What constitutes a person?

[Renton405]

As I say, I find the concept of rights quite bizarre to begin with.

I guess you can afford it some rights if you want to, but my feeling is that the already-born woman's will trump it every time.

no , Pro-life wants the equality between mother and child. And that no one has the right to snuff anothers life out because all are equal and all have the same human rights. An unborn child is someone who has commited no crime, so it is against its human rights for it to be killed. Whether the mother thinks its a "burden to her" is a personal problem and should not be the determining factor between the death of a child. As I said earlier(that anonymous ignored) a unborn baby has 46 chromosomes that is NOT the mothers. it already has all the genetic code that is human. The only thing now is that is grows.

 

[cantata]

no , Pro-life wants the equality between mother and child. And that no one has the right to snuff anothers life out because all are equal and all have the same human rights. An unborn child is someone who has commited no crime, so it is against its human rights for it to be killed. Whether the mother thinks its a "burden to her" is a personal problem and should not be the determining factor between the death of a child. As I said earlier(that anonymous ignored) a unborn baby has 46 chromosomes that is NOT the mothers. it already has all the genetic code that is human. The only thing now is that is grows.

I can't say I really care about whether or not the foetus has 46 unique chromosomes. It's relying on someone else's body for life, and nothing has the right to do that.

If it's not wanted, and it can be removed from the woman's womb without causing it too much suffering, there's no good reason not to. It will never know the difference.

I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of people whingeing about the uniqueness or personhood or humanness of the foetus. Does it positively desire to be alive? No. Does the person whose life it is potentially going to take over for the next eighteen or so years want it there? If no, then remove it. Call me callous, but I just can't see the point of quibbling over something unwanted that has no desire to be alive in the sense we experience it.

 

[gengwall]

I can't say I really care about whether or not the foetus has 46 unique chromosomes. It's relying on someone else's body for life, and nothing has the right to do that.

If it's not wanted, and it can be removed from the woman's womb without causing it too much suffering, there's no good reason not to. It will never know the difference.

I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of people whingeing about the uniqueness or personhood or humanness of the foetus. Does it positively desire to be alive? No. Does the person whose life it is potentially going to take over for the next eighteen or so years want it there? If no, then remove it. Call me callous, but I just can't see the point of quibbling over something unwanted that has no desire to be alive in the sense we experience it.

I appreciate your consistency but you have not looked at the other side of the issue. What if a woman wanted to have her baby and it was forcibly killed without her consent. The fundimental question is: does the baby have rights then? In other words, if no harm came to the mother, was there a crime committed (a violation of another "person's" rights)? Or would you say that the person who killed the fetus in spite of the mother's desire to keep it has committed no foul?

 

[cantata]

I appreciate your consistency but you have not looked at the other side of the issue. What if a woman wanted to have her baby and it was forcibly killed without her consent. The fundimental question is: does the baby have rights then? In other words, if no harm came to the mother, was there a crime committed (a violation of another "person's" rights)? Or would you say that the person who killed the fetus in spite of the mother's desire to keep it has committed no foul?

Thank you, I have looked at the other side of the issue. The foetus did not have rights, no. The mother does, though, so there was a crime: GBH or damage to property, I suppose you could call it, or else you could call it something new, like "Killing a foetus the mother wanted". It doesn't really matter what you call it, I suppose; a crime was committed, but it has nothing to do with the foetus' rights or otherwise. It has solely to do with the rights of the mother.

 

[gengwall]

Thank you, I have looked at the other side of the issue. The foetus did not have rights, no. The mother does, though, so there was a crime: GBH or damage to property, I suppose you could call it, or else you could call it something new, like "Killing a foetus the mother wanted". It doesn't really matter what you call it, I suppose; a crime was committed, but it has nothing to do with the foetus' rights or otherwise. It has solely to do with the rights of the mother.

Well, again, at least you are consistent, although quite in the minority now. But I suspect you like it that way.

Of course, the classifying of even born people as property or something less than a protected "person" has a long and heinous history. But we won't go there.

 

[cantata]

Well, again, at least you are consistent, although quite in the minority now. But I suspect you like it that way.

I'd prefer not to be in the minority; I'd prefer it if people agreed with me, just like everyone else would!

