Abortion: When is a fetus a human?

[Fleiur]

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:




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

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?

Because by your logic, you can also say that there's more than two genders. Which is incorrect. Because you know that genders determined by XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes. There are also outliers here. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are only two genders.

Life begins at conception. There are outliers. However, again, that doesn't change the fact that it's another human life. Abortion is murder.

 

[Abhorsen]

Because by your logic, you can also say that there's more than two genders. Which is incorrect. Because you know that genders determined by XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes. There are also outliers here. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are only two genders.

Life begins at conception. There are outliers. However, again, that doesn't change the fact that it's another human life. Abortion is murder.

What? So do outliers never matter for anything because 'there are only two genders?' Is that really the argument you are going with here? Let's see this argument in practice:

Say there are 500 Working Widgets that are yellow, 40 broken widgets that are red, and 3 working Widgets that are also red.

Person A: All yellow widgets work.

Person B: Sure, but what about these red working Widgets.

Person A: Ignore those widgets, because there are only 2 genders!

You get this is a crap argument, right?

Meanwhile, the question still remains: If I destroy a body's head, and keep the body alive, is that a living person?

EDIT: The above question is open to anyone, but mainly targeted at those who believe in life beginning at conception.

 

[Fleiur]

What? So do outliers never matter for anything because 'there are only two genders?' Is that really the argument you are going with here? Let's see this argument in practice:

Say there are 500 Working Widgets that are yellow, 40 broken widgets that are red, and 3 working Widgets that are also red.

Person A: All yellow widgets work.

Person B: Sure, but what about these red working Widgets.

Person A: Ignore those widgets, because there are only 2 genders!

You get this is a crap argument, right?

Meanwhile, the question still remains: If I destroy a body's head, and keep the body alive, is that a living person?

EDIT: The above question is open to anyone, but mainly targeted at those who believe in life beginning at conception.

Okay. So at which point should you be able to kill the baby?
You were saying at 8 weeks, right?

 

[Abhorsen]

Okay. So at which point should you be able to kill the baby?
You were saying at 8 weeks, right?

Prior to electical signals firing in the brain, I don't believe it is a person, but a bundle of cells. This happens at about weeks though, so prior to this would be acceptable.

And could you please answer my question:
If I destroy a body's head, and keep the body alive, is that a living person?

 

[Morphic Tide]

Because you know that genders determined by XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes.

The relevant edge-cases actually suggest an elaboration on that, being that Men are defined by the effects of androgen hormones, which have the producing anatomy developed by the presence of the Y chromosome, and Women are defined by the properties of the human body without androgens alongside the effects of estrogen(s) that are produced by the anatomy that forms without the Y chromosome's prenatal influence.

Among those edge cases are androgen insensitivity conditions, which can generate a fully functioning biological female (as in "only discovered to have the condition after giving birth") with XY chromosomes who's only initial aberration is lack of response to androgens as a genetic male zygote. If we knew how to manufacture functioning ovaries with such a condition, it'd be trivial from there to have transwomen be in a state directly akin to that post-operation to end up outright female.

Of course, this also means male/female is a bimodal situation, with outliers that fall between the two (and as such "non-binary" genders that lie outside are either postmodern bullshit or religious castes, which are just a different kind of ox feces), while genders are defined by the commonality of these extremes of sexual dimorphism, as societal properties are determined by the degree of plurality. But that takes a lot of nuance, and whenever people start trying to play politics using science, nuance is usually the first thing to die...

Again, going a bit further to build the definition instead of taking only "common knowledge" surface-level scientific data creates a definition that includes the edge-cases naturally, rather than being undermined and eventually disproven by them.

Okay. So at which point should you be able to kill the baby?
You were saying at 8 weeks, right?

He said 8 weeks was the stopping point, as that is when the neurology begins to exist. Before this point, the idea is that the genetically-distinct flesh is not a person.

The purpose of the question you're repeatedly refusing to answer, that of the personhood of a headless body, is that the notion of personhood I understand Abhorsen to take is that life with personhood value is defined by the central nervous system. A nerveless fetus thus has personhood value inapplicable, while grown non-human animals have the notion be something that applies, but with a lesser value that humans.

