minty:
No offense, but I don’t want to play. Either you get it or you don’t.
Ah, it was the “capacity” part which I missed.
Interesting. So it is the brain itself which decided human-ness?
**
You’ve said this several times, now. Gotta cite?? specifically the laugh, since frankly, the “sleep and move” parts are not indicative of specific human/vs. non human (as in your border collie can undoubtably do that). IIRC, after my son was born, I was going through the 'mommy calendar" thing where it showed milestones (first time raising his own head, first time rolling over back to front etc.) and I know there was one for “first laugh”, generally came some months after birth.
Also the last part “react emotionally to stimuli” - what exactly are you saying happens? the fetus, when probed expresses sadness, rage at being assaulted? or does it simply move away from a painful object. The phrase “reacts emotionaly” has to be, I’d think, a subjective assessment on the part of the observer, since, to date I’ve never heard of a 3 month old fetus being able to communicate it’s feelings to the outside world in any language.
None taken! If I was thin-skinned, I wouldn’t be in GD in the first place. 
Oh well, now that my main reason for contributing to this thread is gone, I’ll throw in my own take on the subject.
Beats the hell out of me when a fetus is sufficiently developed that its individual rights outweigh the mother’s right to choose not to bear it. I don’t think there’s an absolute line in the sand you can draw anywhere on this issue, as it’s going to be entirely dependent upon the individual circumstances of the fetus and the mother.
And that’s the reason why this should be entirely a medical and ethical decision between a doctor and her patient. Nobody else is adequately equipped to make that decision.
Oh please…you’re kidding, right?
“Murder” as a legal term (which is what the term is) implies knowledge…forethought…and an active decision to end the life of another (among other criteria). In utero murders do NOT happen quite a bit.
Wring:
A fair request. I really can’t search well from here, so if I don’t post a cite or two till later, please don’t think I’m ignoring your request.
Gee, sorry, I thought they had a right to live since the moment of conception. Clearly this acts against that, even if in utero (like, oh, I dunno—an abortion?).
when a fetus is a human being depends on your definition of human being. one definition i came across was ‘having human form or attributes’. a fetus that looks like a baby certainly fits this definition in that it has human form.
i don’t think under current law a person has rights until it’s born, and then it’s no longer a fetus. so i’d say a fetus is never a human being with independent rights.
Cute. if you truly think that "One of two twins absorbs the other, gets strangled on an umbilical cord, etc. "
is “like…I dunno abortion” …then there’s not much more I can say to you on the notion of what the word “kill” or “murder” means.
aynrandlover:
Yeppers. At least, for me. One hundred human bodies without brains mean nothing to me, but I’d fight for the life of a conscious brain-in-a-jar. (Technically, it’s the mind that I care about, not the brain–but currently the mind can no more exist without the necessary brain structure than vision can exist without the part of the brain that can interpret visual stimuli.)
Scylla:
The complex cerebral contex must at least exist. Prior to five months or so, there ain’t nothing there at all, and the evidence seems to be that it isn’t working until the sixth month. EKG readings of a fetus do not display patterns considered indicative of “thought” until the sixth month or so. Since you do not provide a cite regarding the people who have very little brain matter I cannot speak sensibly the specifics of their situation, but it seems impossible that they would still be conscious if their complex cerebral cortex was completely destroyed. To show that I am not pulling my assertion that the complex cerebral cortex is necessary for consciousness out of my ass, here’s some cites:
http://anatomy.med.unsw.edu.au/cbl/embryo/history/page5c.htm
"Indeed, the current conception regards the entire cerebral cortex as chiefly composed of centres of ultimate co-ordination of impressions, which in their cruder form are received by more primitive nervous tissues–the basal ganglia, the cerebellum and medulla, and the spinal cord.
This, of course, is equivalent to postulating the cerebral cortex as the exclusive seat of higher intellection."
http://www.2think.org/science_abortion.shtml
"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."
