When does human life begin?

Personhood does not have to be involved. All that is needed are the criteria or boundaries for when an abortion is allowed. Tying abortion to more nebulous concepts only makes resolving the situation more complicated.
I would have a simple set of criteria:
  • prior 25? weeks
  • and/or...
  • result of rape or incest
  • disease or disability of fetus or later born child
  • danger of death to mother
Those are all pretty cut and dried situations. Personhood is not. It is merely used to trump any other situations.
 
Personhood does not have to be involved. All that is needed are the criteria or boundaries for when an abortion is allowed. Tying abortion to more nebulous concepts only makes resolving the situation more complicated.
Well, partly I was going back to the OP...

Life begins at conception of course.

Biologists all agree on this, and I would never disagree with The Science.


But how about personhood?
When does that mass of cells becomes a real human being?
...but yeah, the abortion question is the current issue on everybody's minds, and is why I keep hopping between the two threads.

I would have a simple set of criteria:
  • prior 25? weeks
  • and/or...
  • result of rape or incest
  • disease or disability of fetus or later born child
  • danger of death to mother
Those are all pretty cut and dried situations. Personhood is not. It is merely used to trump any other situations.
I think your first criteria there is where viability comes in. I assume that's why you're using 25 weeks? Likewise, I assume that people who believe abortion is murder rest their position on the answer to the question of when a "mass of cells" becomes a person. The Oklahoma legislature somehow decided that it's when the fetus has even one quality we'd describe as just being in the neighborhood. I'm not sure it's even true that a 6-week fetus has a properly-developed, functioning heart, but even if it does, that's clearly not sufficient for life. As of right now, my own answer to that question is "when the fetus meets all of the conditions necessary to life as an independent being."
 
Personhood does not have to be involved. All that is needed are the criteria or boundaries for when an abortion is allowed.

nope, you still need a reason to tell people they can't have one medical procedure, while they are not legally barred from receiving or performing other procedures.

"you can't have this procedure that according to our own logic we should have no business knowing about" is not functional. the sole justification the state can possibly have, if it has one at all, is to consider legal protections/some form of non-object status to the fetus, separate from the mother.

without personhood defined, the law really does become strictly the state dictating what women can do with their bodies, because without personhood nobody elses' body/rights/freedoms are in question. without personhood, legal boundaries are necessarily infringement, this time of constitutionally protected rights.

you can't do abortion law without defining the personhood (or at least partial status) of the fetus in question. it is literally the only basis whereby the state has any right/interest in it, period. absent the justification that it's protecting the life of another, the state can't demonstrate a legitimate interest in the procedure, and has no basis for control regardless of privacy. it's a complete non-starter.

"when the fetus meets all of the conditions necessary to life as an independent being."

it is quite a few years after people are born before they can live as an independent being. if you mean "it is possible to remove the fetus from its mother and have it survive", then that at least seems way less arbitrary to me than randomly prioritizing one organ or grabbing darts and throwing them at a board to see what a particular religion says you should do. at least it's something.
 
nope, you still need a reason to tell people they can't have one medical procedure, while they are not legally barred from receiving or performing other procedures.

"you can't have this procedure that according to our own logic we should have no business knowing about" is not functional. the sole justification the state can possibly have, if it has one at all, is to consider legal protections/some form of non-object status to the fetus, separate from the mother.

without personhood defined, the law really does become strictly the state dictating what women can do with their bodies, because without personhood nobody elses' body/rights/freedoms are in question. without personhood, legal boundaries are necessarily infringement, this time of constitutionally protected rights.

you can't do abortion law without defining the personhood (or at least partial status) of the fetus in question. it is literally the only basis whereby the state has any right/interest in it, period. absent the justification that it's protecting the life of another, the state can't demonstrate a legitimate interest in the procedure, and has no basis for control regardless of privacy. it's a complete non-starter.
Personhood is just a made up concept which folks will never agree upon. One group will try to dominate all those who disagree on the definition. It is a waste of time. Clear criteria can be measured and moved about to come to a compromise position.
In the US personhood is always incomplete until one turns 21 or 18. It changes from state to state. Defining personhood is 100% arbitrary. It is like defining god.
 
Personhood is just a made up concept which folks will never agree upon.

i mean in the legal sense, not in some philosophical sense that we can't even pin down. regardless of who disagrees on the definition, legally, somebody (or group) will win.

no concept of legal personhood, then laws against abortion are not (legally) possible. a strict infringement on rights. 25wk or whatever isn't relevant then. it's compelled action of an extreme degree.