Internal consistency is important to me, of course, but I don't say these things just because I don't want to lose an argument. I don't think it means anything to say a foetus has rights, and while I think it is admirable and very kind of a woman to carry a foetus to term, and certainly a medical imperative that the process of abortion should be made as painless and trauma-free for foetuses as possible, I don't think that foetuses have any right to life, or indeed that they miss it when it's taken away.

 

[gengwall]

I'd prefer not to be in the minority; I'd prefer it if people agreed with me, just like everyone else would!

Internal consistency is important to me, of course, but I don't say these things just because I don't want to lose an argument. I don't think it means anything to say a foetus has rights, and while I think it is admirable and very kind of a woman to carry a foetus to term, and certainly a medical imperative that the process of abortion should be made as painless and trauma-free for foetuses as possible, I don't think that foetuses have any right to life, or indeed that they miss it when it's taken away.

Do any of us miss life once it has been taken away from us? I'm not sure what you mean that the fetus doesn't "miss it [life] when it's taken away"

 

[cantata]

Do any of us miss life once it has been taken away from us? I'm not sure what you mean that the fetus doesn't "miss it [life] when it's taken away"

I mentioned that because people like to say things like "Just think: it could have been the next Einstein!"

People want to live and fear death. Foetuses don't.

 

[gengwall]

I mentioned that because people like to say things like "Just think: it could have been the next Einstein!"

People want to live and fear death. Foetuses don't.

Even fetuses "want to live" as they operate on the same survival principles as newborns do. And newborns don't "fear death" any more than a fetus does.

In fact, other than "place of residence" and food source and weight, the differences between a 20 week yo fetus and a newborn are rather minor. Yet the newborn has full personal rights.

 

[cantata]

Even fetuses "want to live" as they operate on the same survival principles as newborns do. And newborns don't "fear death" any more than a fetus does.

In fact, other than "place of residence" and food source and weight, the differences between a 20 week yo fetus and a newborn are rather minor. Yet the newborn has full personal rights.

A newborn does indeed have full personal rights as regards the law in this country and in yours. Exactly what those rights mean, beyond the fact that they afford newborns legal protection, I find philosophically quite mysterious. I think that newborns should be protected by the law and that those who kill them, even painlessly, should be locked up; but again my beliefs are not based on an assumption that a newborn has rights.

 

[gengwall]

A newborn does indeed have full personal rights as regards the law in this country and in yours. Exactly what those rights mean, beyond the fact that they afford newborns legal protection, I find philosophically quite mysterious. I think that newborns should be protected by the law and that those who kill them, even painlessly, should be locked up; but again my beliefs are not based on an assumption that a newborn has rights.

The law is, in it's simplest form, a balancing of rights. I don't know how you can divorce the two. The protection the law provides is, in essence, a protection of your rights. A newborn (or any other human) would not receive protection from the law if they had no rights to protect. Without rights, the law would have no influence or impact on them or anyone who would do them harm.

 

[cantata]

The law is, in it's simplest form, a balancing of rights. I don't know how you can divorce the two. The protection the law provides is, in essence, a protection of your rights. A newborn (or any other human) would not receive protection from the law if they had no rights to protect. Without rights, the law would have no influence or impact on them or anyone who would do them harm.

But what are these mysterious rights beyond things which we hand out to people as we choose? There are legal rights, of course; newborns have those, and foetuses don't. But I don't see how it can be claimed that foetuses have some other sort of rights that aren't recognised by the law. What other sorts of rights are there?

Laws are there to defend society; without them we would all be on our own and life would be very difficult. It is to the ultimate benefit of all participants in a society that we have laws. Arguably the concept of rights is useful for social cohesion, but I don't think rights have an independent basis in reality.

 

[gengwall]

But what are these mysterious rights beyond things which we hand out to people as we choose? There are legal rights, of course; newborns have those, and foetuses don't. But I don't see how it can be claimed that foetuses have some other sort of rights that aren't recognised by the law. What other sorts of rights are there?

Laws are there to defend society; without them we would all be on our own and life would be very difficult. It is to the ultimate benefit of all participants in a society that we have laws. Arguably the concept of rights is useful for social cohesion, but I don't think rights have an independent basis in reality.

