in no way does my reasoning imply that laws could not be changed. the title of this thread is not ‘when could a fetus be a human being with independent rights’, it’s ‘when is a fetus a human being with independent rights’. and it’s true - under current law, there is never a point where a fetus has independent rights. i acknowledge that laws could be changed - i don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
Hell, I don’t know man. I don’t think the fetus has any rights to begin with which is what led me down this path with you. You do, and I don’t understand them or why they are rights, how rights come without responsibility, etc etc. I’m just trying to understand
- Why the fetus has rights to you
- Why the fetus has no responsibility to you
- Is being human not necessarily being a person to you?
To me, you aren’t a person until you are born. The end. Not *could be[/i ]born, no potentiality here. When you are born, you’re a person. Until that time you have no rights whatsoever.
You seem to be suggesting (“how rights come without responsibility”) that if an organism has rights…then it must have responsibilities. I think my toddler example speaks to that line of thinking (unless, of course you think that the toddler has no right to life).
As for your last point…there are several people here (I believe Gaudere is one…but correct me if I’m wrong) who make a distinction between being human and being a “person”.
For me, the term “human” is a medical or embryological term (at least in the abortion discussion)…while for me, the term “person” is a philosophical term.
I’m sorry, Scylla perhaps I wasn’t clear in my request. I was looking for some scientific study/assertion that a fetus at 3 months laughed in the womb. I’ll confess to the fact that I didn’t think it was going to be forthcoming, but I didn’t expect to see, as evidence’, some one’s sonogram, where some one else says ‘see, it looks like their laughing’. Not to be cruel, but TV’s Mr. Ed was made to appear as if he talked and laughed as well, didn’t make it so.
So, unless you have something a bit more substantial than somebodie’s opinion that a fetus looks as if it’s laughing, I’ll pass.
Frankly, near the end of my pregnancy, I felt what I thought were hiccups from my son. There was this rhythmic bouncing, and since he was very, very large, and it was within a month of his birth, you could see my belly move from across the room - it was pretty funny. I called it hiccups, I tell him he hiccuped. But, unless I see scientific evidence that shows that an unborn infant can hiccup, I’ll refrain from claiming that it’s true here.
::holds hands out at sides::
What do you mean?
Just look at it. It’s clearly… ummm.
Well the trained sonogram people think it’s a laughing fetus, and I see no reason to accept your opinion over there professional one. If you look at the top left you can see the face on Mars. 
Anyway, it is what it is. I tried “laughing fetus” in Google, and there it was.
Here’s a good link:
It has color photos. It says the fetus’ brain is fully developed at 12 weeks. Why is that not C of C? It also says the fetus can cry.
I do agree with you that personhood resides in the mind. Mind and conscioussness though are difficult to define and defend.
For example, If I go into a coma, my brain may be injured, and I may no longer be capable of consciousness even though I might recover in a few weeks. Am I not a person during this period?
How is my regaining of the capability so different from the fetus’ acquiring? Don’t we both deserve the same chance?
If I am, and we do than what we are really talking about is potentialities. Potentiality for conscioussness exists at conception.
On the other hand, as I mentioned, I am not of the opinion that a newborn even has the capabilitity of conscioussness. Because of size constraints, the bulk of brain development takes place after birth.
By trying to peg personhood to mind for purposes of abortion, it’s possible to argue that it happens at conception or sometime after birth. I’d like to be more specific if it’s possible.
Wring:
I posted that as a joke.
fweeeiu (I can’t spell the sound you make when you’re relieved). [emily latille voice] nevermind[/emily latille voice]
Dude…I was just relieved you didn’t post a link to that damn dancing baby web site 
I do not think the website you cited is scientifically accurate, Scylla. From that website:
This is incorrect, according to all the current information I have on fetal development. I can dig up a few cites on when the complex cerebral cortex develops if you like, but I assure you I have never seen the placement of its development in approximately the 5th month ever disputed by a reputable source. Regarding a 12-week-old fetus’ ability to feel pain, I give you Dr. Sarah Whippman, explaining the findings of England’s Royal College’s working party re fetal pain. (You can order the original paper at the end if you like.) Yes, it’s a pro-choice link, but the science seems quite reputable and solid and peer-reviewed; and even ardent pro-lifers generally put capacity for pain at about 20 weeks (and I think they’re wrong if they do so, as per the Royal College’s findings below). Your site is rather slim on science and reputable auhtorities, to say the least.
http://prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/library/blpainwhipp.htm
So, I would not trust the site you linked to as a reputable source of scientific data on fetal development. I suggest you find a better one pronto. 