And you didn’t answer my question about babies born only with a brain stem (anencephalic) versus Mr. Brain-in-a-jar.
abortion: the explusion of a nonviable fetus.
That’s from Webster.
The online merriam-webster dictionary gives
“the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus”
So one twin dying as a result of another twin’s existence is abortive in nature. That is, that pregnancy is terminated. This is immoral since abortions are immoral. I don’t find it cute, just a matter of keeping a train of thought together.
That is, you defined a fetus to be human at the moment of conception. You never came clear on if you seperated “personhood” status from a medical “human” status, but since you did claim that you did not like abortion it would seem to me that this was so because the fetus has some right to live. Dying in the uterus clearly counteracts this right.
So, if one twin causes the other to die it is an unjust death but there can be no responsibility for the other twin because…it was an accident? It wasn’t a conscious decision? Then there is a point, as gaudere mentions, where the fetus is only technically, or medically, human, but not human in the semantic sense implying consciousness, self-awareness, etc.
So then you do split personhood and being human into two distinct categories. where being human is a necessary but not sufficient condition for personhood. Thus the fetus, while it can bear no responsibility for its actions, has rights as if it could.
The question was whether there was a problem with siamese twins killing the other. I answered no, because if there was then it would open up the whole problem of twins causing each other’s death in the uterus. I am for abortion so the whole issue doesn’t matter to me, but if we consider the fetus to have rights in the womb and it gets killed something is clearly responsible.
Wrongful death, no?
remind me to include in my will that i want the plug pulled immediately if i’m ever reduced to a conscious brain in a jar.
A bit circular. Under your reasoning no laws could ever be changed.
You use “current” law to say that a fetus is “never” a human with independent rights.
You are a conscious brain-in-a-jar. Your perception of your body is just a clever illusion a la The Matrix.
If the brain-in-a-jar wants its plug pulled, I think that’s its right. I’d evaluate it based on the same standards I use for any other suicide.
Gaudere:
You must’ve missed it.
from my previous post.
Therefore if a two year old accidently (hell…even intentionally) pushes another kid off of a slide causing it’s death…we don’t hold the toddler negligent or responsible (not a conscious, informed, decision)…ergo the toddler isn’t human in the semantic sense
Oops. Sorry. So it is the mind’s development you care about, not the body’s? It seems your definition of personhood is tied to the presence of a mind, and so I am puzzled by your choice of purely physical criteria; you say a fetus has the rights of a person when X physical characteristic is developed, yet you are apparently quite willing to accord personhood to a mind without X physical characteristic and deny personhood to a human that has X physical characteristic. So I have to wonder, if X physical characteristic is apparently unnecessary to for a human to be a “person”, why you use it as a criteria for determining personhood!
One of the problems with this decision process is knowing what criteria to use for the decision. These criteria are necessarily culture bound and vary over time and place.
If we take two extremes, it may help to clarify the wide variety of criteria used.
In many (probably most) ancient societies, infanticide was a recognized, tolerated and ‘legal’ method of population control. Many criteria existed, some practical (did the child strive to live), some belief oriented. The major indicator of infanticide being common is male/female ratios (some as high as 150/100) caused by differential sexual infanticide, always in the favor of an excess of males. Infanticide continued throughout history up until recent times and is probably still occurring in China (the one child policy.) Many traditional societies (previously called primitive) have recent evidence of widespread infanticide.
The most extreme example is that of Ancient Rome where the father had the right to kill and child at any age with limited state intervention.
SO many societies have not considered that protection from unlawful killing should be given until after birth.
On the other hand, Cathlolic Dogma indicates that potentiality of human life is important, hence the promulgation of bans on birth control and condemnation of masturbation, both based on a doctrine seated in the potentiality of life existing in ova and spermatazoa having a ‘right’ to be brought together at some point.
Given that valid arguments can be given for either of the above scenarios any attempt to define a precise time of personhood is bound to fail unless the people doing the agreeing have identical premises.
Scylla, re your link…you have got to be kidding.