Is a fetus a person

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

You're vicious, just vicious, you know that.

[Saint Clair Island]

The argument over the personhood of a fetus is irrelevant to the abortion debate:

If a fetus is not a person, it's part of the mother's body, and she can do what she likes.
If a fetus is a person, it has no right to use the mother's body for its own purposes without her consent.

Regardless, I don't think anyone is a person until they develop self-awareness, the capability for reasoning, and other traits that distinguish human beings from animals. Therefore, babies are not really "people" even after they are born, since they are no more sapient than a chicken, up until the age of 2 or 3 (I don't remember exactly when self-awareness develops in humans). Fetuses definitely aren't. Of course, this is just my opinion and has no legal backing.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The argument over the personhood of a fetus is irrelevant to the abortion debate:

If a fetus is not a person, it's part of the mother's body, and she can do what she likes.
If a fetus is a person, it has no right to use the mother's body for its own purposes without her consent.

Agreed.

[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.

That's because there isn't one.

Well, that's true, but I really meant one that was long, fairly decently reasoned out (from their perspective) and actually worth replying to and utterly destroying with holy vengeance.

As opposed to:

"U ppl kill babis your sick"

[Lunatic Goofballs]

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.

Well, that's true, but I really meant one that was long, fairly decently reasoned out (from their perspective) and actually worth replying to and utterly destroying with holy vengeance.

As opposed to:

"U ppl kill babis your sick"

Well, this is the sort of thing that happens when one engages in battles of wits with unarmed opponents.

[Saint Clair Island]

Well, this is the sort of thing that happens when one engages in battles of wits with unarmed opponents.

Huh? I don't get it.

[Allie1916]

Yes it is.

[Pevisopolis]

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"?

I really don't know; I'm not one for strict definitions. I believe in "There's no such thing as black and white, only shades of gray". It's changing over time, and there really is no point at which it stops being a nonperson and becomes a human being. It just slowly changes into a Human Being.

[Leviticus Isles]

Personally, every time I go outside and have to kck a new fetus off my New York apartment steps (almost three times a week now!) I ask my self the same question. Is a fetus a person? I found that to doctors and ecetra no theya aren't. However I believe they are, so that why I kick them to the side for my neighbors to clean up and not down the steps and into the street.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Well, this is the sort of thing that happens when one engages in battles of wits with unarmed opponents.

Huh? I don't get it.

Don't worry about it. Have a muffin. *hands you a muffin*

[Saint Clair Island]

Personally, every time I go outside and have to kck a new fetus off my New York apartment steps (almost three times a week now!) I ask my self the same question. Is a fetus a person? I found that to doctors and ecetra no theya aren't. However I believe they are, so that why I kick them to the side for my neighbors to clean up and not down the steps and into the street.

You're clearly lying.

As a New Yorker I'm well aware that apartments don't have steps; the buildings may but the apartments don't. You can't pull the wool over my eyes.

[Risottia]

Ok a person in a coma is capable of thought

It really depends on the type of coma.

if yourin a coma your rights are given to another (your medical proxy) right? If your brain dead (no thought) then your dead and thus have no rights. Same thing with a feotus. If it is incapable of thought its not yet a person and thus had no rights. if it has brain function it then has rights which are held, in proxy by its mother.

Roughly so.

A human being could be capable of thought WITHOUT being what we could call a "normal" person (with a slight abuse of the term, I'm aware). Theoretically, a thinking human could be unable to recognise his own reflection on the mirror. This would make him a little less of a "normal human person" (so to speak): personality isn't exactly a white-or-black proposition, as I already said.

Anyway, case of coma: the proxy doesn't have a free rein to do whatever he wants with the comatose human or his belongings. The proxy is supposed to act in the best interests of the comatose patient. The point is that a comatose human is recognised as a person, although at the moment incapable of acting and expressing his own will.
If the pregnant woman were to be held as the medical proxy for the foetus, of course she wouldn't be allowed to abort the pregnancy because that wouldn't be in the best interests of the foetus. But, as the foetus is NO person, the only person that is directly involved is the pregnant woman. Hence, if she finds that she doesn't want the foetus in her body, she - being a person - is entitled to dispose of her body, or parts of it.

[Dempublicents1]

I disagree with it, and feel that a fetus is, in fact, a person. I define a person as a an individual living member of the homo sapien species.

However, that person still doesn't have the right to use another person's body against her will.