It changes from state to state. Defining personhood is 100% arbitrary. It is like defining god.

right, but unlike god, you still have to legally define it if you want to make laws where it is relevant.

no matter what you do, there will be point after which you can not kill an arrangement of human cells, legally. assuming you outlaw killing humans generally, that's a necessary conclusion. that is when (legally) the arrangement of cells is treated like a person. you can say it's arbitrary, and you're right. even more so if we don't even try to set boundaries for when we'd draw that line. but no matter how arbitrary it is...you're still drawing that line somewhere. that somewhere is your line of legal personhood.

since there are a lot of unknowns and i don't have good evidence for fetal awareness/suffering at any given point, i'm inclined to give the mother maximum window to choose/avoid suffering first as a matter of principle. this comes from a personal ethic of balancing harms, and incomplete information. it's not necessarily right. i know that.

but it still creates a line in practice, as does saying 25 weeks, for example. if you start penalizing abortions (without special circumstances) after 25wk, you are (legally) treating the fetus as if it has some personal rights at that point.

if you don't set that legal boundary, there is 0 justification for banning abortions. you need it. it's a mandatory requirement for abortion law to exist, at all, without horrible implications.
 
Personhood is attained at about 22 weeks gestation:

This argument is based on the definition of death.

Ethicist D.A. Jones has written:

"Death is not just another disease that can be specified, analyzed, and catalogued as viral or bacterial, infectious or auto-immune. Death is the final cessation of life. Thus defining death requires more than medical and technical expertise: It requires also some agreed understanding of what is constitutive of human life, and what it is that must be absent before the person can be said to be dead."

"Sometimes it will be obvious to any reasonable observer that someone is dead, or alternatively, that someone is still alive. Someone who is breathing [without a respirator] and talking and walking around is obviously alive. Someone whose body is rotting away and hanging off the bones is obviously dead. However there are some cases, perhaps many cases, where it will not be obvious to an unqualified layman whether someone is alive or dead. In these cases it is the decision of competent physicians that decides the issue."

Prior to about 1960, a person would be declared dead if both their heartbeat and breathing had ceased and could not be re-started. But newer technological developments made this definition invalid. Heart pacemakers can keep the heart beating indefinitely long after all other internal systems have wound down. Respirators can keep the person apparently breathing forever.

Death is generally defined in most U.S. states as a situation in which the brain "flat-lines." That is, there is no major central nervous system activity and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. At this point, the person may be declared dead in many jurisdictions. The patient may appear to be breathing, as a result of the action of a respirator. Her/his heart may still be beating, either on its own or as a result of a heart pacemaker. But he/she is judged to be dead. Unplugging the patient from life support systems at this point will not actually kill the patient; she/he is already considered to be dead.

The great rise of transplant medicine has, then, been wholly dependent upon organ harvesting from so called 'beating-heart cadavers', that is, patients who are determined to be dead on the basis of brain death criteria. But their hearts continue to beat (sometimes with external help), to keep the body's organs fresh for transplanting.

If the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life. One might argue that fetal life becomes human person when electrical activity commences in the cerebral cortex. Human personhood, would then start when consciousness begins and ends when consciousness irrevocably ends. One could then argue that a fully-informed woman should have access to abortion at any point before the point that human personhood begins.

According to author Richard Carrier:

"...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered:

"If we're talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that's one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo."

Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, conceivably as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then society could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks. Abortions could then be requested up to the start of the 20th week for normal pregnancies, or at a later time if unusual conditions existed. Many state and provincial medical associations in North America have actually adopted this limit, probably using a different rationale.
 
Please note there that the two week safety factor is only accounting for 'not accidentally killing a person'. This choice has collateral, such as 'accidentally forcing a woman to become a mother when we needn't have', etc.

As well, the legal mechanism by which those two weeks are generated can create a slippery slope that the pro-life crowd can push against. There's a cohort with whom there is no compromise.

I think the Absolute Zeros outnumber the Till Crowning by a very large margin. Plus a higher per capita investment.
 
Also "unusual conditions" isn't very defined.

The piece had that last paragraph in it, so I felt I needed to include that. But the main point is an argument for the definition of personhood. How that is used in lawmaking usually is beyond me.
 
Hmmm...lots of talk about the cargo, very little on the vessel. There are enormous issues - legally, ethically, culturally - that make up the abortion debate. Which is why I believe government needs to stay the heck out of it. People who are obviously dying can refuse medical treatments, certain religions prohibit some or all medical intervention even for their children etc. Personal choices. Yet when it's a WOMAN, well, suddenly it's everybody's business.