The underlying morality of it, to my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong on your views, @Abhorsen), is that it is only immoral to destroy an organism in its own right (as in, not considering the secondary effects of the destruction, which is where the morality of destroying flora and microbes lies) if it has reached the point where one can ascribe notions of suffering to it. Organisms that lack any means of cognition and reaction do not reach the threshold of "life" as sufficient for moral weight.

 

[Abhorsen]

The underlying morality of it, to my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong on your views, @Abhorsen), is that it is only immoral to destroy an organism in its own right (as in, not considering the secondary effects of the destruction, which is where the morality of destroying flora and microbes lies) if it has reached the point where one can ascribe notions of suffering to it. Organisms that lack any means of cognition and reaction do not reach the threshold of "life" as sufficient for moral weight.

Not quite. The bold part is wrong. I think that any thought would work here, regardless of their capacity for suffering. Otherwise, what about people who can't feel pain, and too young to have any higher conception of suffering?

And the questions purpose is quite simple. After he answers this question, in the positive or negative, I will ask other questions, which will either show that the position 'Life begins at conception' to be untenable, or that there is an explanation I haven't thought of.

Also, can people try to poke holes in my definition as well? BTW, thanks @ShieldWife for your continuum of life point, I'm still considering that. I'm disinclined to accept it, but can't disprove it!

 

[Fleiur]

Prior to electical signals firing in the brain, I don't believe it is a person, but a bundle of cells. This happens at about weeks though, so prior to this would be acceptable.

And could you please answer my question:
If I destroy a body's head, and keep the body alive, is that a living person?

Okay. Let's say 7 and/or 8 weeks. Because you said approximately 8 weeks.
So it's okay to kill the baby at 7 weeks at this point here

And at this point 8 weeks here? Yes?

 

[Abhorsen]

Okay. Let's say 7 and/or 8 weeks. Because you said approximately 8 weeks.
So it's okay to kill the baby at 7 weeks at this point here

And at this point 8 weeks here? Yes?

How something looks does not impact whether or not it is human. If it has brain activity, it is fine to 'kill' it, for lack of a better term. It seems all you are doing is declaring your position, then posting arguments from emotion.

Also, you are still dodging the question, which I have asked a number of times. Here it is again, and again, it is open to anyone:
If I destroy a body's head, and keep the body alive, is that a living person?

 

[Fleiur]

How something looks does not impact whether or not it is human. If it has brain activity, it is fine to 'kill' it, for lack of a better term. It seems all you are doing is declaring your position, then posting arguments from emotion.

Okay. I see. So it's okay for you to kill the baby at point 7 and/or 8 weeks.

Also, you are still dodging the question, which I have asked a number of times. Here it is again, and again, it is open to anyone:
If I destroy a body's head, and keep the body alive, is that a living person?

Because you know that once you decapitate the person's head. The person is going to die. You kill the person. So it's that okay?

 

[Abhorsen]

Okay. I see. So it's okay for you to kill the baby at point 7 and/or 8 weeks.

Well, I'd argue it's not a baby then.

Because you know that once you decapitate the person's head. The person is going to die. You kill the person. So it's that okay?

But the body is still breathing, the blood is still pumping, etc, because it is hooked up to a machine. So is what is left (the body, hooked up ta a machine) a person?
I think you are saying no here, given that you say this action kills a person.

Thus we come to my next question: Is a fetus that will never develop a head a person, even if it is hooked up to the umbilical cord and still in the womb?

 

[Fleiur]

But the body is still breathing, the blood is still pumping, etc, because it is hooked up to a machine.

Really? Kindly give an example that this happened in real life. Decapitated head and the person is still alive.
Also, what happened to the person who did the decapitation?

Thus we come to my next question: Is a fetus that will never develop a head a person, even if it is hooked up to the umbilical cord and still in the womb?

I can see that it will result to miscarriage /stillbirth. And you know that it's not the same as the abortion that we are referring to in here.

 

[Abhorsen]

Really? Kindly give an example that this happened in real life. Decapitated head and the person is still alive.
Also, what happened to the person who did the decapitation?