Is it a living person, though?
A corpse is a person as well, legally speaking, after all.

I would say it is a living person, given all of its cells are still functioning and active (except the relative few that are old and being discarded and replaced all the time - as happens in all humans). I therefore consider it "alive" because of that.

A dead person's cells are shut down or in the process of shutting down. A living person's cells are continuing to run and/or starting up their function.

Would you say that a brain-dead person is not yet dead?

Brain-death is a big part of how I would define the point at which a fetus becomes a human person. If it has less or equivalent brain activity to someone who would be declared brain dead, I don't see it as a person. Once it has brain activity that matches a born person who would be considered alive, I consider it to be a person.

[Provectus]

The problem here is what event is the “life-giving moment?”

We need to work our way backwards to determine that point. Because at that point a human gains the rights of all humans.
Lets work our way backwards (Please bear with me with first part of the following. I assume no one would argue against the early points.)

No one, hopefully, would argue that adult humans do not have the right to live. If we all agree on that we can work our way backwards.

No one, hopefully, would argue that children that have already been born do not have the right to live. But these children are undergoing continued development and growth. Some argue that fetuses are not alive because they are in development. Human children are constantly undergoing growth and development after birth. This invalidates the argument that if something is developing it is not alive. (Unless of course that person argues that born children are not alive as well.) If we all agree on this point we can continue to work backwards.

The next stage is the transfer from being an unborn child to a born child. Some argue that this is the point an unborn child becomes human and gains the rights of a human. However considering this point as the point at which someone becomes alive is illogical. The reason for this is because the child is at the same stage of development minutes before and minutes after birth. (To say that a child undergoes an incredible amount of development in this period of time is not supported by any evidence. Nor would the same type of development occur in every child born. This is due to premature and late births which would offset the type of development slightly. Therefore the argument cannot be made that they all undergo some developmental change that makes them alive.) If we all agree that birth is not the place where a human becomes human we can continue to work backwards.

If it is argued that viability (as defined in this work as the ability to survive on one’s own) determines whether someone is human or not this, also sets a very bad precedent. This is because those on kidney dialysis, those with pacemakers and those requiring respirators would be considered non-humans because they cannot survive without assistance. Viability is thus not a valid argument when determining whether or not someone is a human and deserves the rights of the rest of us. If we agree that viability does not determine existence then we can continue to work backwards.

It could be argued that some other stage of development or particular body part’s formation determines whether someone is alive or not. The simple question is “why?” What makes that stage of development or that particular body part so important? It seems that picking any other stage of development or the formation of a particular body part is arbitrary and thus has no place in the abortion discussion.
The only logical point that remains is conception. The point at which all of this begins. From that point a process has been set in motion, that given the proper conditions, will eventually grow into adult. (I use adult here because no one, not even the ones who think born children are not alive because they are developing, can deny that “fully” developed humans deserve the right to live.) To choose any point before this is illogical because a process has not been set in motion. If you agree that life begins at conception than we agree.

[Maurepas]

Is a Person a clump of cells?

[Dyakovo]

My stance on this issue is that a fetus is not in fact a person. My reasoning is as follows.
A person must be capable of thought and be self aware or have been either self aware or capable of thought at some point in the past. Further a person (at the moment) must be a human being.

A fetus does not share these characteristics. it is not aware nor even capable of thought (again up to the point at which abortion remains legal). A fetus IS alive but only in the same sense that a carrot is alive. A fetus does have human DNA but so does a corpse or a tumor.

I agree.

[Dyakovo]

Is a Person a clump of cells?

Yes, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

[Risottia]

No one, hopefully, would argue that adult humans do not have the right to live.

Death penalty, anyone?

If it is argued that viability (as defined in this work as the ability to survive on one’s own) determines whether someone is human or not this, also sets a very bad precedent. This is because those on kidney dialysis, those with pacemakers and those requiring respirators would be considered non-humans because they cannot survive without assistance. Viability is thus not a valid argument when determining whether or not someone is a human and deserves the rights of the rest of us. If we agree that viability does not determine existence then we can continue to work backwards.

It could be argued that some other stage of development or particular body part’s formation determines whether someone is alive or not. The simple question is “why?” What makes that stage of development or that particular body part so important? It seems that picking any other stage of development or the formation of a particular body part is arbitrary and thus has no place in the abortion discussion.
The only logical point that remains is conception. The point at which all of this begins. From that point a process has been set in motion, that given the proper conditions, will eventually grow into adult. (I use adult here because no one, not even the ones who think born children are not alive because they are developing, can deny that “fully” developed humans deserve the right to live.) To choose any point before this is illogical because a process has not been set in motion. If you agree that life begins at conception than we agree.