They have recorded fetal EKG reading indicative of thought sometime after 6 months. I consider that evidence that they are conscious. What evidence do you offer that a newborn cannot think and is not conscious?
Capacity, not potentiality. A six-month fetus and a temporarily brain-dead adult both have the structures in place to permit consciousness. To illustrate why I consider a previously-established existing person who brain is temporarily quiscient as different from a fetus who does not yet even possess the brain architecture necessary to even have the possibility of consciousness, here is a post I did once:
The way I see the issue of defining personhood is it is as if I have been handed a large pile of unbound papers and asked to find the book in it. The first page is blank. I start flipping through the pages. Blank, blank, blank…ah, here’s some words. This is the start of the book. I continue, reading the pages as I go along. Chapter one, two, three…fourteen, fifteen…hey, what’s this? A blank page? Is the story over? Flip to the next page. Ah, here it picks up right where it left off; the story is continuing. Chapter sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, blank page, blank page…hmmm…blank page, blank page, ah, here’s the story again. Dum de dum dum dum…Chapter nineteen, twenty, page 152, page 153, blank page, blank page, blank page, twenty more blank pages, forty more blank pages, eighty more blank pages, nope, no more pages left, no more chance that there could be any text left in the story. The story ended at page 153.
If you follow the metaphor, the start of the story–the start of personhood, defined by the first conscious thought–doesn’t start until it actually, well, starts. There may be gaps in the middle, but as long as the story can continue past the blank pages, it’s not done yet. Once there’s no more chance that you’ll find any more pages left with writing on them–once you’re sure they’ll never be another conscious thought in that human mind–the story is over, the person is dead. I’m concerned about existing stories, and making sure they have their chance to say what they mean to say, rather than all the potential stories that could be written; I value one conscious person over a thousand potentials. I personally count my current life as having more value than all the potential persons that might have existed had another sperm bumped into my mother’s egg because I’m actually here, consciously thinking and feeling right now, and those potentials never did. Since I do not want my story to end before it absolutely must, I do not support allowing anyone else’s conscious life to end before it absolutely must (unless they wish to die, but that’s another debate). However, if I will never think again, go ahead and kill my body–the “me” is gone forever. And I am similarly casual about anyone preventing the possibilty of “me” from ever occurring; if I never had the conscious ability to care whether I lived or not, I cannot have been harmed or have lost anything, since “I” never was. Those potential people who might have existed had another sperm fertilized an egg have lost nothing, since their “I” never existed; so too would “I” have lost nothing if “I” had never been, since there would have been no “I” to lose anything! Before a thing exists you cannot harm it, so you cannot harm a consciousness before it exists. After it exists, yes, you can harm a consciousness, a person. Preventing a once-existing consciousness from continuing its existence is different than preventing a thing from ever existing; you cannot hurt a thing that never-was.
Well for me …the brain development issue is not of primary concern in this particular debate…but I (and maybe some of the other pro choice folks) would point out that the web site says that the brain is fully FORMED not fully DEVELOPED…
Full development actually occurs several years AFTER birth…
Gaudere’s cite seems to be beating up my cite. I’ll see if I can’t find a better one.
It is a good thing I never tire of kicking your ass, Scylla. In all seriousness, I don’t think you’ll find a reputable source saying 12-week-fetuses can feel pain. Your original source appears to be a layman’s interpretation of the information on a few textbooks (which generally are oversimplified and lag behind current scientific thought considerably) and info pulled from Focus on the Family.
I’ll address the toddler in a sec. What I don’t understand is the “person” aspect, your philosophical matter. That is, a fetus isn’t a person but is a human, and as a human has certain rights? So then, all humans have a set of rights (say), and then if and when humans gain personhood they also get additional rights.
Presumably there are more steps than this since most people differentiate children from adults and so on, but that sums it up?
Being human, then, entails a right to life period. Once conceived the zygote-emryo-fetus is entitled to live, even if parasitic in nature. This right to life does not supercede, however, the right to life of the mother herself, so that was it necessary to abort the child to save mom’s life then so be it.
So being a person, then, makes one more special than being just plain old human. Ok, I guess. I can see that, but I don’t agree.
