That's very interesting, but it seems problematic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
About Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception...
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That's very interesting, but it seems problematic.
It's a matter of classification. If the organism is classified as a full individual human then it would logically be entitled to the rights of a full individual human, which includes not being killed by another individual human being.
But if it's classified as a part of the mother's body, or a cell or collection of cells that are not yet classified as a full individual human being, then killing it would have similar legal ramifications as using Lysol on kitchen counters or scratching off some living skin cells from one's arm.
Late term abortions provide an example of this.
Killing a baby when it is close to being born and killing a baby when it has just been born seconds ago are essentially the same. It's the same baby, and if that baby was born premature 1 month ago then it would have been legally protected as an infant.
It is a human life once the heart starts beating which isn't until a few weeks. Granted the life is dependent on the host so it really is up to the host. Though if someone wants to charge people for murder for hurting a mom to be and fetus then they ought consider the same for abortions.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
The highlighted portion is where I sit.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
That strikes me as much more arbitrary than fertilization. The formation of the brain has the same problem, though to a lesser degree since the brain actually has a solid link to sapience. The heart is really just another muscle.
The fine line would be killing a welcome guest in the dwelling of the host (mother) or helping to expel an unwelcome intruder from the dwelling.
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
I think this subject boils down to realising that things exist in a continuum of ever gradual changes, with different stages identified and characterised by certain specifics, claiming no more nor less than those said defining features. Such that fertilisation is defined by this, implantation is that and so forth.
We must be clear what we mean when we say 'human life' in querying this continuum. What exactly are we asking? what answer are we fishing for?
Because 'human life' is not as clear and precise a term as the stages of development that we are trying to attribute it to. As such when trying to pin a broader definition onto a more narrow one, there is unavoidable loss of information, making the latter unavoidably inadequate in answering for the prior, in this case 'human life'.
Consider the question of when a hat becomes a hat? To try and pin point it onto a specific moment of the manufacture process is in vain, because ultimately no one point in the manufacturing can accommodate the greater definition of what it means to 'be a hat'.
Because what defines 'a hat' is broad, perhaps it refers to something we visually recognise? a specific shape, colour or design? Perhaps its anything that can be put on a head? and so forth. We might be confident in saying that 'I'll know one when i see one', but the larger connectome of information that defines the 'hat' cannot be effectively captured by some point of manufacture, and neither would it add to the understanding of 'hat' either.
When it comes to ethics, i think we need to be more specific in our questions, and thus allow us access to more meaningful answers. For example, quoting the stage of neuromaturation and pain perception in the development of a fetus has greater meaning to the question of bodily rights of the fetus regarding freedom from pain.
I'll need to think about that one. For one thing, do rights belong to us by virtue of our being "full individual humans" or do they belong to us by some other virtue or property of ours? I'm not at all comfortable with ascribing rights merely by virtue of our being "full individual humans". I've got to think about that one.
I question (or flat-out disagree with, actually) the idea that if the fetus is an individual person,its rights preclude abortion. There are very few circumstances where a person is compelled to sustain the life of another, and no cases where a person is compelldd to provide their own body to do it.
Why can't this be addressed by allowing the pregnancy to be induced? As long as the woman has the option to end the pregnancy if she chooses, her rights are preserved. If it ends with a live birth, so be it.
I heard an argument a while back that clicked with me: using the point of viability as the dividing line for abortion makes absolutely no sense. In effect, it says "because the fetus no longer needs your body, you're obliged to provide your body to it." It's inherently contradictory.
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
Wasnt that the Stoics position on 'personhood'? That it was defined by the 'pneuma', ie the breath. Its interesting that certain 'stages' are drawn to by people, making them less arbitrary than random choice but by no means necessarily justified.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
What else would they be based on? Not trying to rush you, but I'm sitting here trying to think of another measure, and coming up bupkiss.
With a pregnant human, there are no specific actions she needs to take to sustain the fetus. There are indeed some actions she can take that would be particularly unhealthy for the fetus.
There are, however, specific actions she would need to take to terminate the life, unless nature ends up doing it through a miscarriage.
I'm okay with inducing labor if it's late enough for survival.
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I dunno, I think it's a valid compromise for legal purposes. Presuming accessibility of abortion (which I realize is not a safe assumption, but it is a goal I wholeheartedly support), the mother has over 20 weeks to make up her mind whether or not to terminate.
It's unfortunate that a time limit is mandated, but that mandate stems from inescapable biological function. If it's not 28 weeks, it's certainly 40.
At any rate, I supported unlimited access to abortion up to the point of viability. Under those conditions, I see no reason to permit unnecessarily cruel procedures like inducing labor so that a premature baby can die a lingering death from organ failure. In my book, that's not an abortion, it's infanticide.
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
I think a right is defined by the relevant characteristic. Such that a creature that can feel pain has an inherent right to live free of such pain. So it would be a 'pain right' rather than a 'human right' per say.
It reminds me that children for example are not considered full persons under the law until they reach the age of maturity. Nonetheless, children have been treated as persons with respect to bodily offences because the relevant characteristic is present to define the harm and justify the accompanying right.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I'm fair certain Penguin misspoke and meant "inducing labor," not pregnancy. I don't think anyone's out to ban sex, as even Fred Phelps likes it fine if you're married.
Something like 98-99% of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. And most of those are in the earlier part of that period, in the first 12 weeks.
So I'm against late stage abortions in most cases because there are several months where the person can end the pregnancy while it's still a clump of cells without perception. And most people that have abortions, do that.
Inducing pregnancy far too early would be problematic (although later is somewhat less of a problem in my view), and deliberately killing a viable child is even more problematic to me.
So I'm against late stage abortions in most cases because there are several months where the person can end the pregnancy while it's still a clump of cells without perception. And most people that have abortions, do that.
Inducing pregnancy far too early would be problematic (although later is somewhat less of a problem in my view), and deliberately killing a viable child is even more problematic to me.
It was a typo on my part.I'm fair certain Penguin misspoke and meant "inducing labor," not pregnancy. I don't think anyone's out to ban sex, as even Fred Phelps likes it fine if you're married.
I knew what he meant so I didn't pay enough attention to the typing of the words.
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Gotcha. Auto-correct eyes fail me on occasion.
FTR, I was pretty sure of what he meant, but the continueation of the error left me vague on your own point.
Now worries.
I don't know. I'm still at the stage where I need to provide eastern philosophy subtitles in order to understand much of the western philosophers.