False logics here.
Because:
1.Viability (or ability to live independently). A living human being that is in a permanent coma and needs artificial respiration, artificial kidney, and nourishment injected in his veins, while still being a living human being, is not answering to external stimuli NOR is he able to live, not even for seconds, without being part of an organism-machine complex. This makes him a non-person and a not-independent being. Not a non-human - and this is your logical fallacy.

2.Human beings don't get rights just because they are human. First and foremost - they must be born alive. Still, life in itself doesn't grant rights - if it were so we wouldn't eat anything but salt and water. Also, you should consider that other rights are granted according to the individual's abilities. Example, a living human being who is unable to understand minimal ethics, or to understand what he's told, won't be granted the right to act as a proxy for someone else. Similarily, other rights are granted (or revoked) according to other abilities.
I would find a very curious discover, to find that there's a positive right to occupy a part of another human's body without this human's previous and continuous consent.

3.One could wonder WHY you stopped at conception. You defined a single cell as a living human being. Well, then a spermatozoon and a ovum are potential humans if a zygote is a living human being. More or less, just as a zygote is a potential human if a foetus is a living human being. Since:
-every day millions of spermatozoa die (they're alive, and surely they are more viable than a foetus outside a womb after all)
-every month an ovum dies after being expelled during the menstrual cycle
-many zygotes, even without the intervention of some external, voluntary causes like the IUD, fail to attach to the endometrion
...clearly nature, God, humanity doesn't regard spermatozoa, ova or zygotes as human life worth protecting.
Following from this point, using an argumentation technique similar and opposite to your own, we can descend all the phases of pregnancy you climbed up. I'd say that your whole argument failed its point, then.

4.Clearly it is possible to determine that a SINGLE stage is the turning point. If you knew something about statistical mechanics, you'd know that in complex systems there are things called "transitions of phase": that is, turning points that abruptly deviate from the gentle slopes of smooth, continuous changes to revolution dramatically the whole ensemble you're considering. Like: has a central neural system, has no central neural system. Can feel pain, cannot feel pain. Can see light, cannot see light. The protein is folded, the protein is unfolded.

[Saint Clair Island]

The problem here is what event is the “life-giving moment?”

We need to work our way backwards to determine that point. Because at that point a human gains the rights of all humans.
Lets work our way backwards (Please bear with me with first part of the following. I assume no one would argue against the early points.)

No one, hopefully, would argue that adult humans do not have the right to live. If we all agree on that we can work our way backwards.

Granted.

No one, hopefully, would argue that children that have already been born do not have the right to live. But these children are undergoing continued development and growth.

Granted.

Some argue that fetuses are not alive because they are in development.

They're wrong.

The next stage is the transfer from being an unborn child to a born child. Some argue that this is the point an unborn child becomes human and gains the rights of a human. However considering this point as the point at which someone becomes alive is illogical. The reason for this is because the child is at the same stage of development minutes before and minutes after birth. (To say that a child undergoes an incredible amount of development in this period of time is not supported by any evidence. Nor would the same type of development occur in every child born. This is due to premature and late births which would offset the type of development slightly. Therefore the argument cannot be made that they all undergo some developmental change that makes them alive.) If we all agree that birth is not the place where a human becomes human we can continue to work backwards.

Granted.

If it is argued that viability (as defined in this work as the ability to survive on one’s own) determines whether someone is human or not this, also sets a very bad precedent. This is because those on kidney dialysis, those with pacemakers and those requiring respirators would be considered non-humans because they cannot survive without assistance. Viability is thus not a valid argument when determining whether or not someone is a human and deserves the rights of the rest of us. If we agree that viability does not determine existence then we can continue to work backwards.

Viability is a valid argument; in this case, it must be specified that someone requiring a pacemaker or similar can survive without requiring the support of any other human being, while an embryo or fetus cannot. Nonetheless, I'll grant it.

It could be argued that some other stage of development or particular body part’s formation determines whether someone is alive or not. The simple question is “why?”

This is where your reasoning -- up 'til here flawless -- starts to break down. "Why?"