Oh, I agree. If (and where) a fetus does have rights, they are not "other sort of" rights than those enjoyed by all other human beings. The question fundimentally is: what makes a newborn a person (with human rights)and the fetus not one? Is it merely the vaginal barrier that distinguishes the two? That seems to be the only logical differentiator, and yet, that is, to paraphrase "Pretty Woman", "merely geography". Quite an unprecedented reason to make a personage distinction. Thankfully, we don't apply "place of residence" distinctions on born people to determine if they are persons or not.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

I think it is on topic. Considering that the fetus can "think" at 6 weeks and can feel pain at 20 weeks, would you then consider the 20 week old fetus something which should be afforded rights?

I'm interested in the statement about fetus' ability to 'think' (especially the quotes around think) would you like to clarify? According to Wikipedia. "[a foetus] showing brain activity at about the 6th week" but this has no citation and this could be that some neurons firing at random.
I have seen no evidence of 'thinking' before quickening (around week 19), the means to feel pain comes in at around week 26 (this seems to be a low estimate; JAMA estimated 29-30 weeks)

Seeing as Wikipedia specifically states

At this stage, the heart is beating but not functional.The hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but not yet functional."

(and that bit does have a citation)

Please could you enlighten me.

 

[cantata]

Oh, I agree. If (and where) a fetus does have rights, they are not "other sort of" rights than those enjoyed by all other human beings. The question fundimentally is: what makes a newborn a person (with human rights)and the fetus not one? Is it merely the vaginal barrier that distinguishes the two? That seems to be the only logical differentiator, and yet, that is, to paraphrase "Pretty Woman", "merely geography". Quite an unprecedented reason to make a personage distinction. Thankfully, we don't apply "place of residence" distinctions on born people to determine if they are persons or not.

Luckily, though, as I said earlier, personhood is not of the slightest bit of concern to me, because I don't believe in unalienable rights for anyone, and especially not for things that don't know they are supposed to have them.

Let me explain: I would protect newborns from physical harm because I think suffering is bad. I would protect newborns from (even painless) death because the loss of a newborn may be devastating to a parent, and the idea that people can kill newborns and get away with it would be terrifying to any parent, even if the parents of the newborn in question don't mind too much. That is equally why I would protect mothers from having foetuses aborted against their will. None of this has anything to do with rights.

 

[jayem]

no , Pro-life wants the equality between mother and child. And that no one has the right to snuff anothers life out because all are equal and all have the same human rights. An unborn child is someone who has commited no crime, so it is against its human rights for it to be killed.

But there are situations where abortion may be necessary. Like an ectopic pregnancy. Or severe eclampsia, unresponsive to other treatment. A 21 week pregnant woman is having seizures, extreme hypertension, and impending kidney failure. All other
treatment has had little effect. I work in health care and saw such a case. The only option for resistant eclampsia is immediate delivery---which at 21 weeks is tantamount to an abortion, since the chances of saving the baby is 1-2% at best. I've seen one woman in early pregnancy get leukemia, and another with aggressive Hodgkin's Disease. The chemotherapy and radiation they'd need might well cause an abortion, or severe fetal malformations. Or they could put off treatment to safely deliver, but risk their best chance at remission. Who can say they were wrong to terminate their pregnancies and get the medical treatment they needed? The high risk OBs I know do everything humanly possible to save mother and fetus both, but occaisionally the risks are too great. How can it be wrong to terminate a pregnancy in extreme situations to save the mother? I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree. It's just common sense. Which implies to me that the life of the fetus is not quite on the same level as that of the mother. I'm not saying it's valueless, just that it's not equal in all respects as you're implying.

 

[gengwall]

I'm interested in the statement about fetus' ability to 'think' (especially the quotes around think) would you like to clarify? According to Wikipedia. "[a foetus] showing brain activity at about the 6th week" but this has no citation and this could be that some neurons firing at random.
I have seen no evidence of 'thinking' before quickening (around week 19), the means to feel pain comes in at around week 26 (this seems to be a low estimate; JAMA estimated 29-30 weeks)

Seeing as Wikipedia specifically states

(and that bit does have a citation)

Please could you enlighten me.

You are correct, I quoted it because 6 weeks is when brain activity starts. I understand this isn't exactly "thinking". Still, the fetus deos begin to have cognitive processes by the 20 week mark, which is the target I was really aiming at in response to cantata's post.

 

[gengwall]

But there are situations where abortion may be necessary. Like an ectopic pregnancy. Or severe eclampsia, unresponsive to other treatment. A 21 week pregnant woman is having seizures, extreme hypertension, and impending kidney failure. All other
treatment has had little effect. I work in health care and saw such a case. The only option for resistant eclampsia is immediate delivery---which at 21 weeks is tantamount to an abortion, since the chances of saving the baby is 1-2% at best. I've seen one woman in early pregnancy get leukemia, and another with aggressive Hodgkin's Disease. The chemotherapy and radiation they'd need might well cause an abortion, or severe fetal malformations. Or they could put off treatment to safely deliver, but risk their best chance at remission. Who can say they were wrong to terminate their pregnancies and get the medical treatment they needed? The high risk OBs I know do everything humanly possible to save mother and fetus both, but occaisionally the risks are too great. How can it be wrong to terminate a pregnancy in extreme situations to save the mother? I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree. It's just common sense. Which implies to me that the life of the fetus is not quite on the same level as that of the mother. I'm not saying it's valueless, just that it's not equal in all respects as you're implying.

"Self defense" has always been seen as a justifiable homocide. Situations where the mother will die unless the fetus is killed would not at all indicate a diminished right to life for the fetus any more than it would for any attacker who was killed in self defense.

 

[jayem]

Is it merely the vaginal barrier that distinguishes the two? That seems to be the only logical differentiator, and yet, that is, to paraphrase "Pretty Woman", "merely geography".

The difference in newborn and fetus is much more than geography. The difference is physiology. A fetus is a direct physiologic burden (sounds pejorative, but it's biologically accurate) on the mother's body. A newborn is not. A pregnant woman's blood volume can increase by 50%, and her heart has to work 30 to 50% harder. Hypertension can occur. The enlarging uterus can restrict venous return from the lower extremities, causing varicose veins and leg and feet swelling. The kidneys have to work harder, as do the lungs. Most pregnant women will get out of breath with higher levels of exertion. Pregnancy impairs glucose metabolism, and up to 3% of women get gestational diabetes. The lower esophageal sphincter often malfunctions, causing acid reflux. Here's a more complete discussion. Pregnancy is not a totally benign state. It can have significant maternal health effects. And obviously, if the mother's health is imperiled, the fetus has no chance at all. It is a shame that these discussions come down to a competition of maternal "rights" versus fetal rights. But overall, I just think the mother's welfare is more important. If we have to make such arbitrary distinctions, I think the mother's rights must be given priority.

 

[gengwall]

The difference in newborn and fetus is much more than geography. The difference is physiology. A fetus is a direct physiologic burden (sounds pejorative, but it's biologically accurate) on the mother's body. A newborn is not. A pregnant woman's blood volume can increase by 50%, and her heart has to work 30 to 50% harder. Hypertension can occur. The enlarging uterus can restrict venous return from the lower extremities, causing varicose veins and leg and feet swelling. The kidneys have to work harder, as do the lungs. Most pregnant women will get out of breath with higher levels of exertion. Pregnancy impairs glucose metabolism, and up to 3% of women get gestational diabetes. The lower esophageal sphincter often malfunctions, causing acid reflux. Here's a more complete discussion. Pregnancy is not a totally benign state. It can have significant maternal health effects. And obviously, if the mother's health is imperiled, the fetus has no chance at all. It is a shame that these discussions come down to a competition of maternal "rights" versus fetal rights. But overall, I just think the mother's welfare is more important. If we have to make such arbitrary distinctions, I think the mother's rights must be given priority.

I undertand all that (and was being a bit hyperbolic in my use of "geography"). But, think of a scenario where all those things happen to a woman because of the actions of a person outside her womb. I know the situation wouldn't be exactly duplicated but I can think of a lot worse things that could happen to a woman as well. So, in essense, consider a similar level of physical burden being placed on a woman by someone other than the fetus. Do her rights still outweigh that other person's right to life?