Ah, I don’t know that I’d care to get into the whole “what is consciousness really” thing either. I’m satisfied to leave it where it is, I guess.
As far as the toddler thing goes, well, I think someone always is responsible for the death of a person, even if it is an accident. How one would choose to punish the irresponsibility is beyond me, really, in such a case. The realm of accidents are pretty philosophically murky IMO. In a car wreck one party assumes responsibility for the action though the accident itself was not deliberate. One would assume that a life, being more valuable than a car, should demand equal if not more justice in case of a loss, even accidental. It isn’t a matter of intent, or even of consciousness IMO (when we’re talking about accidents). I dunno. People get all sappy for innocence so I’m going to let this one lie where it stands: nowhere.
Gaudere:
Don’t get too proud. My ass isn’t kicked yet. Besides, this is gonna sound weird, but I don’t debate to win. I’ll answer a question honestly and go down a road I know will cause my ideas serious grief, if I think I can gain something from it in terms of knowledge, or a fresh perspective. Even though I agree that personhood resides in the mind, I’m not sure “human” does.
If we create an A.I., is it human?
Does my highly intelligent dog enjoy basic human rights?
Right now my five year old Border Collie has got my 15 mos. old daughter daughter whipped as far as sheer cranial horsepower goes.
To use your book metaphor, what exactly has to be written on one of those pages to constitute the beginning of the story?
Ah, but I don’t care about humans compared to the way I care about persons. Well, I suppose if I had two persons and one was human and one was not, I’d value the human person more, all other things being equal.
Oh no; to be a human you must have human DNA. But it might be a person. What about you; which do you think should have more rights; an AI or a anencephelitic human baby?
I highly doubt it. In a little more time, she’ll be talking and reading, and your collie likely never will. Will she have gotten smarter? I’d say no; she was plenty smart, she just needed time to learn things. Don’t confuse experience and instinct with intelligence. And don’t confuse intelliegence with consciousness. A human that is capable of thought is a person to me.
I don’t make a unique distinction (developmentally) between human and person. I said that it appeared to me that OTHER posters did make that developmental distinction. You may wish to ask those other posters your question.
For some folks, achieving “personhood” status (which, it appears by their rationale, comes after “human” status)is a landmark event that then entitles the organism certain “rights”. That is not a view I share.
I note that you have decided to not offer up a specific charge of murder (or any other specific accountability) against the toddlers in my scenario…so I assume the earlier notion of in utero “murder” rates a similar conclusion?
beagledave:
Sure, but she’s using her own definitions to avoid giving real answers to questions. Imagine reading this:
Doesn’t make much sense, does it? But that’s exactly what the author is doing. From her article (emphasis mine):
She has defined human zygote = human being, and now she’s using that definition to “disprove” a statement that uses the words in a completely different way. Obviously no one denies that a human zygote has human DNA; “human being” is used to mean “individual person with rights”.
Ah, I don’t want to know about that distinction itself, just whether or not you made it. Because since you don’t, then a fetus is categorically human and has personhood (hence no distinction, they are inseperable). If this is so then the fetus has all rights that you or I would, and its untimely death would be a bad thing. In the case of the death being caused by another human there are certain legal matters that need to be addressed.
Specifically, in the case of one fetus causing another fetus’s death, clearly the dead fetus has a right to justice, no?
I’m just asking; this is why I find a fetus has no rights: to claim otherwise leads to some interesting absurdities.
So now (according to your last sentence here) you’re using a philosophical notion (that varies from pro choice poster…some consider “person” to start at sentience…some at viability…some at birth…some at whenever the bith mother says so) to define the embryological concept of “human”.
I think that the author is trying to demostrate that the organism is a human life…not a potential human life. Her word choice of “human being” (I guess instead of what, human life?) strikes some as a philosophical definition unsupported by the evidence. But it is also the term used by the embryology cites she mentions …
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)
Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).pg 2
also
“… [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”
William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997) pg 1
Referring to the new zygote as a “human being” seems to be supported in at least some of the literature.
From the title of her article (When Does Life Begin?) It appears she is trying to address the question of when a unique human life begins. She is also trying to suggest that notions of “personhood” (or what, I guess some people call “human beingness”) are philosophical issues not answered by genetics or embryology.
Why sure…have you decided yet what to do with the toddler who caused the other toddler’s death? When you and the criminal justice system decide that…then look me up. Otherwise you’re just repeating yourself :rolleyes: