When does a fetus become a person?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 8/1/03 | Shaunti Feldhahn, Diane Glass

[optimistically_conservative]

When does a fetus become a person?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.

Shaunti's bio Forum SHAUNTI FELDHAHN for ajc.com Asking when a fetus becomes a person is sort of like asking when a bird becomes winged. By definition, a bird is winged. By definition, a fetus is a person. What else would it be -- a horse? But this question, as asked by the pro-choice movement, is not about when a fetus becomes a homo sapiens. It's about when a fetus is enough of an individual to have the rights of any other homo sapiens -- in other words, when it has the right to life. A pro-choice professor at Princeton, Peter Singer, has an interesting answer. He says, with perfect intellectual consistency, that there's nothing special about the demarcation line of birth. If the parents are allowed to abort a baby a few weeks before birth, he argues, they should be allowed to kill the baby a few weeks after birth if that results in greater happiness overall. As he says in Practical Ethics, "A newborn baby, [like a fetus,] is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy." Being a parent of a new baby myself, that position sickens me -- but it is more honest than the argument that birth brings some fundamental change that suddenly results in 'personhood.' In an earlier column, Diane stated a common liberal position that the qualification for human personhood is free will -- so an unborn baby, dependent on the mother, is not a person. Well why on earth would you think a fetus lacks free will? Free will is about someone's internal desires and ability to make choices (it is not about the ability to carry out that choice -- you would never say that a quadriplegic lacks free will). And a fetus does make free-will choices in its own little environment. It sucks its thumb for comfort. If you press on it, it gets irritated (or interested) and presses back. And if it's asleep or dozing and you press a buzzer to your belly, the fetus thrashes around and practically shrieks "stop that!" Some experts believe that by 14 weeks a fetus can even feel pain - such as the horrific pain that would surely attend an abortion. An unborn baby has free will, and it wills to live just like the rest of us. So when does a fetus become a person? It's not when you can feel that little warm body nuzzling into your shoulder, and it's not when you can feel little legs pushing against the inside of your ribs. It's not when the ultrasound shows a huge head and little waiflike body turning lazy somersaults before the baby is big enough to be felt. It's not even when a lone heartbeat pulses out of its dark ocean. A fetus becomes a person when the spark of life is launched on its miraculous journey. A fetus becomes a person at the beginning. Where all life begins. For more information, I suggest: Abortion and Human Rights Diary of an Unborn Baby More on Peter Singer

Diane's bio Forum DIANE GLASS AJC columnist "Where all life begins." Are we really talking about all life? Or just human life? A fetus is a person when it is independent of a woman's body. Anti-choice advocates stance on fetal rights rests on the assumption we're made in the image of God. All human life is sacred so fetal rights usurp women's rights. To assume human superiority is the height of narcissism and wishful thinking. It's the same kind of mindset of Nazi Germany. We're no more sacred than the ocean or sky. As seductive as it is for anti-choice advocates to mask their arguments with over the top philosophers and overly sentimental descriptions about babies sucking their thumbs, let's talk about what we're really talking about. Granting a fetus rights means a woman's body is the ward of the state. She no longer has rights -- the fetus does. You can't protect fetal rights unless you disregard women's rights. If fetuses are given more rights than adult women other worrisome repercussions are not far along. Pregnant women who smoke, have a glass of wine, do not visit their doctor or do anything deemed inappropriate can be arrested. Their body becomes a weapon and their lives enslaved. A woman's body is not her own. And let's be realistic. Laws affect poor women who have no support network and resources. So while affluent white women are flying to Europe to terminate pregnancies, poor minority women are in the United States having a child they can't afford. This isn't a debate about when life begins. This is a debate about what life we value. If we were so concerned about when life begins our concern would extend to horses, plant life and toads. But it doesn't. This is a debate about "rights," and if we value women's rights over fetal rights. Conservative Christians assume that if we eradicate women's basic rights we'll all be one step closer to heaven where pink-cheeked cherubic angels fly. I think they're headed in the wrong direction. The Bible makes no reference to abortion or infanticide, a common practice in ancient times. Why didn't an omniscient God make His intentions clear? God provided the Ten Commandments as an easy reference guide. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is bandied about by anti-choice advocates when defending fetal rights. But perhaps this Cliffs Notes version was too brief. That's kind of vague, don't you think? Why do we kill animals? Doesn't "not kill" mean "not kill?" Otherwise, God would have carved in stone, "Do not kill human beings, born or unborn. But you can kill other animals." Despite their fervent protests for fetal rights these same conservatives eat eggs (chicken embryos) but get out picket signs about their own brood. They rationalize this obvious conflict with Bible school lessons. Human life is better than the rest of the animal world, they argue. We're special. God says so. That doesn't surprise me. When you rule the world, why stop at the female body?

[Hank Kerchief]

Those who find themselves in a dependent relationship, either through nature or through law, both legally and morally have a right to claim the proper discharge of the duties of those caregivers in such a way that will preserve their life or prevent harm.

This is good socialist doctrine suitable for setting up a totalitarian government. Unless you are a collectivist and believe people have a an automatic claim on the lives of others (which you apparently do), there is no basis for rights as you define them. Your notion of rights is the one believed by all those who think they have a right to the effort and product of others, just because they were born into this world. They don't. If they haven't earned it, they have no right to it.

Rights pertain only to those who are not dependent. You only have a right to do, not demand others do. That is slavery. There is no moral justification for slavery, ever.

Does this sound hard? Life is hard! It can only be made easy by forcing someone else to do the hard part, which is the basis of the moral code of those who put their feelings above the hard facts that life is demanding and will not conform to the sentimatality of those who find life "too hard".

(Just out of curiosity, since I assume you can read and know I am opposed to abortion, what is the point of all your arguments against abortion. I agree that the question of abortion should never come up in anyone's life. If one does not want the responsibility of raising a child, why get pregnant? I am also opposed to allowing the state to have the power to interfere in individual's or family's lives, whatever the excuse for doing so is. If you give them that power to prevent something you think they can prevent [they cannot] you will not like how they use that power.)

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

I said: What is a right to life? Is it a right to demand someone else supply your food, your shelter, your clothing, your health care? Is it a right to demand someone else keep you alive at any price? Of course not?

You said: This is a rediculous statement? ...

So, you are arguing that a "right to life" is a right to demand someone else supply your food, your shelter, your clothing, your health care, and that it is a right to demand someone else keep you alive at any price.

Please explain how this is different from socialism, or, for that matter, slavery?

If as you say, "The Constitution protects that right to life (life, liberty and the pursuit [of happiness, you left out])" [the phrase, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution], how is one to live their life if they are forced to provide someone else theirs, and how is one to enjoy liberty if they are enslaved to serve others, and how does one pursue happiness if they are forced to expend their efforts pursuing happiness for someone else?

Life is doing, not something done for you. You have a right to do, not to force someone else to do for you.

And how, exactly, do you equate someone who refuses to be someone else's slave with being a murderer. Basically your argument is that the slaves should never have been given their freedom, because the happiness of the slave owners depended on the slave's services. How selfish of the slaves for wanting to be free.

Hank

[Spok]

A better question for the liberals would be when does a newborn become a person, and when is someone who is ill no longer a person?

[kinsman redeemer]

hello,

I have been compiling a list of scripture references on the subject.
One of the most beautiful (and fitting for this topic) is Acts 17:25b:

" he giveth to all life , and breath , and all things; "

The beauty is in the perfection of God's Word. Notice the order of events...

Russ

[optimistically_conservative]

I think you've missed Hank's point, simply because it is accurately stated. Maybe an analogy is in order.

You have the right to the opportunity, not to the end results. This is true in the affirmative action debate as well as the abortion debate. No one should be allowed to deny you the opportunity to live, to strive, to succeed or fail. And, you have the right, finding a society denies you these rights, to leave that society for another more to your liking or - with a majority of the governed - change the society you are in.

An unborn child should not be denied the opportunity to be born - but there has not been a violation of Creator endowed rights if there is a miscarraige or stillbirth.

As to our moral and legal obligations to dependants, this is a failure of duty, not a denial of a right. I have a duty to care for those dependant on me, they do not have a right to the fruits of my labor. This civic and moral duty may be enforced by law.

[DannyTN]

When does a fetus become a person?

"What is the point of the question? It has nothing to do with either abortion or rights?"-Hank

Ah, but see that is the very point that the abortionist's argument rests on. They claim a Fetus is not alive. To them it's nothing more than a growth.

I think to most people, it's obviously a baby, a person, an unborn life. But the abortionist's entire justification rests on the unborn not being a person and being nothing more than tissue growth an extension of the parent like some wart to be removed.

If they admit the fetus is a person, then they must concede that it has a right to life. In a way, it's the same thing that has always happened before any holocaust the victim must be "dehumanized", so that the extermination can be justified.

[Hank Kerchief]

I said: When does a fetus become a person?

What is the point of the question? It has nothing to do with either abortion or rights?

You responded: Ah, but see that is the very point that the abortionist's argument rests on.

So what? It is wrong.

Tell you what. You are not going to prevent one abortion by arguing with those who believe abortion is just fine. If you really want to reduce abortions, you have to do something else altogether, and more government is going to have the opposite effect.

Abortion, as well as most other irresponsible behavior increases as the number of individuals who see no reason why they need to be responsible for their choices and actions increases. This is even true for those who oppose abortion. As soon as they get the government to take a position against abortion, passing laws that will put lots of people in jail if they have anything to do with it, those who are opposed to abortion will feel their job is over. The government will take care of it, just like it takes care of our kids education, our retirement, our health care, and even our food, clothing, and shelter if we refuse to work and earn our own way.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

I think you've missed Hank's point, simply because it is accurately stated.

I think you might be right. Odd, isn't it?

Hank

[Argh]

Hey, you Diane Glass person! If I cause a woman to have a miscarriage and the foetus dies, that means I get to go scot free, right?

[SB00]

"A fetus is a person when it is independent of a woman's body."

So if a baby has one toe still inside its mother, it's not a person?

[optimistically_conservative]

Hey, you Diane Glass person! If I cause a woman to have a miscarriage and the foetus dies, that means I get to go scot free, right?

Hmmmmm, if you cause a woman to have a miscarriage, and the "foetus" lives - do you get to go "scot free"? Have you, in causing the miscarriage, denied the "foetus" it's right to the biological occupancy, nourishment and development within it's mother?

[Let's Roll]

I'll reply - I agree with you and said very well I might add.

[optimistically_conservative]

What if you do something to cause the "death" of the foetus, but it is not expelled from the mother's womb naturally?

What duty does the mother have not to smoke, drink, engage in dangerous behavior to the foetus, versus the right of the foetus to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

[MHGinTN]

Did you know that the placental barrier cells are in the 'blood products' category? That's why they are able to assimilate the nourishment and exchange the gases when implantation occurs. The placental barrier is the first organ the newly conceived individual builds for its survival. This organ is an encapsulating organ even prior to implantation and even the in vitro techs won't seek to implant an in vitro conceived embryo if this organ being built by the embryo isn't in complete evidence for protection and molecular exchange. [You might want to rethink your assertion at this point.]

Human Embryo/Human Being
By Marvin Galloway

Since the Roe abortion decision (in 1973), science has advanced our understanding of prenatal (before birth) life to a depth few could have anticipated. Though usually unexplained for the general public, with careful reading the entire spectrum of prenatal discovery supports a rejection of abortion on demand and reinforces the correctness of protecting prenatal life the way our society protects an adult individual at the end of their life.

In a recent article for First Things, Maureen L. Condic, PhD, Assistant professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, unintentionally presented an argument for meaning of the death protocol (used when organ harvesting is anticipated) to also be used when contemplating prenatal life. She stated that, “… the loss of integrated bodily function, not the loss of higher mental ability, is the defining legal characteristic of death.”

