Abortion: When is a fetus a human?

[Abhorsen]

It's the difference between 'personhood' and 'living tissue.' A headless body on life support is still a mass of human tissue, but it does not have personhood, and it will not gain personhood, because it has no chance of growing a new head. The same for a miscarried baby that did not develop a head, or any other developmental defect sufficient to result in miscarriage.

If someone chopped off one of my toes, the detached toe would be 'human' but not 'a human.'

I'm agreeing with everything you say here, but don't get why that doesn't apply to a zygote. If you are saying that something that can grow to have a head has personhood, why not a stem cell vs. an artificially created zygote for IF? Both need technology to grow into a human.

 

[almostinsane]

Let’s bear in mind that we’re arguing over degrees. In Abhorsen’s plan the world would be a better place and we would have a clear-cut separation on defensible grounds between abortion and murder.

It would be better than what we have now, but it won't be true. In time, people will question how the minute brain activity in the fetus makes it a person. A newborn has less brain activity than a cow and bioethicists have already argued for post birth abortion, which is practiced behind closed doors.

The only clear dividing line is when there is a growing organism with a different set of DNA from the mother. Miscarriages and fetal defects are outliers that do not change this fundamental fact.

 

[Abhorsen]

It would be better than what we have now, but it won't be true. In time, people will question how the minute brain activity in the fetus makes it a person. A newborn has less brain activity than a cow and bioethicists have already argued for post birth abortion, which is practiced behind closed doors.

The only clear dividing line is when there is a growing organism with a different set of DNA from the mother. Miscarriages and fetal defects are outliers that do not change this fundamental fact.

The dividing line I stated was any. Any at all. That's a clear dividing line.

 

[almostinsane]

The dividing line I stated was any. Any at all. That's a clear dividing line.

And the dividing line is the biological start of a new human organism, distinct from the mother.

Brain activity in even a newborn baby is less than a dog: Why Your Dog Is Smarter Than My Baby

We kill animals with more brainpower than a newborn, let alone a fetus. Thus, brain activity does not work as a dividing line. (Not does birth for that matter!)

 

[Fleiur]

I'm agreeing with everything you say here, but don't get why that doesn't apply to a zygote. If you are saying that something that can grow to have a head has personhood, why not a stem cell vs. an artificially created zygote for IF? Both need technology to grow into a human.

In vitro is just another means of conception. Usually, it's for couples who are old and women having difficulty getting pregnant. Regardless, a conception into a zygote is the dividing line. Your other example of a stem cell is like an egg or sperm cell until they theoretically turn it into a zygote.

 

[Deleted member]

And the dividing line is the biological start of a new human organism, distinct from the mother.

Brain activity in even a newborn baby is less than a dog: Why Your Dog Is Smarter Than My Baby

We kill animals with more brainpower than a newborn, let alone a fetus. Thus, brain activity does not work as a dividing line. (Not does birth for that matter!)

That's true--unless there's something special about human brain activity so that it can't be compared to animals. Any kind of abortion makes me uncomfortable, but we also have the reality that the ancients very much did define human life as beginning at Quickening, which was held to be the entry of the soul to the body, and not at conception.

 

[What's the sitch?]

At the point when the cluster of cells being can no longer form twins+ when split apart, so around day 9 at the latest apparently.

I mean you can't cut a human in half and end up with 2 people? right?

 

[Abhorsen]

And the dividing line is the biological start of a new human organism, distinct from the mother.

Brain activity in even a newborn baby is less than a dog: Why Your Dog Is Smarter Than My Baby

We kill animals with more brainpower than a newborn, let alone a fetus. Thus, brain activity does not work as a dividing line. (Not does birth for that matter!)

That's true--unless there's something special about human brain activity so that it can't be compared to animals.

Tyanna's argument here is close to my belief. It's doesn't matter if human brain activity is of a different kind than animal brain activity; instead, it matters what is doing the thinking.

Basically, a fetus of any animal becomes a 'being' (If the species is Homo Sapiens, then this would be 'personhood') upon their first thought, as determined by any electrical signals in the brain. At this point they have full moral significance. So killing a cow fetus that had electical signals in its brain would matter morally at least as much as killing a full grown cow, if not more so because babies are taken to be precious. A similar argument would hold for a human fetus that had electrical signals in its brain. This happens regardless of a genius cow versus a fetus' first thoughts. Both have full moral significance of their species.

But then comes the question of how you value human life versus cow life, and I value a human's life much more than a cow's life. I don't want to get into why here, as that would be a derail, but @ me, and we can talk about it in another thread.

In vitro is just another means of conception. Usually, it's for couples who are old and women having difficulty getting pregnant. Regardless, a conception into a zygote is the dividing line. Your other example of a stem cell is like an egg or sperm cell until they theoretically turn it into a zygote.

Yeah. My wondering here is why did the poster consider these as persons, but a fetus that never forms a head not a person. What is the dividing line? Could you provide a definition of what is a human, not just what starts their life? Because I don't see these as answering my questions.

My definition remains: A human person is a human body with electrical signals in their brain. Once a human fetus has electrical signals in its brain, it is a person. As long as they last, with allowances for some small interruptions (I don't know enough about biology to say if interruptions can happen), the person is considered alive. If these stop permanently, the person is dead.

At the point when the cluster of cells being can no longer form twins+ when split apart, so around day 9 at the latest apparently.

I mean you can't cut a human in half and end up with 2 people? right?

You kinda can. Take a womans egg cells, and some other cell, and do a nuclear transfer, then implant that zygote in a uterus. 9 months later you will have a clone. This is similar to what they did with the sheep Dolly.

 

[Fleiur]

Tyanna's argument here is close to my belief. It's doesn't matter if human brain activity is of a different kind than animal brain activity; instead, it matters what is doing the thinking.

Basically, a fetus of any animal becomes a 'being' (If the species is Homo Sapiens, then this would be 'personhood') upon their first thought, as determined by any electrical signals in the brain. At this point they have full moral significance. So killing a cow fetus that had electical signals in its brain would matter morally at least as much as killing a full grown cow, if not more so because babies are taken to be precious. A similar argument would hold for a human fetus that had electrical signals in its brain. This happens regardless of a genius cow versus a fetus' first thoughts. Both have full moral significance of their species.

But then comes the question of how you value human life versus cow life, and I value a human's life much more than a cow's life. I don't want to get into why here, as that would be a derail, but @ me, and we can talk about it in another thread.


Yeah. My wondering here is why did the poster consider these as persons, but a fetus that never forms a head not a person. What is the dividing line? Could you provide a definition of what is a human, not just what starts their life? Because I don't see these as answering my questions.

My definition remains: A human person is a human body with electrical signals in their brain. Once a human fetus has electrical signals in its brain, it is a person. As long as they last, with allowances for some small interruptions (I don't know enough about biology to say if interruptions can happen), the person is considered alive. If these stop permanently, the person is dead.

You kinda can. Take a womans egg cells, and some other cell, and do a nuclear transfer, then implant that zygote in a uterus. 9 months later you will have a clone. This is similar to what they did with the sheep Dolly.

Like I said. When the sperm cell and egg cell are joined, it produces a new cell type, the zygote/one-cell embryo, a separate organism from the mother.
As showed in the First trimester-weeks 1 to 13 image that I posted, this embryo has a unique set of human DNA which is the indicator that it is a seperate human life from the mother. Regardless of the brain activity in the later stage. The indicator that is it another human life is the unique set of human DNA that the embryo has that is different from the mother.

 

[Abhorsen]

Like I said. When the sperm cell and egg cell are joined, it produces a new cell type, the zygote/one-cell embryo, a separate organism from the mother.
As showed in the First trimester-weeks 1 to 13 image that I posted, this embryo has a unique set of human DNA which is the indicator that it is a seperate human life from the mother. Regardless of the brain activity in the later stage. The indicator that is it another human life is the unique set of human DNA that the embryo has that is different from the mother.

No, here you defined the start of life. What is your definition of life in general? When does it end, what makes it continue? If you use just having unique DNA, then twins aren't separate people, and dead people with DNA are still alive.

Or we can approach this socratically: @Fleiur Do you consider a human body with the head cut off to be alive and a person, even if the body is only kept alive by machinery?

 

[Deleted member]

At the point when the cluster of cells being can no longer form twins+ when split apart, so around day 9 at the latest apparently.

I mean you can't cut a human in half and end up with 2 people? right?

Now that's an interesting concept. "At the point when unique life definitely exists."

 

[Jeff Thomas]

I don't believe I'm smart enough to tell anybody what to do in matters like this, most especially since I will never have to confront the question in my personal life. I just find it interesting that people use words like "fetus" or "blobs of tissue" when the subject is abortion. The rest of the time they're babies. If you've figured out how to reconcile that in your mind, good for you.

 

[Fleiur]

No, here you defined the start of life. What is your definition of life in general? When does it end, what makes it continue? If you use just having unique DNA, then twins aren't separate people, and dead people with DNA are still alive.

Or we can approach this socratically: @Fleiur Do you consider a human body with the head cut off to be alive and a person, even if the body is only kept alive by machinery?

Okay. Again. Like I said.


1. Life begins at conception. When the sperm cell and egg cell are joined, it produces a new cell type, the zygote/one-cell embryo. A seperate human life from the mother. This embryo has a unique set of human DNA which is the indicator that it is a seperate human life from the mother.

When fertilization occurs, embryo has a unique set of human DNA. Seperate from the mother.

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole, and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” 22

When Human Life Begins

American College of Pediatricians – March 2017 ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human bein…

www.acpeds.org

It is clear that from the time of cell fusion, the embryo consists of elements (from both maternal and paternal origin) which function interdependently in a coordinated manner to carry on the function of the development of the human organism. From this definition, the single-celled embryo is not just a cell, but an organism, a living being, a human being.

It is clear that the zygote/embryo is an independent human organism from conception because it has its own DNA, like I said, and it consists of elements that function interdependently in a way to carry on its development as a human organsim. From what is stated above, it is a human organism, not just a cell.

2. A body part that is kept "alive" through machinery belongs to a human whose life began at conception. If you want to talk more about this, please create a thread on death and euthanesia to keep this thread from being derailed.

3. Humans mostly reproduce one baby per conception. Twins, triplets, quadroplets are outliers. However, it doesn't change the fact that a new human life began upon conception. It just show how amazing twins, triplets, etc. that an organism can clone itself under these special circumstances.

 

[Abhorsen]

2. A body part that is kept "alive" through machinery belongs to a human whose life began at conception. If you want to talk more about this, please create a thread on death and euthanesia to keep this thread from being derailed.

This is very on topic, and why I started this thread. When someone is alive versus dead is very relevant to life or death of a fetus. I've given my definition, I have yet to see a full definition from the "life begins at conception" arguers.

So continuing with the Socratic: If I keep the body alive through machinery, but destroy the head, is that still considered a person?

Also, your points 1 & 2 create an issue with point 3. If you accept that fetuses can split into two humans, why not adults by separating off a stem cell?

And point 1 is at best incomplete per point 3, as when identical twins split, they are both mulitcellular, having been around for 4-5 days on average. So not all life does begin at conception.

 

[Morphic Tide]

I, personally, find the neurological activity critera the most useful as a "hard line" because there's a bunch of stuff wildly tangential to abortion, and oftentimes outright contrary to it, that becomes enormously ethically messed up with a "Life Begins At Conception" metric.

Artificial insemination often comes with gene-testing to be sure there aren't major, known defects before implanting, and there's a lot of "spare" zygotes in any conception, ever, because not all of them attach to the uterine lining, and not all of those end up fully forming. Non-identical twins are from the rare event that more than one gets to a full-term pregnancy from the zygote stage.

A lot of late and missing periods in sexually active women actually come from the zygotes not entering fetal development after implanting in the uterine lining, causing the menstrual cycle to act as if pregnant for a few weeks... because it is an early stage of pregnancy. Zygotes are not valuable, biologically speaking. There's over a dozen of them each insemination, and few inseminations lead to full-term pregnancies. It's still a massive shot in the dark at that stage, with only vague possibility of personhood. Only very slightly more than an egg cell, and far more vulnerable to the chances of a mother's hormone balance.

Once the nervous system has truly begun developing properly, you have definitive evidence that it's a person developing rather than a lump of flesh of the genus Homo, and you have a lot more ability to detect the various matters that make a full ban on abortion ethically imprecise, while the pregnancy has progressed far enough that the hormonal crapshoot has passed. And that ethical imprecision regarding the nature of the two lives having one possess absolute dependency and the other (hopefully) being a currently-productive adult means that there's very much need for leeway.

At-will abortion before the fetus is "alive" (typically at 8 weeks by the neural starting point), some degree of active need, whether from health risks or extreme economic inability (as in "can hardly keep food and housing for existing residents" messes), and at the point where it's able to be C-sectioned out and make it with minimal technical aid (breathing apparatus, possibly IV nutrients), only immediate life-threatening matters, clear stillbirth or certain kinds of deformity (those inoperable by practical means, hereditary and miserable to live through) would be suitable justification.

Even as labor begins, if it turns into a choice of whether the mother or the child lives (spectacularly unlikely at that point, but still), that very much still needs to be a choice and not a policy forced by those utterly uninvolved in the particular event.

For the most part? I'm very heavily on the end of being able to decline having a child. Huge difference from the typical pro-choice person is that my opinion on it is use contraceptives you dumbass slutty bitches. There are a considerable number of choices to be made before it gets to the point of abortion being a possibility that would prevent the proper pregnancy. Make contraceptives cheap, widely known, and of minimal consequence to the act, and the demand for abortion gets much lower.

Edit: Two contradictions with the DNA standard that backs the "life at conception" thing: Chimerism, where one organism has two sets of genetics, and this has caused a custody clusterfuck because a woman's blood had different DNA from her ovaries so the usual maternity test came back as a false negative, alongside identical twins, as has been already elaborated on.

 

[Fleiur]

Okay. I will just point out the following below:


1. What I am talking here is the natural stages of conception. How humans reproduce. The basic biology of this process.


2. I am not disregarding the outliers. I am acknowledging that these outliers exist. Like the cases of Twins, triplets, quadroplets. Hormonal imbalance, the complications that women undergo when they are pregnant that at times if not for modern science and the help of medications leads to premature babies, miscarriages and/or stillbirths. Miscarriages/stillbirths are not the same as abortion that we are referring to in here.


3. In vitro is outside of the argument. This is the results of modern science and technology for the purpose of reproducing babies. The alternative. And it is still murder if they destroy the embryos.

 

[Fleiur]

I've given my definition, I have yet to see a full definition from the "life begins at conception" arguers.

I just did give you the definition, Abhorsen.

 

[Abhorsen]

Okay. I will just point out the following below:


1. What I am talking here is the natural stages of conception. How humans reproduce. The basic biology of this process.


2. I am not disregarding the outliers. I am acknowledging that these outliers exist. Like the cases of Twins, triplets, quadroplets. Hormonal imbalance, the complications that women undergo when they are pregnant that at times if not for modern science and the help of medications leads to premature babies, miscarriages and/or stillbirths. Miscarriages/stillbirths are not the same as abortion that we are referring to in here.


3. In vitro is outside of the argument. This is the results of modern science and technology for the purpose of reproducing babies. The alternative. And it is still murder if they destroy the embryos.

In Vitro is definitely not outside this argument. I'm looking for a complete definition of when a human is a person.

As for 2, then, I think we agree that not all life begins at conception. When do these lives begin? Or are we using @LordsFire 's definition:

Okay, cool. This is what I was trying to establish, that by your definition there are multiple points at which a person can be considered 'created' for lack of a better term. Usually, this is at conception, but also when a zygote splits and becomes two twins, or when an egg cell is given a nuclear transfer to create a clone (like Dolly the sheep), and maybe more.

