 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
On When Human Life Begins
A recent blog asked the question: "When does Human Life Begin?
Aside from the slightly bizarre attempt to answer an incredibly complex theological, scientific, and ethical question by showing photos of a fetus doll to elicit comments, the question still remains, "is abortion murder?" To approach this question one must first establish whether a fetus is a human person. In other words, "does a fetus possess rights?"
(1) to be "murder," an action must involve "killing" something that was alive before the act and died as a result of the act. We kill all the time. We kill pigs and cows and never get charged with murder; we even kill each other in accidents or in self-defense. "Killing" is not the problem.
(2) to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "life." I mention this obvious fact in order to get the word "life" into the discussion. Notice that I did not say "a life." That term has been so deliberately misused it is ambiguous.
(3) to be "murder," an action must involve the killing of "human" life. Obviously, when you kill bacteria by gargling Listerine you have not committed murder. If the life you kill is anything other than "human," then your action cannot be "murder."
(4) to be "murder," an action must involve the "intentional" killing of human life.
(5) to be "murder," an action must involve the intentional killing of "innocent" human life. As history shows again, intentionally killing human life is not a problem. We do it all the time and often congratulate ourselves on a deed well done. We do it in wartime. We do it in capital punishment cases and we do it in self-defense.
(6) to be "murder," an action must involve the intentional killing of innocent human life which is a "person." This is the sine qua non, the essential element of the whole definition of abortion as murder. If the innocent human life which is intentionally killed does not constitute a "person," no "murder" has been committed.
For abortion to be defined as "murder" it must meet all six of the above criteria.
As for criteria #1 and #2: does abortion involve the killing of life? The answer is, YES, in 99% of all abortions, the living content of the womb is killed. However, in some extremely rare, late-term abortions, a viable fetus emerges; in all such cases, by law, the fetus is not killed nor allowed to die, but emergency measures are taken to preserve its life.
As for criterion #3: is the life killed by abortions a "human" life? Again the answer is YES, because it is genetically human and belongs to no other species. However, this is not the same as saying that "a human life" has been killed, because the term "a life" refers to "personhood" which is a different matter.
As for criterion #4: is the killing of human life in an abortion done "intentionally?" YES, abortion is done intentionally to terminate a pregnancy. That poses no ethical problems unless criterion #6 is met and the fetus turns out to be a "person."
Abortion opponents claim that the intention to terminate a pregnancy also involves a determined effort to kill a person. If that were true, that would deserve our ethical condemnation. Granted that no one can ever really know the intentions which motivate other individuals' actions, but I would nevertheless argue that the burden of proving such a charge falls on those who impugn the medical profession in this way, especially in light of the cases in which physicians and nurses have fought hard to preserve the lives of viable fetuses.
As for criterion #5: is the human life killed in abortions "innocent"? In most cases, the answer is, YES. However, when a pregnancy endangers the life or emotional welfare of the woman, the fetus can no longer be considered "innocent." It is irrelevant whether the fetus has "intentionally" endangered the woman. Viruses, bacteria, rabid dogs, drunk drivers; none of these really "intends" to harm or kill anyone, and yet all of us have the right to try and protect ourselves from them. Even if the fetus turns out to be a "person," the pregnant woman is also a person, and as such she retains the inherent right of self-defense against whatever attacks her. (Remember: killing in self-defense, even if the non-innocent human life killed is a person, is not murder)
Finally, as for criterion #6: is the human life killed in an abortion a "person"? This is the ontological question. It asks: "What kind of being is a fetus?" The answer determines the ethical status of a fetus and that will determine how it ought to be treated.
Because "personhood" is an epiphenomenon of the human brain it should be clear that if there is no fully functional brain, there is no personhood.
In the case of a fetus, there simply is no functioning brain present during the first few weeks of pregnancy and consequently there is no personhood. It takes months for individual cells to become transformed into neurons, for these neurons to grow and reach out to connect with other neurons, for synapses to form, and for the central nervous system to develop. A fetus is incapable of even feeling pain until the third trimester, pin-prick reaction notwithstanding. It doesn't yet have the hardware.
There is a great deal of theoretical debate about precisely when during a pregnancy (if at all) a fetus achieves personhood. Some child psychologists argue that personhood does not really develop until months or years after birth, while some neuropsychologists argue that the most rudimentary elements of sentience and psychological activity may begin sometime around the 26th week, which is around the beginning of the third trimester.
In any case, the prevailing medical opinion is that, at least as far as the first trimester goes, there simply is not yet sufficient maturation of the developing brain and nervous system to give the fetus any real ability to achieve consciousness or self-awareness.
The logical conclusion is inescapable: at least during the first trimester and possibly well into the third, a fetus is not a "person," and therefore an abortion does not constitute a murder.
Read all of OneEyeKing's blogs >>
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Report this
|
Nice filibuster...unfortunately launched with a lie.
Those were not "photos of a fetus doll" as you start off with.
Those were pictures of human beings. Those humans came to full term and are now citizens of our world.
When I see people lie with such callousness, it appalls me. I have to wonder who you really work for.
But then I remember.
Nice logic. So it will logically follow that since the lack of consciousness or self awareness of the fetus is temporary, then logically all those humans with temporary or permanent lack of consciousness or self awareness are also not eligible for personhood. This will, of course, include all those with temporary or permanent limited brain function and/or damage. Who will decide?? Oh, I know, the STATE.
I don't know about you, but as for me, and my children, our lives BEGAN at conception. Think about it!
momof11 - define "temporary".
OneEyeKing - you're making my case
fetus doll...sheesh!
Temporary like Terry Schiavo?
Prospector - I chose to not to believe you. You've done nothing but lie for years. Lying in the AJ blogs is central to your many identities. You are never able to offer any proof because you are a compulsive liar. Lying is your normal and reflexive way of responding to questions or challenges or refuting facts. You also lie to gain attention. For a compulsive liar like you, telling the truth is awkward and uncomfortable. Lying feels good. So you lie even when there is no reason to lie, although telling the truth could be easier. But you can't help yourself.
Compulsive lying is usually developed in early childhood in an environment where lying was necessary. You've been doing it all your life.
You probably don't even realize when you are lying. Compulsive liars like you are not especially cunning or intelligent or even manipulative, but are prone to being a "true believer;" a delusional personality.
Your lying is a learned habit, an automatic response which is hard to break, and one that takes a heavy toll on any potential relationship. This almost certainly means you are unmarried or estranged, practically friendless and lonely most of the time.
Well, here are my two cents worth. No research, no big words, no legalise, just plain common sense.
First let me say that personally I am opposed to abortion, by that I mean that I would not make a decision to abort a fetus.
However we live in the United States of America and in this Country we enjoy a tremendous amount of freedom. As such, I feel that the decision to abort or not should be up to the woman and her conscience, perhaps her mate and the Dr. Who am I to tell anyone that they cannot do what the Courts, including the top Court in this Country has found to be legal. What give me the right to force my beliefs an anyone. Who am I to impose decisions based on religious beliefs on any one.
Just flip the coin, would you want a group of people dictating what you can or can't do based on all or any of the above?
Fortunately this world is made of people with very different opinions, unfortunately we have a vocal few that want to impose their "morality" on everyone.
One last comment. Have any of you seen the band of misfits that congregate along our roads, schools, etc. with signs and pictures of aborted fetuses. Well, it may be their right to do so even though I disagree with them and their tactics but I also put them in the same group as those religious freaks that turn out at the funerals of soldiers who have given their life so those imbeciles enjoy the right to show the world how stupid they are. If I'm ever with one of my young grandchildren and one of those freaks stick a picture in their face they will need assistance extricating the sign, including handle, out of their body.
I apologize if I ranted, maybe I should give these blogs a break for a while but I'm really tired of people trying to impose their tunnel vision beliefs onto others.
OneEyeKing-define temporary- you miss your own point. If personhood is defined by brain function, who will decide the parameters? Personhood is just a human contruct, it can be changed on a whim or a conflict of interest. Life can be defined scientifically, from its beginning, conception, to its end, death.
As keepingupdated so simply stated, all of our lives began at conception. Some of us, like Loomis resident, have survived birth and childhood and so comfortably live far away from the fear of death that we cannot appreciate how wonderful is life so we can easily stand by while others are killed. Since all of our own mothers chose life, we have the luxury of "choice". A close brush with our own or a loved one's death will oftentimes change that perspective. Sometimes not. Some people even agree to the death of their own children and grandchildren because they fear hardship and/or consequences of any kind.
Back to the point, either you value life or you don't. Don't try to rationalize or justify your values with arbitrary man-made parameters or state imposed and state enforced constructs like wars, death penalties, brain function, medical research etc.etc.. Admit who you are and own your selfishness and state worship. It's very simple.
loomisresident - Thank you. I couldn't agree more.
Our government has no business enforcing the beliefs of a religious fringe group. Personally, I am, like you, against abortion. But I don't expect the laws of this nation to accommodate my beliefs to the detriment of those who believe differently.
momof11 - "either you value life or you don't" is not the point at all. The topic is "When does Human Life Begin?"
You said that "personhood is just a human contruct [sic]... arbitrary man-made parameters or state imposed and state enforced constructs." Of course it is. What else would it be?
For three thousand years western philosophers have expounded on every dimension of what constitutes a human life or "personhood" in discourses ranging from the purely analytical to the metaphysical and ontological. Thus we now have the concept of a "human person" defined by the characteristics of reasoning, consciousness, and persistent personal identity.
But please feel free to make yourself happy by redefining it any way you like.
OneEyeKing, this is not a criticism, just an observation. R_T has an inferiority complex. He was probably an underachiever with a low self esteem. He frequently uses poor judgment. He overcompensates for this by doing and saying things that gratify his attention seeking needs, hopefully in a positive way. He is in constant need of approval. He is overly critical of others, especially if they challenge him, and yet dependent on the affirmation of others. When he does achieve a success at something, it seems to manifest itself into a mild form of narcissism.
Abortionists can inflame the debate with inflammatory rhetoric and emotion…arguments about rape and incest, imposing morality (nobody is neutral), women’s rights…
The only important question in this debate is simple, not at all complex: What is the unborn child? The unborn child is a living, separate being, and it is only one kind of being. It has human parents and it is growing. It is a human being. To those who say, it is a human, but not a person…what’s the difference? If you don’t know the difference, quit sacrificing these children pretending you do know. It is rhetoric to get away from the obvious fact that human beings are a personal type being. Personhood is inherent to being a human, that’s why it is said all human beings are created equal. The pro-life view of humanity includes all of humanity, especially those that are small (from conception), vulnerable and defenseless.
OneEyeKing wrote "Our government has no business enforcing the beliefs of a religious fringe group." We totally agree here. Here's what I believe about the purpose of government: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
My interpretation of this is that the government should work to preserve life and liberty for every human being and if it can't do this then why do we need it?
OneEyeKing wrote "The topic is "When does Human Life Begin?" According to: Lauralee Sherwood, in "Human Physiology" Ch.20 pg752 (I am a nursing student in the California public university system)"If fertilization does occur, the cycles are interrupted while the female system adapts to nurture and protect the newly conceived human being", pg. 731 "Reproduction depends on the union of male and female gametes.. each with a half set of chromosomes, to form a new individual with a full, unique set of chromosomes." (this means that the offspring is not a genetic clone of the mother), pg.732 "When fertilization occurs, a sperm and an ovum fuse to form a new individual". In actuality, there is no disagreement among impartial biologists, doctors, nurses and others who study the human body as to when life begins. But for well over three thousand years now, we have had very vocal fringe groups (they usually have an agenda) creating all manner of distracting "concepts" like "personhood" with the oh so very important sounding characteristics of reasoning, consciousness, and persistent personal identity (I really love that one-p.p.i.). They use these ideas to justify their supremacy over other human beings who may or may not have the appropriate characteristics or whatevs. In summary, if the question is about the beginning of life, then why are you defining persons at all?
If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. Beyond that, you have no control over it and you will forever be banging your head against a brick wall. There are half a million foster children in the US, and over a million abused children, and leave the US and the numbers are devastating for sick, starving, dying children all over the world who would love for you to expend some of that energy on their situation, seeing as how they are already here. Your concern doesn't appear to extend past birth.
loomisrez, another instance where we agree! Not only that, I too am worn out from some of the blogs and letters, and feel the need to not even look at a screen for a couple days. I hope you, and everyone else, has a safe and wonderful weekend. Try to do something nice for yourself and also for someone else, you will all feel much better for it.
kittyv wrote:
"If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one." This is not the point at all. The topic is "When does Human Life Begin?" Any thoughts on that? Do you feel that some children that are alive can be killed because other children who are older are abused, sick, starving & dying? How does that work?
If something or someone is alive are they here yet? Shall we postpone the objective definition of the "beginning of life" until all the older humans are happy, healthy, wealthy and wise, like you? I think your pretzel logic is what is wearing you out, not blogs and letters. Have a safe and wonderful weekend. Try to do something nice for someone else, you will all feel much better for it.
All of us existing today started out as a "fetus." Humans don't just appear out of thin air;it is a process. Imagine if all the seeds that grow food on this planet were destroyed. We would then have no food. Destroying the seed results in destroying the process of how food is created. Destroying a fetus results in the destruction of the creation of a human being. IT IS A PROCESS! Life begins at conception and takes on a different form throughout the development process. By the way, the argument that a fetus cannot survive on its own is crazy! As a mother myself, I could argue that a full term baby left alone to survive and care for itself could never happen either. For that matter, a two year old left to survive solo would be impossible! We are here to protect, nurture and raise the innocent, not destroy them. We all had to start out somehow, and that is at conception.
You believe life begins at conception. But when does that life become a human person?
momof11- Yeah, my thoughts are that we disagree. So what. Pop kids out like a pez dispenser, I don't really care. It's your choice. It's nice to make decisions about your own life, isn't it? You don't have any control over what someone else thinks, feels, believes, and does. What I feel about when human life begins is irrelevant, because I don't know, I may have an idea, you may have an idea, but we just don't know. You can argue about it forever, but in the end, everyone decides for themselves, true? So how about using some of that expended energy with results - I mentioned concern for children of which there is no disagreement, they are here and they are eager to receive your help. You blew it off. Interesting.
It's the blogs and letters wearing me out, but uh, thank you for telling me what it REALLY is.
kittyv - - I really enjoy your posts. But you need to relax. It's only an informal discussion. There are no right or wrong answers, no winning or losing. No "experts" have ever proved "When Life Begins." The ethics of abortion and infanticide have changed throughout human history.
The point is to elicit different fact-based opinions and possibly to learn something new or teach something.
Debate isn’t about asserting our opinions to change the other person's mind. That's not very likely.
When we feel passionate about something our emotions can run away and compromise our ability to communicate effectively. We might even make ad hominem attacks when we should be fostering an atmosphere of civil discussion and collaboration. Besides, anger takes all the enjoyment out of it. (unless you're a nut-case like Rational_Thinker)
OEK- The fact that life begins at conception is not my belief or a religious viewpoint, but rather an established objective scientific fact. I quoted a textbook currently in use in the California public school system.
Personhood, citizenship, ethnicity, etc. etc, are subjective and arbitrary (dare I say capricious?) devices created by some humans to DIVIDE us. Unplug from the matrix, OEK, all of us started our lives in a very fragile and vulnerable condition. Now we are strong and relatively independent, but very soon we will again be fragile, vulnerable and dependent. Who will be strong enough to be your advocate when your beloved state is finished with you?
kittyv- You make so many assumptions about me, so far every single one is just so wrong that it is kinda sad. What I find interesting is that you think that when human life begins is unknowable, yet you read and comment on a blog titled "On When Life Begins.." Keep searching and I know you will accept the truth eventually. Best of luck on your journey.
momof11 - please do not patronize me.
I thought you had insulted me and mocked me, which after re-reading maybe wasn't 100% true and my original comment was not even directed to you. I might mention, the title of the blog is your discussion, and the final sentence of the blog was my comment, since you question why I did. You and OEK seemed to be having your own private discussion of which I was not involved and had skipped both of your last few posts, which brings me to ...OEK - What brought out my emotional response was when Loomis mentioned the protesters with their signs on street corners. I hate giving out too much personal info, but my response is because of an awful experience I had while going into Planned Parenthood (for prenatal care no less, because they provided that too). So your analysis is correct. I was pis.sed off.
And so to both of you, please continue with your discussion, I made the mistake of skipping over some comments which would have enlightened me to the point the discussion was at and commenting, I get frustrated when people do that, and once again I'm doing what I don't like in others. So here is my third apology today. Sorry.
I'm tired of having to apologize, time for a break. Thanks for the spanking.
mom: I beg to differ; the beginning of human life is NOT a settled scientific fact, or this debate would not be taking place. You say you learned this from "a textbook currently in use in the California public school system." Which textbook?
The following is an excerpt from "Developmental Biology (Eighth Edition - 2006) by Dr. F. Scott Gilbert:
"Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question [of when human life begins]. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."
Dr. Gilbert is a Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology at Swarthmore College where he teaches developmental genetics, embryology and the history and critiques of biology. He is also the author of "Bioethics and the New Embryology: Springboard for Debate (2005)."
What do you mean when you say "your beloved state?"
Skeptic- I named the texbook and page nos and quotes in my post where I also state that IMPARTIAL scientists agree. Sorry I did not repeat this in my last post for those that only read the last one. If you consider Dr. Gilbert impartial, I think you should change your name from skeptic to something a little more sheep-like. Over a million dollars in government grants?
When I say "your beloved state" I mean that you love the nanny state and believe that government can solve problems (like the "ethics of embryology") rather than create them etc. etc. Do I need to explain this concept further?
P.S. I totally love The Odd Couple photo. It is way apropos. It is so perfect that I didn't notice the difference at first. Then when I saw who it was, well, luckily, the old bladder was already empty.
Was that your own idea or did you see it somewhere. I must know the truth. Thanx.
momofeleven___ My apologies. I should have read back a few posts for your citation. Sorry.
- "Nanny state?" You make assumptions about facts not in evidence.
Of course government solves problems. Don't start sounding like Bill O'Reilly. Haven't you ever been awarded a government research grant? The federal government sponsors basic scientific research in academia totaling some $14 billion annually. Of the $85 million in research that is conducted in the life sciences at MIT, about $75 million (88%) is federal money. A considerable portion of that research is done in the MIT Biology Department, the MIT Center for Cancer Research and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. Maybe the next administration can fund the research needed to find a cure for HIV-AIDS or breast cancer and stop borrowing money from communist China to fight the endless war against the people who sell us oil.
The photo was purloined from the web. I just modified it slightly, but he already looked quite happy.
Skeptic- you are really hysterical - cure for HIV-AIDS or breast cancer, right, or maybe stop poverty or "drug abuse" and, of course, my favs: obesity and "climate change", however, you are way off topic. By the way, have you found a corresponding photo for the Obama/Biden ticket? I know I'm not very creative in this way but how about Elton John and Will Smith/Usher/Janet Jackson? Leave Denzel alone, tho, I love him!
momof11- Okay, Denzel's off limits. I liked him as Malcolm X. Too bad Obama and Biden aren't anywhere near as funny as Grandpappy and Ellie Mae. Do you think cures for breast cancer or HIV-AIDS should not be priorities? BTW, I didn't mention your favs (obesity and climate change). You did. Try to stay on topic.
Skeptic- Glad to hear Denzel is safe from your scathing wit. X was great but what about Am Gangster "I'm just trying to make a living". You must be kidding about O&B. The change routine is just a riot. try http://antiwar.com/justin/ for some background on B. Of course, personally, I am worried that O thinks it is OK for his children to kill his grandchildren. How can he claim to care about others? But that's just me.
Re: Breast Cancer and Aids, I am not an expert, but these seem to be preventable diseases (like most of our epidemic chronic conditions here in the US) so why does the government need to spend money looking for cures? If you don't want them, then don't get them. I make immune system health a priority in my family and so should everyone. Even after a diagnosis, lifestyle changes have done wonders for the people that decide to make them. Of course, "the search for a cure" is big business now, along with "treatments", so I don't see any change coming soon. But I really thought you were joking because I thought you were a skeptic. Or are you just skeptical of republicans? Think Grandpappy & Ellie Mae (how do you come up with these?) are that much different from Ebony and Ivory. I don't, I guess I'll be writing in Ron Paul.... What was the topic here...
I am worried that McCain thinks it is OK for American children to kill foreign people's children.
You think breast cancer and AIDS are preventable and they can be cured?
Why send the kids off to college when for the same money you can go to Disneyland?
I think our discussion has ended.
Unless anybody out there can remember what it feels like to be a fetus, I don't think we can determine when life begins. In my opinion science has failed to prove that first trimester fetuses lack conscience and cannot feel pain. Furthermore, most people believe in a God and a soul as well. If a soul is present during the first trimester, wouldn't you imagine it "feels" something? I await the researchers to get right on that... prove to me there's no soul in the fetus.
It's your claim. Prove to me there is.