To be considered living, one requires a central nervous system. Embryos that have not yet developed a central nervous system cannot be said to be alive.
To be considered sentient, one must have the ability to learn, form memories, and think -- at least on a rudimentary level. Embryos that cannot do this are equivalent to carrots.
To be considered sapient, one must have the ability to reason and the capability of self-awareness. You could argue that up until the age of three or so a baby is no more sapient than a chicken.

The only logical point that remains is conception.

Incorrect, as I've shown. The logical point is the development of a nervous system. Before that, the embryo is no more alive than the sperm that stains your sheets when you touch yourself at night.

Besides, the personhood of a fetus is irrelevant to the abortion debate anyway, as I've already pointed out.

[Maurepas]

Is a Person a clump of cells?

Yes, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

Really?

Somehow I thought we were more complex than that, with Tissues, Organs, Organ systems, etc...

Man, I was really overestimating us,

[Provectus]

No one, hopefully, would argue that adult humans do not have the right to live.

Death penalty, anyone?

Perhaps I should have clarfied that I meant a unilateral decision made a single person to terminate the life of an innocent individual. This would, hopefully, be opposed by sane people. (Innocent as defined as no intentional threat. Killing someone who will kill someone unknowingly is unacceptable. However killing someone who is attempting to kill someone intentionally is acceptable.)

False logics here.
Because:
1.Viability (or ability to live independently). A living human being that is in a permanent coma and needs artificial respiration, artificial kidney, and nourishment injected in his veins, while still being a living human being, is not answering to external stimuli NOR is he able to live, not even for seconds, without being part of an organism-machine complex. This makes him a non-person and a not-independent being. Not a non-human - and this is your logical fallacy.

Incorrect. I was NOT referencing those in a permanent coma. You've probably met and spoken to those on kidney dialysis and those with pacemakers without knowing it. They are not able to survive without that external assistance but no one would doubt they were alive when they talk to you about when they hope their kidney transplant will come in.

2.Human beings don't get rights just because they are human.

Frankly this line scares me. It seems society has fallen so far that most just don't care anymore. Unalienable human rights do exist!

I would find a very curious discover, to find that there's a positive right to occupy a part of another human's body without this human's previous and continuous consent.

I think an example would be best here.

Person A is about to fall off a cliff. They have been lucky enough to grab onto the arm of Person B standing nearby. Does the person whose arm is being grabbed have the right to refuse Person A the use of their arm? I think not.

If Person B took action to remove Person A's arm Person B would be guilty of Person A's death.

3.One could wonder WHY you stopped at conception. You defined a single cell as a living human being. Well, then a spermatozoon and a ovum are potential humans if a zygote is a living human being.

You obviously did not understand what I meant. I said and I quote "From that point a process has been set in motion, that given the proper conditions, will eventually grow into adult."

That process has not been set in motion until conception.

Has a central neural system, has no central neural system. Can feel pain, cannot feel pain. Can see light, cannot see light. The protein is folded, the protein is unfolded.

I'll say this again. These are arbitrary determinations. The examples you used are particularly irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone is alive.

Whether someone can see light or not is totally irrelevant. What about the blind?


The central nervous system while being more reasonable than the rest is still irrelevant.

If we begin to claim that self-consciousness is the only determining factor in whether something is alive or not than I suppose unconsciousness means death. This would mean that we die when we go to sleep (barring REM sleep) and rise from the dead when we awake.

[Galloism]

Is a Person a clump of cells?

Yes, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

Really?

Somehow I thought we were more complex than that, with Tissues, Organs, Organ systems, etc...

Man, I was really overestimating us,

What are tissues, organs, organ systems (the fuck are you referring to?) made up of?

[Saint Clair Island]

Is a Person a clump of cells?

Yes, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

Really?

Somehow I thought we were more complex than that, with Tissues, Organs, Organ systems, etc...

Man, I was really overestimating us,

It's a big clump of cells, mind you. Several trillion, I believe.

[Maurepas]

What are tissues, organs, organ systems (the fuck are you referring to?) made up of?

This:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_systems

In biology, a Biological system (or Organ system) is a group of organs that work together to perform a certain task. Common systems, such as those present in mammals and other animals, seen in human anatomy, are those such as the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, etc.

And the main part of the point I was trying to make was this:

A group of systems composes an organism, e.g. the human body.

Which would seem to disqualify Fetuses when it comes to Personhood, as they do not posses these things...

[KaIashnikov]

Yes.