This is a theoretical example. I'm asking theoretical examples to figure out your definition because you have repeatedly declined to give a complete definition of what being a person is, so I'm forced to approach this socratically. If you'd like, you could instead give a complete definition of life/personhood, including when it begins, what it means for it to survive/continue, and when it ends, and I could stop with the hypotheticals.

I can see that it will result to miscarriage /stillbirth. And you know that it's not the same as the abortion that we are referring to in here.

I do know this isn't an abortion, but it is relevant. So it is still a person then? You seem to imply that it is.

And so we get to the next question: Why is a living adult body without a head dead, but a living fetus that can never develop a head alive?

 

[PeliusAnar]

The head cut off and the body surriving is a legitimate question. This is a really disturbing video showing that it is possible to keep a dog's head alive and active separated from it's body. It was done in Russia in the 1940s.

WARNING, this video is on YouTube, but I would rate it M++ because it is fucking creepy. Watch at your own mental health risk. I watched it and it gives me nightmares.
Dog With Just A Head.

It is now 2020, it is not that far fetched to ask if head is separated from a body, is the head still a person or the body still a person, since it cuts to the heart of what makes a person a person and life vs death. Brain activity is the standard doctors use, they test neurological functions to see if a person is brain dead. Otherwise organ transplants would be the same as killing a person that is still alive even if their brain is no longer working. Heck in the future (~100 years) I expect headless bodies to be made from a vat of cells and head transplants to take place.

@Abhorsen I think that you are not going to get a direct answer on the head cut off and which part is still a person or what the definition of an alive person is from people who believe life begins at conception.

 

[Abhorsen]

The head cut off and the body surriving is a legitimate question. This is a really disturbing video showing that it is possible to keep a dog's head alive and active separated from it's body. It was done in Russia in the 1940s.

WARNING, this video is on YouTube, but I would rate it M++ because it is fucking creepy. Watch at your own mental health risk. I watched it and it gives me nightmares.
Dog With Just A Head.

It is now 2020, it is not that far fetched to ask if head is separated from a body, is the head still a person or the body still a person, since it cuts to the heart of what makes a person a person and life vs death. Brain activity is the standard doctors use, they test neurological functions to see if a person is brain dead. Otherwise organ transplants would be the same as killing a person that is still alive even if their brain is no longer working. Heck in the future (~100 years) I expect headless bodies to be made from a vat of cells and head transplants to take place.

@Abhorsen I think that you are not going to get a direct answer on the head cut off and which part is still a person or what the definition of an alive person is from people who believe life begins at conception.

I'd like this, but that video scares me, even though I haven't watched this. So consider this a post agreeing with what you said, but unable to like it.

Also, what are you views on when life begins?

 

[Fleiur]

This is a theoretical example. I'm asking theoretical examples to figure out your definition because you have repeatedly declined to give a complete definition of what being a person is, so I'm forced to approach this socratically. If you'd like, you could instead give a complete definition of life/personhood, including when it begins, what it means for it to survive/continue, and when it ends, and I could stop with the hypotheticals.

I already explained to you the process of conception. Okay now the stages of pregnancy.

You see here that having a baby is a process of development. There are stages that the baby needs to go through and after 9 months, the baby will come out.

You were saying that it's okay to kill the baby at 7 weeks which is at this point of development

And/or at week 8 point here

I do know this isn't an abortion, but it is relevant. So it is still a person then? You seem to imply that it is.

Okay. Miscarriage/stillbirth is not abortion. Established.

And so we get to the next question: Why is a living adult body without a head dead, but a living fetus that can never develop a head alive?

I already explained that you know once you decapitate the head of the person, the person will die. You decapitate the head of the person. You kill the person. So its that okay?
How do you know that it will not develop? Knowing that if it will not, it will be miscarriage /stillbirth which you agreed that is not abortion.

 

[almostinsane]

The head cut off and the body surriving is a legitimate question. This is a really disturbing video showing that it is possible to keep a dog's head alive and active separated from it's body. It was done in Russia in the 1940s.

WARNING, this video is on YouTube, but I would rate it M++ because it is fucking creepy. Watch at your own mental health risk. I watched it and it gives me nightmares.
Dog With Just A Head.