Yes, there are a couple points where life could be considered to begin, when we're getting to this level of high-detail specificity. They're inclusive though, not exclusive or anything else. What I mean by this, is that conception is always the start of a new life, and the split of a twin (full split, not the partial-split you sometimes get with a non-viable conjoined twin) is always the start of a new life.

I just did give you the definition, Abhorsen.

You didn't define life, you defined the beginning of life, and maybe gave a very incomplete definition of when it continues.

2. A body part that is kept "alive" through machinery belongs to a human whose life began at conception. If you want to talk more about this, please create a thread on death and euthanesia to keep this thread from being derailed.

From your 'definition', I still don't know if you consider a body with a destroyed head to be a 'person'. I think your answer is yes, but I am not sure.

Regardless, what is your definition of death/the end of personhood for a human?

 

[PeliusAnar]

I have to say the edge cases are the most important. In the future as technology improves having that clear line will be important. I also think that if you try to make a law/rule without taking into account the edge cases, then it is a poor law/rule. Because at the end of the day even if everyone understands what you mean when you say life begins at conception, that is going to lead to so many court challenges as to make such law/rule worthless in the long run. The opposing side will bring up fringe cases to tear the law down. That is why a very clear line is needed.

 

[Morphic Tide]

1. What I am talking here is the natural stages of conception. How humans reproduce. The basic biology of this process.

And that basic biology, if you take "conception" to be the fertilized-egg-zygote stage, makes life really damn cheap because you end up with a "stillbirth" rate around, if not well exceeding, 99%.

2. I am not disregarding the outliers. I am acknowledging that these outliers exist. Like the cases of Twins, triplets, quadroplets. Hormonal imbalance, the complications that women undergo when they are pregnant that at times if not for modern science and the help of medications leads to premature babies, miscarriages and/or stillbirths. Miscarriages/stillbirths are not the same as abortion that we are referring to in here.

This is a problem of life holding value and having the means of enacting it with technical aid be morally palletable. Again, in-vitro fertilization as a rule discards a number of zygotes on grounds of quite simply having more than is useful, and knowingly excludes them from implantation on the basis of genetic defect, because there's quite literally a pile of non-defective zygotes on hand they could use instead.

And it's a required stage of our processes for bypassing fertility complications in couples that desire a child.

3. In vitro is outside of the argument. This is the results of modern science and technology for the purpose of reproducing babies. The alternative. And it is still murder if they destroy the embryos.

Except that if you extend murder to zygotes, then the "morning after pill" counts because it is specifically the deliberate instantiation of hormonal pregnancy termination (which is why frequent use of it wrecks utter havoc on the menstrual cycle), and the vast reams of shit that kills zygotes accidentally that gets recorded as fertility decreases today becomes manslaughter, thus criminalizing a great deal of very peculiar actions. And requiring a staggering amount of observation of women to identify the possible prior presence of zygotes to ever hope to uphold life having value.

And abortion is sizably a highly technological affair. First-term abortions are often destruction of the maybe-fetus before less-technical societies would know it even existed at all, and frequently by means simply impossible to take lightly in their own right if one values the could-be mother's life at all with much degree less medical skill.

The argument of the principals behind abortion must account for the whole of our technical ability and understanding of the real occurances with regards to initiating, preserving and ending life. To exclude outliers from the conclusion, as you do by not having yours account for in-vitro, chimerism or zygote splitting, causes the entirety of the reasoning to be relentlessly assailed by reality not conforming to it.

For the sake of a functional conclusion that doesn't cause a vast devaluation of life by making its end so extremely common and easy, using the neurological basis of life, to judge the "motive organ" as the organism, has life be judged as coming after the causation of a great many possible exceptions to a fertilization standard. It disregards why there are twins from the question of personhood, while still recognizing that they are two separate lives. This makes it quite useful for the sake of the masses accepting the reasoning, as the reasoning does not require an in-depth knowledge of the processes nor conflicts with simple observation.