Let's take the conversation on a different tangent. So abortion is outlawed. So what's the penalty? Two years in jail? The death sentence (talking about you,Louisiana!)? A $10,000 fine? Is the female charged? Nurses? Receptionist? What about taxes - forcing poor families to have more children will require more social services, or at the very least, more prisons and cops?
 
Please note there that the two week safety factor is only accounting for 'not accidentally killing a person'. This choice has collateral, such as 'accidentally forcing a woman to become a mother when we needn't have', etc.
I think that, for the hardcore pro-life side, there probably is no number of weeks on which they would compromise in good faith. With something like the Oklahoma Heartbeat Bill, for example, I don't think I'm being cynical to believe that they chose their marker of gestational development precisely because it's so early in the pregnancy - ~6 weeks - as to functionally prevent any abortions at all. Forcing a woman to become a mother is what they're aiming for, it's not collateral. Conversely, from the pro-choice side, the number of weeks at which abortion should still be allowed could be almost anything that allows a reasonable period of self-reflection. I'm not sure how much difference there is between, say, 12 weeks and 20. There's no number we can put on allowing every woman time to make a difficult decision. Some of them will have already thought about it and won't need 10 seconds; some won't be able to decide until the last possible moment, whenever it is. :dunno:
 
I think that, for the hardcore pro-life side, there probably is no number of weeks on which they would compromise in good faith. With something like the Oklahoma Heartbeat Bill, for example, I don't think I'm being cynical to believe that they chose their marker of gestational development precisely because it's so early in the pregnancy - ~6 weeks - as to functionally prevent any abortions at all. Forcing a woman to become a mother is what they're aiming for, it's not collateral. Conversely, from the pro-choice side, the number of weeks at which abortion should still be allowed could be almost anything that allows a reasonable period of self-reflection. I'm not sure how much difference there is between, say, 12 weeks and 20. There's no number we can put on allowing every woman time to make a difficult decision. Some of them will have already thought about it and won't need 10 seconds; some won't be able to decide until the last possible moment, whenever it is. :dunno:

Some countries like France manage quite well with 14 weeks limit but they give easy access to abortion within that period.
 
Which is why I believe government needs to stay the heck out of it. People who are obviously dying can refuse medical treatments, certain religions prohibit some or all medical intervention even for their children etc. Personal choices. Yet when it's a WOMAN, well, suddenly it's everybody's business.

if you ignore the thread title topic you can't make a functional abortion argument. this is not about discrimination against women. roughly half of aborted fetuses in the us are women, sometimes more elsewhere. if you wave a wand and declare they're not people, your argument works. if you accept that they are people (in legal sense), quoted argument is utter nonsense. which it is really matters.

it hinges on whether there is legally one person or two. you can't get away from that, and defining it is more nuanced than talking about tax returns again.

Let's take the conversation on a different tangent. So abortion is outlawed. So what's the penalty?

it's a good question, without an immediately obvious answer. it should depend a lot on the circumstances, in a way law can't easily capture. doing it with guidance/advice from a professional in a clinic vs taking black market drugs both fit the category, but they aren't the same thing.
 
if you ignore the thread title topic you can't make a functional abortion argument. this is not about discrimination against women. roughly half of aborted fetuses in the us are women, sometimes more elsewhere. if you wave a wand and declare they're not people, your argument works. if you accept that they are people (in legal sense), quoted argument is utter nonsense. which it is really matters.

it hinges on whether there is legally one person or two. you can't get away from that, and defining it is more nuanced than talking about tax returns again.
No, you misunderstand. Personhood is a nebulous concept. For 240 years in the US black slaves had their personhood denied. The same for tribal nations people. Women were considered second class citizens who only received the right to vote sixdecades after black men. However, by any other objective examination, these groups consisted of human beings. Yet it suited those in power to control these populations, exactly what the Trump Party is doing right now. You want to talk about viability, I'm all for it. But saying "personhood" deflects from the grotesque and dangerous politics behind these bans.


it's a good question, without an immediately obvious answer. it should depend a lot on the circumstances, in a way law can't easily capture. doing it with guidance/advice from a professional in a clinic vs taking black market drugs both fit the category, but they aren't the same thing.
So...it's complicated?
 
No, you misunderstand. Personhood is a nebulous concept.

i'm aware. we don't actually understand consciousness well. and some people value their pets more than other human lives. even more true historically.

personhood in context of abortions is a legal concept though, not a philosophical one. it means wherever the law starts treating a fetus/life as a person, or wherever a particular person wants that to start happening. that's "personhood" in legal sense.

i forget what i put here vs abortion thread, but i've made it very clear that absent protecting of a person, abortion law is objectively unconstitutional. you need legal personhood for it to function. also not a fan of arbitrarily early cutoffs for "personhood", which i've also mentioned elsewhere. i don't think laws in texas or louisiana or even oklahoma can square, logically.