It is now 2020, it is not that far fetched to ask if head is separated from a body, is the head still a person or the body still a person, since it cuts to the heart of what makes a person a person and life vs death. Brain activity is the standard doctors use, they test neurological functions to see if a person is brain dead. Otherwise organ transplants would be the same as killing a person that is still alive even if their brain is no longer working. Heck in the future (~100 years) I expect headless bodies to be made from a vat of cells and head transplants to take place.

@Abhorsen I think that you are not going to get a direct answer on the head cut off and which part is still a person or what the definition of an alive person is from people who believe life begins at conception.

I think a good description of life is one with independent DNA that can grow and fulfill the primary functions of survival, development, and reproduction if left to develop naturally. A fetus can and will grow barring miscarriage or abortion, develop through the different stages of life, and will eventually reproduce. A severed body can never do that. It can be kept alive, if barely, but it can never function on its own again. That is why the unborn is alive and a decapitated body is not.

 

[Abhorsen]

I already explained to you the process of conception. Okay now the stages of pregnancy.

You see here that having a baby is a process of development. There are stages that the baby needs to go through and after 9 months, the baby will come out.

You were saying that it's okay to kill the baby at 7 weeks which is at this point of development

And/or at week 8 point here

Okay. Miscarriage/stillbirth is not abortion. Established.



I already explained that you know once you decapitate the head of the person, the person will die. You decapitate the head of the person. You kill the person. So its that okay?
How do you know that it will not develop? Knowing that if it will not, it will be miscarriage /stillbirth which you agreed that is not abortion.

And you still have not defined what life is, and you still dodge questions, and still don't understand any of my points. A definition of life needs to apply outside of the womb, unless you claim that exiting the womb means death no matter how. You seem not to want to have an actual conversation about this. From a complete definition of human personhood, I should be able to tell whether any object is a person just by applying your definition. You have failed, repeatedly, to do this. You have also failed, repeatedly, to engage with my arguments, deciding only to purposely dodge my questions. The one argument you've given is perhaps the stupidest I've ever read, basically going 'But if I'm wrong here, then I'm also wrong on X as well, so I can't be wrong here.' Unless you decide to actually engage in debate honestly, I am done wasting my time beating you in an argument.

Maybe this will get through to you. I originally left the left because of shitty arguments for gun control convinced me that gun rights were the correct opinion. In much the same way, the 'strength' of your arguments are currently convincing me that abortion does not begin at conception. You are the best argument against this position I have seen.

If you ever want to engage, the question is still open: Define personhood, including what begins personhood, what continues it, and what ends it. This definition needs to apply to people outside of the womb as well as inside of it.

I think a good description of life is one with independent DNA that can grow and fulfill the primary functions of survival, development, and reproduction if left to develop naturally. A fetus can and will grow barring miscarriage or abortion, develop through the different stages of life, and will eventually reproduce. A severed body can never do that. It can be kept alive, if barely, but it can never function on its own again. That is why the unborn is alive and a decapitated body is not.

Okay, so your definition of personhood is something like: different DNA than the mother, and can survive, grow, and reproduce?

I don't think this is a good definition because what about people who are infertile? These are definitely still people. Also, what about old people who have stopped developing? Does cells splitting still count as growth, or not?

Finally, DNA isn't the best argument for conception because of cloning using nuclear transfer, which would give an exact copy of the adult. For example, if Dolly the Sheep were a human, and implanted in the same sheep who gave the nucleus, there would be no difference in DNA.

 

[almostinsane]

Okay, so your definition of personhood is something like: different DNA than the mother, and can survive, grow, and reproduce?

I don't think this is a good definition because what about people who are infertile? These are definitely still people. Also, what about old people who have stopped developing? Does cells splitting still count as growth, or not?

Finally, DNA isn't the best argument for conception because of cloning using nuclear transfer, which would give an exact copy of the adult. For example, if Dolly the Sheep were a human, and implanted in the same sheep who gave the nucleus, there would be no difference in DNA.

Okay. For people who are infertile, that is an abnormality as the result of particular circumstances. Yes, cell growth counts as growth, particularly when part of a complex multicellular organism.

DNA is the one thing that demonstrates that the fetus is not the mother's body as pro choicers like to claim as you cannot have a body part that has a different DNA.

