Life begins at....?

[Mr Spinkles]

Biologically speaking, it makes sense to say, roughly, that a new human life has been created at the moment of conception.

But human personhood is a different concept. Legally, I think viability is closest to the mark. But it's a very difficult question.

 

[Quintessence]

I was wondering when you think human life begins. And by human life I mean at what point should an organism be considered a person.

If you hadn't added that caveat, I'd have answered much differently. Strictly speaking, human life has no beginning, it's a continuity of generations that traces back to some common ancestor with other primates. And life itself traces back far earlier than that.

Personhood on the other hand, is a status used to determine the granting of various legal rights within human societies. It's a social construct. In all human societies that I know, nobody grants all rights associated with personhood until well past a human has been born. As it should be; infants should not be allowed to serve or enroll in the military, they should not be allowed to hold a job, they should not be allowed to marry, and so forth. And it is absurd to suggest it should be held responsible for its behavior when it lacks any agency.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

its not the ancient text you have to contend with ....its the translation.


Look at your 2nd verse carefully...."...hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined."


What other harm could follow if someone dies? Isnt death the ultimate harm that could occur to anyone??? Once your dead, you cant be hurt anymore then that.

So this is a really bad translation of the text which literally says "if her child comes out but no other harm occurs"
A child can come out unharmed through premature labor and that is why most modern translators insert 'premature'. It is the only thing that makes sense. You cant harm someone who is dead, but you can give birth prematurely and the baby can be alright. If however the baby comes out and it 'dies', then the 'life for life' penalty is given to the man.

The "further harm" would be to the pregnant woman.

And elsewhere in the OT, when the census of the Jewish tribes is taken, God instructs them not to include infants less than a month old. If they're not counted as people weeks AFTER they're born, why would they be counted in the womb.

 

[Me Myself]

why mention 'pregnant' at all if its speaking about women in general.

The writer could have simply said that if a woman in harmed by two men fighting, her own can impose a fine.

The context is what tells us its speaking about the child and not the mother.

The text says that if ONLY the child is dead and the woman is NOT harmed then the men are fined.

How would they kill the unborn child of a non pregnant woman?

The text is talking specifically about the punishment for killing the unborn baby of a woman without her (the woman) suffering any physical harm.

 

[freethinker44]

Personhood on the other hand, is a status used to determine the granting of various legal rights within human societies. It's a social construct. In all human societies that I know, nobody grants all rights associated with personhood until well past a human has been born. As it should be; infants should not be allowed to serve or enroll in the military, they should not be allowed to hold a job, they should not be allowed to marry, and so forth. And it is absurd to suggest it should be held responsible for its behavior when it lacks any agency.

What's your opinion on the matter. That's what I'm really interested in, I can look up legal or religious definitions myself. And I'm talking about rights in general here, not specific rights, I wouldn't give an infant the right to sign a contract or something, I just mean basic human rights, at what point do you believe a human organism should be granted the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", just basic human rights.

And a follow-up question. (I know, I'm so needy, right?)

And for everyone, once an organism becomes a living person from your perspective, what, if any rights should they be granted, and why or why not?

 

[psychoslice]

Life never began and life will never end, we are the ones who but a label to it.

 

[Quintessence]

What's your opinion on the matter. That's what I'm really interested in, I can look up legal or religious definitions myself.

Except that is my opinion; my culture has collectively decided to grant certain rights and privileges over time on the basis of age of the human. It has decided to grant what you're calling "basic human rights" at birth and others at later time periods. This is wise and practical, if not necessary to organize contemporary human societies. What I find problematic about my society's organization of its rights language is an unacceptable lack of consideration for anything that isn't human. It is as foolish as it is sickening.

However, we must not forget that we make up these self-limiting rules to govern ourselves and that fundamentally, there are no "rights" for any aspect of reality, human or otherwise. I personally dislike "rights" language for that reason – I much prefer descriptively objective language that outlines what something is capable of, not what it is "supposed to" use such capabilities for. The "rights" possessed by any aspect of reality are those things it has the power to do. Nothing more, nothing less. All else is a social construct and self-imposed limitation or tradition.

And for everyone, once an organism becomes a living person from your perspective, what, if any rights should they be granted, and why or why not?

They will be granted whatever rights the human culture deems beneficial for that particular time, or circumstance. Whether or not they should do so is irrelevant, because this is what will happen. And, for the most part, I don't disagree with the current rights granted by my culture at various stages of human development.

Given human overpopulation, I think it is an extremely foolish idea to extend rights my culture grants at birth to a human before it is born. This policy only makes sense when a species is endangered.

 

[Leftimies]

If you hadn't added that caveat, I'd have answered much differently. Strictly speaking, human life has no beginning, it's a continuity of generations that traces back to some common ancestor with other primates. And life itself traces back far earlier than that.