So...it's complicated?

yep, complicated
 
Nice. The real question about abortion is choice. Who chooses; who has the power. All the other "issues" being raised are about the exercise of that power: if, when, how, under what circumstances. SCOTUS is just resetting who gets to choose and will likely say it is the elected state governments and not women. All the conservatives who hate government are thrilled though: better governments than people! Oh, but don't touch my guns or make me wear a mask!

To me it's even simpler than that. Yes, it is ultimately about the woman's right to choose, but..

Making abortion illegal leads to a lot more unsafe and dangerous abortions being performed in alleyways and dark basements. That's just the reality of the situation. There is no way to eliminate abortion, you're just pushing it underground. If the goal of an abortion ban is to get rid of abortion then no single abortion ban has ever worked anywhere - they have all been dismal failures.

All abortion bans accomplish: The previously stated added dangers to women.. A lack of healthcare options.. It will force women to take dangerous risks.. both to their body and their finances, when they at times have to choose to fly to another state or country. It will make poor women poorer and less safe.

If abortion bans actually achieved their goal of eliminating abortion, then at least those in favour would have that argument under their belt. But they don't even have that. They talk of how much they love life, but then vote to cut social services for poor mothers the next day. They don't care about life. They care about their own personal notions of being right.

But that means the debate will never be settled. :undecide:Between 22 to 24 weeks

Depends on what you mean by "settled". Technically a lot of legal definitions aren't settled and never will be, since they are not based on any one objective fact that you can point to and say: "Look, this is where the law originates, it will never change. It is set in stone". Sure, a law could be based on some legal precedent or other law, but that all rests on the shoulders of assumptions made along the way. You can't escape the fact that most of our legal system is arbitrary.

On the other hand, there are parts of the world where the question of abortion is pretty much settled. I would have put Canada in that group 5 years ago and still probably would.. Any political party that would try to make abortion illegal here will just not do very well.. So nobody does it except for some extremists here and there. Lately the conservative party has been at times leaning in sort of that direction, but we'll see if they ever go there. I sort of doubt it, as the vast majority of the Canadian electorate views this question as settled, and our politicians understand that (for the most part). Politics has been getting more and more crazy though so it seems like this could change in 10 or 20 years.. Looking at a recent poll at least 80% of Canadians supports a woman's right to choose, while 14% are opposed and 6% on the fence. So at the moment it's "settled".. and our society is slowly getting more progressive.. but.. you never know what the future might hold. We need to stay vigilant in supporting these rights, so those who want to take them away from women do not have an easy time doing so
 
Choice.

Yes I agree with warpus, it really is all about choice. People are going to do whatever they choose to do and it doesn't matter what the law says.

Even with professional services legally available to anyone that wants an abortion, there is still a big risk to the woman wanting the abortion. It doesn't matter if the procedure is done in a basement or at a fully funded medical hospital. A woman's body suffers some kind of damage after an abortion. The damage done to the body is probably a lot less when an abortion takes place at a hospital.
 
Choice.

Yes I agree with warpus, it really is all about choice. People are going to do whatever they choose to do and it doesn't matter what the law says.

Even with professional services legally available to anyone that wants an abortion, there is still a big risk to the woman wanting the abortion. It doesn't matter if the procedure is done in a basement or at a fully funded medical hospital. A woman's body suffers some kind of damage after an abortion. The damage done to the body is probably a lot less when an abortion takes place at a hospital.
Actually, abortions can be safely done on an outpatient basis. There is very little chance of complications. Quite safe. In fact, a woman who has had an abortion can have children in the future.

Either way, better to leave that decision to the individual rather than the government, no?

Still waiting for a list of punishments, fines, etc. for anyone who violates laws against abortion. I mean, you can't criminalize something without punishment or consequences
 
Still waiting for a list of punishments, fines, etc. for anyone who violates laws against abortion. I mean, you can't criminalize something without punishment or consequences
Easy, any or all of these will do:
  • Felony conviction so it is harder for the mother to get a job and they can't vote
  • 5 years in jail without their child so they will surely be a better parent when they get out
  • A big fine, big enough to make raising the child more difficult and its life less healthful than it could be; make the mother poor as punishment
  • If they are not married, make them marry the father so they learn the lesson that having sex when not married is a really bad thing
 
A fertilized egg is certainly alive. 25%? of fertilized miscarry naturally. I think the question is at what point has the fetal growth progressed enough to be mostly beyond some arbitrary cut off for abortion.

People with this untenable position also have to grapple with identical twins
 
Back
Top Bottom