Is a fetus a person

[Al Shire]

I regard it as a potential person. Though I consider the requirement for personhood to be sapience. Meaning some "people" probably don't qualify.

I concur. It will become a person. I think it's far more valuable to put more money into educating the young to be more responsible with their bodies and their lives. Instead of oh I don't know....Unwinnable wars....

[Cabra West]

Apparently you managed to completely ignore my OP . . .thanks try going back and reading it.
1)people this isn't an abortion thread. This is specifically about a fetus being a person. Plenty of abortion threads out there . . .and you can always make a new thread about abortion but this is simply for a discussion of whether a fetus is a person or not.
2)you didn't give any explination for your claim.

Please go back, read the OP and post something better.

Oops, sorry... got a bit carried away there.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Before my response to this question, can we hypothesize that in general that pregnancy doesn't remove 50% of a body's liquid waste disposal system for the rest of the woman's life?

And now for the section that some people will find incredibly offensive:

1a. Most landlords, when they choose to rent out a house or apartment, realize that there's a possibility that they may want to evict a tenant.

1b. Except in cases of rape, most pregnant women chose to engage in an activity that has the potential to result in pregnancy.

2a. Because of government intervention, a landlord can be forced by the government to delay (sometimes for long periods of time) the eviction of a bad tenant. Hopefully, no life or potential life is destroyed.

2b. Therefore, is it such a far step from a landlord to a pregnant woman, in that a woman should be inconvenienced to carry a new life when she (usually)chose to engage in behavior that can result in pregnancy?

In response to the topic question, a fetus is a person. A fetus is a human being.

You're right, pregnancy can actually be a lot more damaging than just losing a kidney. So that's where my argument fails.

I think there is a slight difference between owning a property and deciding to rent it out, and finding somebody you never gave permission to using the vital systems of your body for their own purposes.
Agreeing to have sex does not equal agreeing to get pregnant. Otherwise you could argue that anybody who got into a car chooses to engage in behaviour that can lead to a car crash, and should therefore live with the consequences and not receive any medical attention.

"...pregnancy can actually be a lot more damaging than justlosing a kidney." I suppose it can be dangerous, but that applies to driving a car because of potential accidents, engaging in unsafe sex practices because of potential AIDS, or eating peanuts because of a potential allergic reaction. You're being quite alarmist. Generally, pregnancy doesn't cause permanent bodily damage.

Even people who get into car crashes have convalescent periods before returning to life as normal as it was before the accident. Think of pregnancy as a convalescent period after an accident. The pregnant woman usually gets better after 9 months.

[DaWoad]

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 . . .

[Living Freedom Land]

Maybe the mom should have thought twice about getting a kid? People should accept the consequences of their actions. And besides, with all the government waste on welfare I highly doubt that the family is going to starve in today's Western world unless their utter idiots. If so, good riddance to the bad genes.

I'm just going to take issue with the last part (the notes about starvation being worse for the kid then abortion still stand), this absolutely and utterly fails because poverty isn't genetic.

If someone isn't smart enough to get food stamps and public housing they need to get some serious help.

[DaWoad]

Apparently you managed to completely ignore my OP . . .thanks try going back and reading it.
1)people this isn't an abortion thread. This is specifically about a fetus being a person. Plenty of abortion threads out there . . .and you can always make a new thread about abortion but this is simply for a discussion of whether a fetus is a person or not.
2)you didn't give any explination for your claim.

Please go back, read the OP and post something better.

Oops, sorry... got a bit carried away there.

lol no problem

[Dakini]

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 . . .

I don't know if people who are completely brain dead become un-brain dead. There have been people who were thought to be mostly brain dead who recovered, but then there are people who are mostly brain dead where the only part of their brain that isn't actually dead is the brain stem, which tends to keep their organs running.

[Galloism]

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.

[Hydesland]

Define person.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Define person.

You! Get out of my head!

[Pure Metal]

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.

i agree, which is why i've believed for years that abortion is fine up to about 19-20 weeks, after which the foetus supposedly gains conciousness and self-awareness, and (in my book) becomes both alive and a person. seems like a fairly good compromise between pro-life and pro-choice, since both sides have fairly good arguements (bar the whole religious crap on the pro-life side, of course)

both 'alive' and 'person' are pretty subjective of course

[DaWoad]

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 . . .

I don't know if people who are completely brain dead become un-brain dead. There have been people who were thought to be mostly brain dead who recovered, but then there are people who are mostly brain dead where the only part of their brain that isn't actually dead is the brain stem, which tends to keep their organs running.

check out some of the "deaths" in the arctic. people who braind "dead" have recovered

[Laconis]

Anyone else getting the Pro-Life ad on the left now?

Yes. The same thing happens in Scientology threads.

[Secruss]

Anyone else getting the Pro-Life ad on the left now?

