Is a fetus a person

[No Names Left Damn It]

So babies born with malformed organs or organs that failed to develop fully are not persons?

No, because they are clearly alive and detached from their mother, and are their own little being.

[Laconis]

Well that depends on the definition of "think for it's own", which is going to be hard to quantify in such a way that it does apply to a fetus but not to a newborn.

And I don't see what needing assistance in developing has to do with personhood or lack thereof. Perhaps you can expound?

Can the fetus, in its early stages, live on its own, outside the mother's body? Can the fetus feel and think, does it knows what it is? No. Does it understands? Does it has a sense of self? No.

No, it most certainly cannot in it's early stages. But then again, babies don't have a sense of self until later either, nor do they know what they are or undstand much of anything (Then again they really don't care do they? ^.^). This is known as the age of innocence. Does this mean that by your logic a baby is not a person? Also mind you that an infant cannot live on it's own either.

[Poliwanacraca]

As for me, I'd say it's not a "person" until it is, at the very least, capable of self-awareness. A fetus two weeks from birth is probably a person. A blastocyst is absolutely not a person.

Are blastocysts and zygotes technically foetuses then or what, because I always thought they were different?

No, they're not technically fetuses. They're earlier stages in development, but I figured the point of the question was really not so much "are fetuses people?" as "precisely when in human embryonic development does something become a person?" So, basically, in my view, "personhood" probably occurs sometime during the fetal stage.

[Galloism]

Know what it is? Probably not - but neither does a newborn, really. I believe someone in here mentioned the mirror test at approximately 18 months.

When is it that we really become aware of the self?

Hmm. Self-awareness is more of a sliding scale, I think. We tend to become more self aware as we get older, almost continuously. I can honestly say I'm more self aware now than when I was 18. I was more self-aware then than at 10. I was more self aware at 10 than 5. More at 5 than 2, more at 2 than birth, and definitely more at birth than as a blastocyst. However, when do we exhibit a significant amount of self-awareness? I don't know.

Neither does a newborn, yet we consider them "persons".

Because they can live outside the mothe's body.

Which brings us back to the field of medicine and its advancement.

[Galloism]

So babies born with malformed organs or organs that failed to develop fully are not persons?

No, because they are clearly alive and detached from their mother, and are their own little being.

Well, fetuses are clearly alive (given they are animated, moving blood around, and in later stages able to move their muscles and react to external stimuli), but being "alive" is not automatically a good reason not to kill it, so I'll move on and address the second part of your question.

As medical technology has advanced, we have moved from a baby being viable (able to live detached from its mother, as its own little being) from ~7 months to possibly being viable at ~5 months. When (not if - when) medical advances to a level where we can grow a fertilized egg into a human, will you consider fertilized eggs as persons?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

However, also unlike the braindead individual on the table, a fetus still has potential. The braindead person doesn't - you can support them forever (within reason) and they will never recover and become a functioning person again, and they therefore have no current or future quality of life. That's why I would support the euthanasia a 60 year old braindead woman with no hope of recovery and object to a voluntary abortion of an 8 month old fetus. Before you jump down my throat, I know that almost never fucking happens, but I'm just giving my opinion on where I draw the line in my mind.

As far as the "dead" criterion, a couple of years ago a friend of mine suffered severe carbon monoxide poisoning (long story) and was rushed to the hospital with no respiration and no pulse. The doctors told him he was "dead" (their term) for 9 minutes. Therefore, that's how I always took "dead" to mean from a medical standpoint. Of course, from a legal standpoint, he never "died" but the doctors seemed to think he did from a medical standpoint - until they brought him back. That's just my 2 cents.

(generally medical death is essentially braindeath the whole blod pumping heart beating bit is because after a certain point of lakc of the blood or the breathing your brain dies off and some things are not fixable so persistent vtach for example=death cause it means that theres no way to get oxygen to the brain in tiime to stop the brain from dying off completely.)
now theoretically that works great. There's a problem though very very very occasionally braindead people become not braindead.So either you have to redefine death or you have to redefine life . . .

