetal property rights was about whether they could be considered the owners while they are still fetuses, not after they are born.)
Yes, that’s usually true. Unfortunately with some people, its the most you can hope for.
Possibly it is even more difficult to count them to count the homeless. Possibly because they are a separate category of people and do not detract from the accuracy of the overall count if they are skipped. Whatever the reason, it is undoubtedly due to practical considerations and not to theoretical considerations about the human status of a fetus.
Maeglin, we have been through this before, but when you are wrong, repeating something makes no difference whatsoever.
IzzyR: *Even the most diehard anti-abortionist would not claim that the word “person” as commonly used by ordinary people and constitution writers, includes fetuses. It was clearly not used in this manner in the Constitution, and it would take an extraordinarily brazen bit of judicial activism to retroactively reinterpret the Constitution to mean this. Again, this has nothing to do with whether from a moral standpoint a fetus has the status of a human. *
Um, but it has a whole lot to do with whether from a legal standpoint a fetus has the status of a human, including such issues as counting them in the census and abortion rights. And how can you claim simultaneously that the word “person” as commonly used does not include fetuses, and that that has nothing to do with whether a fetus is a person? Do you feel that the “common use” of the word “person” does not include moral evaluations of personhood, or what?
*Whatever the reason [that fetuses are not counted in the census], it is undoubtedly due to practical considerations and not to theoretical considerations about the human status of a fetus. *
“Undoubtedly”? Says who (besides you, that is)? There certainly are some people who believe fetuses should be considered human beings but don’t care if they are omitted from official censuses (although the only one I specifically know of at present is you), but that hardly demonstrates that your line of reasoning is “undoubtedly” the operative one behind the official census procedure. I agree with Sua and Maeglin that if enough people in the history of the U.S. really believed that fetuses were just as much human beings as anybody else, the Census would automatically attempt to count them, regardless of the practical difficulties (which don’t in fact seem to be very great) that this might entail.
(In this context, it’s worth noting that in most of colonial and post-colonial America up to the last third of the nineteenth century, abortion prior to “quickening” (roughly, in the first trimester) was a common, accepted, and legal practice—see this article for more details. This makes it very doubtful that the authors of the Constitution would really have considered fetuses (and frozen embryos, had they known of such a concept) to be a subset of “everybody” or “all persons”, whether for official census purposes or with respect to any more basic human-rights issues. Naturally, that doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with them, just that you can’t assume so airily that they “undoubtedly” excluded fetuses from the category of “person” merely for practical rather than for more fundamental considerations.)
I certainly don’t want to put words into Sua’s mouth, but I think you’re all expanding this debate past where he meant it to be. This isn’t about the practicalities of census takers counting fetuses. This isn’t even about the government’s definition of a person.
The question is merely asking: if you are pro-life and count the fetus as a life, do you also count the fetus as a person? Is it something worth being counted?
Now, if I have misinterpreted your intent, then by all means tell me. But, as I see it now, there isn’t much to debate. Pro-lifers will most likely tell you “yes, that fetus is a person and should be counted.” Conversely, pro-choicers will probably tell you that the fetus isn’t alive, or at the very least hasn’t achieved the rights of a person, and shouldn’t be counted. Both sides, based upon their ideology, are quite justified in their position and what happens is we then get back to the insolvable debate of whether the prolife or prochoice stance is correct.
Yes.
I’m unsure of the meaning of your second comment, but would note that the framers of the Constitution did not count fetuses in the census even past the second trimester.