Yes. The same thing happens in Scientology threads.

It doesn't look like a fetus. Just intestines.

[Katganistan]

(Forward note: this is a debate. Please Please keep it clean people. If you have a valid argument present it then BACK IT UP. This isn't about abortion, thats a much larger issue)
My stance on this issue is that a fetus (in the sense of a fetus that can legally be aborted under current canadian Law. Law in the states is essentially the same) 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.

RFegardless of whether or not you share my point of view please, debate.

It is potentially a person. In the same way that an egg is potentially a bird.

[DaWoad]

(Forward note: this is a debate. Please Please keep it clean people. If you have a valid argument present it then BACK IT UP. This isn't about abortion, thats a much larger issue)
My stance on this issue is that a fetus (in the sense of a fetus that can legally be aborted under current canadian Law. Law in the states is essentially the same) 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.

RFegardless of whether or not you share my point of view please, debate.

It is potentially a person. In the same way that an egg is potentially a bird.

or in the same way that an ovum is potentially a person? That argument doesn''t hold much water unless you elaborate.

[Katganistan]

It is not yet a person. It does not yet have the characteristics of personhood, being unable to communicate, to exist outside of its protective shell, to interact with others, to think or feel in a meaningful way. It may become a person if allowed to develop, but it is not yet a person.

[Laconis]

I define death as the irreversable cessation of all circulatory, respiratory, and nervous functions.

I define life as having continuing activity of either the circulatory, respiratory, or nervous systems.

I believe that if a fetus has a fully functioning nervous system it is most certainly alive. If it has its own circulatory system, by which the fetus is capable of pumping blood through out it's body without assistance from the mother. A respiratory system, however, is the only catchy part, since a child doesn't start to breath on its own until it is expose to oxygen.

The real question is when does a fetus become a person? Is it while still inside the womb, or at the moment it is fully birthed and its ambilical cord severed?

Again, I believe that once the fetus is capable of at least being able to register pain, or having a functioning circulatory system, it is alive (this is roughly 28 weeks into the process for the fetus to actually feel pain, yet only 2-3 weeks when the fetus has an actual heartbeat), yet still heavily dependent upon it's mother.

I don't have many qualms about abortion, however they should be performed sooner rather than later. Once a fetus begins to take on the the physical resemblence of a person, I tend to find it difficult to not view them as a human. Abortions before the fetus begins to pump blood through a closed circulatory system I have no issues with, it's once you get closer to the point of where the fetus begins to feel pain/looks more human that I have real issues.

[DaWoad]

It is not yet a person. It does not yet have the characteristics of personhood, being unable to communicate, to exist outside of its protective shell, to interact with others, to think or feel in a meaningful way. It may become a person if allowed to develop, but it is not yet a person.

ahh got yah.

[DaWoad]

I define death as the irreversable cessation of all circulatory, respiratory, and nervous functions.

I define life as having continuing activity of either the circulatory, respiratory, or nervous systems.

I believe that if a fetus has a fully functioning nervous system it is most certainly alive. If it has its own circulatory system, by which the fetus is capable of pumping blood through out it's body without assistance from the mother. A respiratory system, however, is the only catchy part, since a child doesn't start to breath on its own until it is expose to oxygen.

The real question is when does a fetus become a person? Is it while still inside the womb, or at the moment it is fully birthed and its ambilical cord severed?

Again, I believe that once the fetus is capable of at least being able to register pain, or having a functioning circulatory system, it is alive (this is roughly 28 weeks into the process for the fetus to actually feel pain, yet only 2-3 weeks when the fetus has an actual heartbeat), yet still heavily dependent upon it's mother.

I don't have many qualms about abortion, however they should be performed sooner rather than later. Once a fetus begins to take on the the physical resemblence of a person, I tend to find it difficult to not view them as a human. Abortions before the fetus begins to pump blood through a closed circulatory system I have no issues with, it's once you get closer to the point of where the fetus begins to feel pain/looks more human that I have real issues.

Agreed, barring a sever medical issues that would kill both mother and child though I do not think many abortions occur after that 28 week span (i think the cut off is . . .. 24? ish?)

[Leelan]

(Forward note: this is a debate. Please Please keep it clean people. If you have a valid argument present it then BACK IT UP. This isn't about abortion, thats a much larger issue)
My stance on this issue is that a fetus (in the sense of a fetus that can legally be aborted under current canadian Law. Law in the states is essentially the same) 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.

RFegardless of whether or not you share my point of view please, debate.

So then, you would consider a man or woman in a coma as not a person?

I disagree. I say that a fetus is alive, it's kicking, it's moving, and it's growing. Before it's born, as in, the day before, it's in nearly the same state as when it exits the womb. It is ALIVE, and a PERSON.