That is an accurate assessment of the meaning of the ‘death protocol’ but there is confusion because it addresses ‘brain death’, yet it doesn’t refer to loss of thinking ability. It should not be assumed that ‘being alive’ as a human being is solely a function of higher brain functioning, or even dependent upon the organ called brain. After we are born, the brain is the central processor for the organ activity that sustains our survival. Prior to birth, it is the placental organ that accomplishes this function.

The one organ defines alive notion was the perspective decades ago. People focused upon one organ when the heart was believed to be the center of function, before organ harvesting became a reality. When the heart stopped beating, the person was thought to be dead, thought to be no longer a functioning, integrated whole organism. Today, doctors routinely stop and start the heart, keeping the patient functioning for survival, viable as an integrated whole via artificial heart and lungs.

A person in an unrecoverable coma or vegetative state has no meaningful higher brain function, yet their body continues to function as an integrated whole. As Dr. Condic puts it, “Although such patients are clearly in a lamentable medical state, they are also clearly alive, [so] converting such patients into corpses requires some form of euthanasia. … Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole, not by mere presence of living human cells.”

Functioning as an integrated whole is far more complex than mere cellular structures. The older the organism (during the first year from conception), the more aliveness is spread out into sub-unit forms (the developing organs) of the integrated organism; the younger the human organism is, the less differentiated the sub-units are, the less spread out among forms is the integrated function.

To accurately apply the meaning of the death protocol to individual life before birth, we will have to show how the embryo is in fact a functioning, integrated whole human organism. If the embryo can be defined on this basis, the definition of an alive, individual human being would fit, and the human being should be protected from exploitation and euthanasia.

The gestational process during the fetal age (which follows the embryo age) is a process of already constructed organs growing larger and more functional for survival. If we are to apply the notion of a functioning integrated whole to define individual aliveness, the organs necessary for survival at any age must all be included. The primitive brain stem and primitive lungs are not yet fully functional in early fetal age, so some other organ will have to be responsible for the functioning whole.

The first organ a conceived human individual builds for its own survival is the placenta (the Mother builds none of the organs). This organ breathes, nourishes and protects the new individual human life and is so important that in vitro fertilization doctors will not attempt implantation of an embryo until the encapsulating structure is in evidence. Prior to the fetal age, organs necessary for survival in the air world are not present but are being built by the embryo and looped into the primitive brain, the brain stem, yet a human embryo fits the protocol of an alive, functioning, integrated whole organism, the same protocol upon which organ harvesting depends when contemplating the death of an older human organism. The embryo is no less an individual human being with at least one functioning survival organ that allows the integrated whole to continue the lifetime already up and running.

[Argh]

If I'm reading Miss Glass correctly, she thinks it doesn't have any rights. If I cause a miscarriage, I've deprived nothing (the foetus) of nothing.

[DannyTN]

I agree it's wrong. But you also seem to dismiss governmental answers. Do you have a specific action plan in mind?

There are things we can do

• We can teach and raise awareness that abortion is wrong.
• We can lobby and vote to have the laws changed.
• We can make sure that there are alternatives to abortion for unwanted pregancies and that people are aware of the alternatives.

[Beenliedto]

When does a fetus become a person?

Some years after graduation from hah screwl.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Despite their fervent protests for fetal rights these same conservatives eat eggs (chicken embryos) but get out picket signs about their own brood.

Can someone explain this one to me?

[optimistically_conservative]

I've deprived nothing (the foetus) of nothing.

I think that's an accurate description of half of Ms. Glass' position.

The other half is since the foetus has no rights, can make no legitimate demands on the mother, or at least none that would rise to level to compete with the mother's decisions, the mother therefore has no enforceable duties to the foetus.

For example, can you prosecute a mother for drug use during pregnancy if the addicted and malformed foetus isn't born?

[Argh]

I wouldn't think so under Miss Glass's dictum.