I think a more apt definition of a person is that they are fulfilling the function of an independent organism without intervention preventing it. The fetus is fulfilling its function to become a fully formed baby as it progresses from one stage to the next. I think that is what @Fleiur was trying to argue. Furthermore, conception remains the most clear cut beginning of a human life.

I do not think we have examined your argument about brain activity properly. What makes having brain activity special? Because it's human? The fetus is already human before it has brain activity. I can and do argue that you cannot kill the fetus before that because it is human. I know you will argue that we should apply our standards of differentiating between life and death at the end of life to the beginning. Yet, that does not take in account the fact that the fetus will gain brain activity and much more in due time while a person who is beheaded will not. That is why I do not think your earlier hypothetical applies.

 

[Abhorsen]

Okay. For people who are infertile, that is an abnormality as the result of particular circumstances. Yes, cell growth counts as growth, particularly when part of a complex multicellular organism.

Fair.

I think a more apt definition of a person is that they are fulfilling the function of an independent organism without intervention preventing it. The fetus is fulfilling its function to become a fully formed baby as it progresses from one stage to the next. I think that is what @Fleiur was trying to argue. Furthermore, conception remains the most clear cut beginning of a human life.

You are going to have to elaborate more on the 'function of an independent organism' I think. I am also assuming your definition of death is when a person ceases to fulfill 'the function of an independent organism without intervention preventing it.' Is that accurate?

What do you mean by 'without intervention preventing it'? Do you mean that if they require outside intervention to 'fulfill the function...' they are not alive? Or do you mean that if they would have 'fulfilled the function...' but an intervention prevented them from doing that, they are still alive?

And as for conception, as I noted before, there are many other times human life can begin.

DNA is the one thing that demonstrates that the fetus is not the mother's body as pro choicers like to claim as you cannot have a body part that has a different DNA.

You definitely can.

Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Notably, a Human-Pig Hybrid was created, where .0001% of the cells were human:

Human-pig 'chimera embryos' detailed

Embryos that are about 0.001% human could lead to human organs being grown in animals.

www.bbc.com

The goal seems to have been to grow human organs in a pig for transplant purposes. I wouldn't call that human.

I do not think we have examined your argument about brain activity properly. What makes having brain activity special? Because it's human? The fetus is already human before it has brain activity. I can and do argue that you cannot kill the fetus before that because it is human. I know you will argue that we should apply our standards of differentiating between life and death at the end of life to the beginning. Yet, that does not take in account the fact that the fetus will gain brain activity and much more in due time while a person who is beheaded will not. That is why I do not think your earlier hypothetical applies.

First, thanks for examining it! I wanted someone to attack this!

So I am stating that prior to brain activity, it is a bundle of human cells, but not a person. I use this distinction as well with something like a cut off finger, spilt blood, or the adult body without a head. Those are also bundles of human cells, but not people.

Also, not all zygotes will go on to develop a brain. At what point are they considered dead?

The problem I have with conception is that there are humans who were never 'conceived', including twins and test tube babies. This means conception is not some clean bright line. So I found the clearest line I could, brain activity.

 

[Deleted member]

I fundamentally dislike exceptions when the exceptions are human lives. Being the product of rape or incest are not reasons to murder babies. Ever. So I think we need to be firm about a definition and hold to it, because, again, we’re talking about human life. If we agree that life begins at conception there’s simply no sane way to justify exceptions, except of course the life of the mother being in immediate danger.

For me, life unambiguously begins at Quickening as it did for the ancients and how we define Quickening in the modern day is the matter up for debate. Using brain activity as a metric to ban abortion after the first two months seems perfectly fine and it mostly also encompasses all of the outliers as well. It’s relevant because according to the custom of Quickening it’s the moment the soul has arrived in the body, and to atheists, it’s the moment of formation of a consciousness worthy of human rights. There should be, however, absolutely no exemptions except for the life of the mother after that point. Properly funding support services for women so that in the wake of rape or incest they have options during the first two months is the correct solution, not murdering babies to keep our support for women on the cheap. In certain ethical systems you could make an argument for abortion of some babies who are going to live lives of pain and agony and suffering, but of course that doesn’t fly in the Christian West.