[Risottia]

My stance on this issue is that a fetus (in the sense of a fetus that can legally be aborted under current canadian Law. Law in the states is essentially the same) 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.

Hazy definition. "Thought" is a sort of catch-all term. Also, how do you define self-awareness? If it's with through the mirror experiment, I agree - humans usually achieve self-awareness 18 months after birth.

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.

Capable of thought, who knows for sure? Electrical activity of the central neural system: we have it in foeti. Is it thought? I don't know.

A foetus is alive not as a carrot (which is not human and not even animal) : it is alive as a human limb (it is human tissue) or as a parasite (it is a living being with a different genome than the carrier who provides its nourishment).

This said, the foetus is not a living human PERSON capable of independent life (not even for a second). So, it has NO rights.

By the way, back to the limb/parasite definition:
-if it can be considered as a limb, it's part of the pregnant woman's body: and, as such, she is fully entitled to dispose of the parts of her body as long as it doesn't mean permanently injuring herself.
-if it can be considered as a parasite (that is, another living being nesting in the woman's body), it's her choice to keep it there or to get rid of it. Forcing her to keep another being in her sexual organs would amount to sexual violence, I think.

[DaWoad]

(Forward note: this is a debate. Please Please keep it clean people. If you have a valid argument present it then BACK IT UP. This isn't about abortion, thats a much larger issue)
My stance on this issue is that a fetus (in the sense of a fetus that can legally be aborted under current canadian Law. Law in the states is essentially the same) 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.

RFegardless of whether or not you share my point of view please, debate.

So then, you would consider a man or woman in a coma as not a person?

I disagree. I say that a fetus is alive, it's kicking, it's moving, and it's growing. Before it's born, as in, the day before, it's in nearly the same state as when it exits the womb. It is ALIVE, and a PERSON.

where did I claim the the line for me was birth? Ok a person in a coma is capable of thought (in so much as they have sustained neuron activity). Further, Once the fetus has developped a functional brain (aprox. 28 weeks) its a person and unless its endangering itself and its host (mother) it shouldn't be killed. by the time its "alive kicking and moving" its had a brain for quite some time. Please read a little more than just the first line of my OP before you post.

[Risottia]

Before it's born, as in, the day before, it's in nearly the same state as when it exits the womb. It is ALIVE, and a PERSON.

Meh.

1.The day before birth - definitely not a time when laws would allow abortion. Heck, you cannot even call it abortion even if a foetus of 9 months (minus one day) is removed from the womb. The proper name for that is induced birth, iirc.

2.Alive? Yes, a foetus is alive. Even an embryo is alive. Even the cells of my derma are alive. Even non-human living beings are - guess what - alive. Though a foetus (unless it's in the last stages - but abortion is NOT allowed in the last stages) cannot survive without the womb. So, while alive, it isn't capable of independent life - that is, as an individual: not even for a second. It cannot even breathe!

3.Person? I'd say no. How do you define a person? Through its answers to external stimuli (not to internal stimuli!). Quite not a black-or-white proposition, being a person... but I'd say that personality begins to form in the early stages of childhood via the interaction with the other humans and with the external environment (see: mirror test for self-awareness). So a newborn is (psychologically) just a potential person.

[DaWoad]

My stance on this issue is that a fetus (in the sense of a fetus that can legally be aborted under current canadian Law. Law in the states is essentially the same) 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.

Hazy definition. "Thought" is a sort of catch-all term. Also, how do you define self-awareness? If it's with through the mirror experiment, I agree - humans usually achieve self-awareness 18 months after birth.

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.

Capable of thought, who knows for sure? Electrical activity of the central neural system: we have it in foeti. Is it thought? I don't know.

A foetus is alive not as a carrot (which is not human and not even animal) : it is alive as a human limb (it is human tissue) or as a parasite (it is a living being with a different genome than the carrier who provides its nourishment).

This said, the foetus is not a living human PERSON capable of independent life (not even for a second). So, it has NO rights.

By the way, back to the limb/parasite definition:
-if it can be considered as a limb, it's part of the pregnant woman's body: and, as such, she is fully entitled to dispose of the parts of her body as long as it doesn't mean permanently injuring herself.
-if it can be considered as a parasite (that is, another living being nesting in the woman's body), it's her choice to keep it there or to get rid of it. Forcing her to keep another being in her sexual organs would amount to sexual violence, I think.

1)no I clearly defined thought as self awareness . . .and thoughts pretty clearly defined. its sustained electro-chemical impulses through the brain. (we can even measure it!)
2) lol and the difference between a parasite and a carrot is? they're both alive. They both have living tissue. On a molecular level they're pretty close and we know for sure. Fetuses develop fully functional brains at around 28 weeks (i believe) before that point (it varrier from fetus to fetus) no thought just random electrical impulse. After that point systemic electrical impulses thus thought . . .its not that hard really.