Well, as I said previously, I consider a braindead person to be "alive" as long as the body as a whole is still functioning (respiring, blood still pumping, converting oxygen into carbon dioxide, etc) - even with assistance, so I don't see the contradiction. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

If you eat meat, you are killing a being with far more sentience and sapience than a brain dead corpse. I am not a vegetarian, therefore I cannot think it wrong to "kill" that which has no higher brain function.

[Laconis]

Here's a question that popped into my mind just now.

When do you think you were first "Alive"? As in a living creature distinguishable from your mother? I'd say 11-12 weeks in. That's just me. What say you all?

I don't think you can remember that. When do we truly gain sense of ourselves, I think when we realize it. At 3 0r 4, hazily, I knew I was a separate person, from my mother.

I'm not asking about when you became self aware. I'm saying, if you looked back on your life, when do you think you first became a living "thing". Quite different than being self-aware.

[Galloism]

If you eat meat, you are killing a being with far more sentience and sapience than a brain dead corpse. I am not a vegetarian, therefore I cannot think it wrong to "kill" that which has no higher brain function.

And if you read the thread, you'd know I didn't say it was wrong either:

As a personal definition, I would say that the braindead woman was still a "person", as long as she continued to breathe (assisted or no), blood continued to be pumped around in circles through her arteries and veins, and her body's cells were still functional.

That's not to say that I would object to having the plug pulled, so to speak. I am actually in support of euthanasia for people that have no hope of ever recovering, but that's not quite the same thing.

We're discussing the definition of personhood and when a homo sapien achieves personhood, not abortion, and not euthanasia.

[Pevisopolis]

A fetus is somewhere inbetween "Person" and "Not a person".

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If you eat meat, you are killing a being with far more sentience and sapience than a brain dead corpse. I am not a vegetarian, therefore I cannot think it wrong to "kill" that which has no higher brain function.

And if you read the thread, I didn't say it was wrong either:

As a personal definition, I would say that the braindead woman was still a "person", as long as she continued to breathe (assisted or no), blood continued to be pumped around in circles through her arteries and veins, and her body's cells were still functional.

That's not to say that I would object to having the plug pulled, so to speak. I am actually in support of euthanasia for people that have no hope of ever recovering, but that's not quite the same thing.

We're discussing the definition of personhood and when a homo sapien achieves personhood, not abortion, and not euthanasia.

Essentially, I'm saying that if you wish to extend personhood to fetuses prior to brain development or to brain dead individuals, then you must, in order to be logically consistent, extend personhood to essentially all vertebrates and a few invertebrates as well.

[No Names Left Damn It]

will you consider fertilized eggs as persons?

Nope. They'll be a potential human, but they will be just as unpersonlike (that can't be a word) as a week old foetus in a womb, say.

[Galloism]

will you consider fertilized eggs as persons?

Nope. They'll be a potential human, but they will be just as unpersonlike (that can't be a word) as a week old foetus in a womb, say.

And compared with an 8 month old fetus?

I want to know by what criteria you're drawing this line - since apparently "able to live as an individual life outside of its mother" isn't it, as you originally claimed.

[The Tofu Islands]

A fetus is somewhere inbetween "Person" and "Not a person".

So it's the word "and"?
</taking you absolutely literally>
Out of curiosity, at what stage before would you definitely classify it as "not a person"? And at what stage after would you definitely classify it as "a person"?

[Galloism]

Essentially, I'm saying that if you wish to extend personhood to fetuses prior to brain development or to brain dead individuals, then you must, in order to be logically consistent, extend personhood to essentially all vertebrates and a few invertebrates as well.

Nah, because I already said it only extends to the homo sapien species (as of this time and our knowledge).

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Essentially, I'm saying that if you wish to extend personhood to fetuses prior to brain development or to brain dead individuals, then you must, in order to be logically consistent, extend personhood to essentially all vertebrates and a few invertebrates as well.

Nah, because I already said it only extends to the homo sapien species (as of this time and our knowledge).

Why? Upon what logic is this based? If you give it to brain dead patients, you might as well give it to fish. I'm not in favor of extending personhood out that far, but I'm also not in favor of giving it to the brain dead.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It doesn't matter if a fetus is a person. It doesn't change the underlying argument; that a person's right to the control over his or her own body trumps all other considerations. That's why blood transfusions aren't mandatory. That's why organ donation is voluntary. The fact that a life could be saved is not enough to force a medical decision on anyone; not even a corpse.

[No Names Left Damn It]

since apparently "able to live as an individual life outside of its mother" isn't it,

When did I say that?

[Galloism]

Essentially, I'm saying that if you wish to extend personhood to fetuses prior to brain development or to brain dead individuals, then you must, in order to be logically consistent, extend personhood to essentially all vertebrates and a few invertebrates as well.

Nah, because I already said it only extends to the homo sapien species (as of this time and our knowledge).

Why? Upon what logic is this based? If you give it to brain dead patients, you might as well give it to fish. I'm not in favor of extending personhood out that far, but I'm also not in favor of giving it to the brain dead.

I'm a speciest.

Nah, the dictionary - first definition:

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.

Which, of course, brings us back to the definition of "living":

1. Possessing life

Which, naturally, brings us to life:

1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings

Now, whether a person in that each of these states is "alive" or not we can argue about. Only by determining whether they are living or not can we determine whether they are a person.

[Galloism]

since apparently "able to live as an individual life outside of its mother" isn't it,

When did I say that?

Well, you said if we become able to grow a fertilized egg into a child outside the womb in some sort of artificial device that that still doesn't make the fertilized egg a person.

Now, I want to know why that egg is not a person, by a 6 month old premie on life support in a hospital is.

[No Names Left Damn It]

Now, I want to know why that egg is not a person, by a 6 month old premie on life support in a hospital is.

Because that egg is a cell. It is about as conscious and humanlike as an amoeba.

[Meldaria]

By state law in the United States a fetus becomes a person 6 months into production, so around the 3rd trimester. I don't know if I agree with that, but it does sound quite reasonable.

[Galloism]

Now, I want to know why that egg is not a person, by a 6 month old premie on life support in a hospital is.

Because that egg is a cell. It is about as conscious and humanlike as an amoeba.

I agree with you, but, you need to come up with some criteria as to when it becomes a person. You originally inserted that a fetus is not a person because it's dependent on its mother. In our favorite little hypothetical game - "Guess the future" - we've taken that out of the equation for the original fertilized egg.

Now, you must come up with some new criteria. Brain activity? If so, fetuses have that at a certain stage. Heartbeat? Earlier stage. Ability to move muscles and react to stimuli? That also happens at a certain stage of fetal development.

So, where do you draw the line at, NNLDI, and for what reason?

[Galloism]

It doesn't matter if a fetus is a person. It doesn't change the underlying argument; that a person's right to the control over his or her own body trumps all other considerations. That's why blood transfusions aren't mandatory. That's why organ donation is voluntary. The fact that a life could be saved is not enough to force a medical decision on anyone; not even a corpse.

Exactly. I'm mostly standing around arguing semantics for the hell of it.

No one's going to come in here and give a serious "anti-choice" argument that's even worth destroying. It never happens anymore.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

By state law in the United States a fetus becomes a person 6 months into production, so around the 3rd trimester. I don't know if I agree with that, but it does sound quite reasonable.

Well two interesting things happen in the approximate vicinity of that mark that complicate the argument. First, the fetus is viable outside the womb. While a woman has an express right to remove that fetus, there is no express right to kill it. Second, the risks of an abortion surpass the risk of a normal pregnancy. So from a medical standpoint, the safer course of action for the woman is birth. That's why late term abortions are so rare; unless there are complications, the risks to the mother are too high.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It doesn't matter if a fetus is a person. It doesn't change the underlying argument; that a person's right to the control over his or her own body trumps all other considerations. That's why blood transfusions aren't mandatory. That's why organ donation is voluntary. The fact that a life could be saved is not enough to force a medical decision on anyone; not even a corpse.

Exactly. I'm mostly standing around arguing semantics for the hell of it.

No one's going to come in here and give a serious "anti-choice" argument that's even worth destroying. It never happens anymore.

That's because there isn't one.