Personhood on the other hand, is a status used to determine the granting of various legal rights within human societies. It's a social construct. In all human societies that I know, nobody grants all rights associated with personhood until well past a human has been born. As it should be; infants should not be allowed to serve or enroll in the military, they should not be allowed to hold a job, they should not be allowed to marry, and so forth. And it is absurd to suggest it should be held responsible for its behavior when it lacks any agency.

I, for one, welcome our infant overlords.

No, seriously, I applaud this ^_^ my views exactly.

 

[freethinker44]

Given human overpopulation, I think it is an extremely foolish idea to extend rights my culture grants at birth to a human before it is born. This policy only makes sense when a species is endangered.

What does overpopulation have to do with it? A person is a person whether we are overpopulated or not. Or are you saying an unborn human organism should be considered a person but should be denied human rights until it is born?

 

[adi2d]

What does overpopulation have to do with it? A person is a person whether we are overpopulated or not. Or are you saying an unborn human organism should be considered a person but should be denied human rights until it is born?

A person should be considered a person when it becomes a person. After its first breath

 

[freethinker44]

A person should be considered a person when it becomes a person. After its first breath

Why should it be considered person after it's first breath and not before or after? And by "first breath" do you mean "processes oxygen" or literally when air enters its lungs, and what is the reason for choosing one over the other?

 

[Quintessence]

What does overpopulation have to do with it? A person is a person whether we are overpopulated or not.

Or are you saying an unborn human organism should be considered a person but should be denied human rights until it is born?

The legal definition of what constitutes a "person" - as in what is granted "basic rights" - should necessarily be modified and adapted to circumstances. I thought the connection between defining pre-birth organisms as persons as having a "right to life" and overpopulation was pretty straightforward, but I can spell it out: it inevitably increases the birth rate of the species. If you want to control overpopulation, one of the stupidest things you could do is make policy that increases birth rates when you want to do everything you can to decrease them. I might be more sympathetic to attempts to redefine personhood to pre-birth humans if it weren't for human overpopulation, but given that circumstance, the idea is just dumb. I also might be more sympathetic to attempts to redefine personhood if our ethical standards for the rest of the world weren't so deplorably lacking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should it be considered person after it's first breath and not before or after? And by "first breath" do you mean "processes oxygen" or literally when air enters its lungs, and what is the reason for choosing one over the other?

The function of the fetal brain (and the fetus itself) is very different from the function of a newborn baby. Under fetal circulation, mental function - even the breathing reflex - is suppressed and the heart's pumping reflex works very differently.

When the fetus/baby stops getting oxygen via the umbilical cord at birth, this oxygen deprivation triggers a major change: the brain "switches on" and the newborn's brain starts triggering the heart and lungs to work the way they need to work outside the womb.

So... if you needed to put a specific time on it, it would be the point when the newborn's breathing reflex manifests itself.

 

[freethinker44]

The function of the fetal brain (and the fetus itself) is very different from the function of a newborn baby. Under fetal circulation, mental function - even the breathing reflex - is suppressed and the heart's pumping reflex works very differently.

When the fetus/baby stops getting oxygen via the umbilical cord at birth, this oxygen deprivation triggers a major change: the brain "switches on" and the newborn's brain starts triggering the heart and lungs to work the way they need to work outside the womb.

So... if you needed to put a specific time on it, it would be the point when the newborn's breathing reflex manifests itself.

And why choose this as a "personhood" point? Why not some developmental milestone or some other criteria?

 

[adi2d]

Why should it be considered person after it's first breath and not before or after? And by "first breath" do you mean "processes oxygen" or literally when air enters its lungs, and what is the reason for choosing one over the other?

When the baby takes its first breath. With its first breath it is alive. I believe this and so do maternity caregivers. That is 'time of birth' on a birth certificate

 

[freethinker44]

When the baby takes its first breath. With its first breath it is alive. I believe this and so do maternity caregivers. That is 'time of birth' on a birth certificate

It's not alive before that?

 

[adi2d]

It's not alive before that?

Until the first breath its a case of 'the lights are on but nobody is home

 

[freethinker44]

Until the first breath its a case of 'the lights are on but nobody is home

So minutes before it is born it is just a lifeless sack of meat?

 

[adi2d]

So minutes before it is born it is just a lifeless sack of meat?

No its not a 'sack of meat'. No need to get snippy.

I answered your question now would you be so kind as answer mine?

If the baby is born and doesn't take the first breath. When did the baby die?

 

[Kalidas]

there is a mosaic law stating that if a man hurts a pregnant woman and her baby is injured, he is to have damages imposed upon himself.

If her baby dies, he is to be given the death penalty in harmony with the 'life for life' law.


This law proves that God views the unborn baby as a living human.

HOLY CRAP! Pegg and I agree on something! I knew it would happen some day .

If a baby is "alive" ONLY when it breathes its first breathe that means all children with CP are anywhere for seconds to minutes younger then what the birth cert says. OR more importantly my son passed away as he was being birthed he NEVER got a first breathe. So is my child any less of a child now?

for the record I say viability in the strict Biological terms. In the spiritual souls and such I do not know.