Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

damnrad · Jan 27, 2004, 05:12 pm

When does a person become a human person? That would seem to be a major issue. Some argue that this happens at the moment of conception -- although they are often unclear as to whether that moment is that of fertilization or of implantation (and in fact, the Catholic Church is not clear on that). Their argument is actually purely religious: that a soul is created at the moment of conception. They sometimes muddy the waters, however, by arguing that a unique biological entity starts at that point, even claiming that 'science proves' that humanity starts at conception. That this argument is mud can be shown by asking back whether humans are no more than biological organisms. There are few who argue 'human person from conception' who will agree that we are no more than biological constructs.

Problems with the position:
1) If it's religious, why should it be imposed on the rest of society, on the irreligious as well as on the religious? And it is not the only religious view -- in fact, the traditional religious view was that the soul was infused at the point of quickening, weeks into the pregnancy. Some religions stick to this view, so why should one religious view be championed over another in public law?
2) It is not true that a unique biological organism is always created at conception. In fact, most fertilized human eggs do not survive to be born. That's a wastage of potential, and in fact partially a means of quality control, quite common to biology. But if a soul is created for each fertilized egg, then that is a wastage of souls that seems a bit strange. More importantly, even among fertilized eggs that survive, not all go on to become unique human individuals. Identical twins are fairly common, and multuplets hardly unheard of, yet they represent different people who result from the same fertilized egg. If only one soul is created at conception, which twin gets it? Moreover, not every individual results from a single fertilized egg. Fertilized eggs sometimes fuse together. Chimeras are organisms that contain the DNA of more than one fertilized egg. In at least one case, in fact, a human's DNA has been shown to have derived from more than one father. So, if more than one conception went into making a human, does that person have more than one soul?

So, the moment of conception, whichever moment that is, is reasonable to define a human person only if (1) one uses a purely-religious view of 'soul' or (2) one sees humanity in purely-biologically-deterministic ways. What is a good point at which to state that a human person exists? I have noted that some religions place soul acquisition at the later stage (such as at quickening), but why should public law be based on some other religious teaching? Let's look further.

The traditional view is, actually, that a person becomes a person at birth. In fact, by the US Constitution, a person born in the US becomes a citizen at birth. True, the development of the fetus is largely the same before and after birth; but the functioning is not. For one thing, at birth, the former fetus begins breathing air and no longer derives nourishment from connection through the placenta to the blood of the mother. Further, the newborn begins immediately interacting with the outside world, most importantly, beginning social interaction with other humans. Practical advantages of the use of birth as the dividing line include, of course, that the baby is no longer an inhabitant of the mother's body (abortion is no longer an option), and that our laws already use the moment of birth to define when a civil person exists, one who can be murdered for example. True, medical tech makes the moment of birth partially discretionary, and can push it back further in development; but the changes that occur at birth (and the legal and social statuses that go with it) still occur at that point.

But then there is the 'what if' question: what if prior to birth there is a human person who is to some degree conscious of its own existence? Well, how would we know? Actually, we could place an early demarcation on the possiblity. At 'brain birth,' at about 22 weeks of gestation, the fetus' brain has developed sufficiently to 'boot up': brain waves begin that will continue through the life of the organism. Since we nowdays define death on the basis of brain death, why not define life on the basis of brain birth? The issue is that we don't know the implications of brain birth in this connection. While it seems unlikely that there could be any consciousness, including self-consciousness, before there was a functioning brain, with sufficient function to support consciousness, we do not know that brain birth signals that consciousness has begun -- it may be necessary, but might well not be sufficient, to that. Still, one could give the brain-born fetus the benefit of the doubt. And in fact, Roe v. Wade came very close to doing so by recognizing a different status for a fetus in the third trimester (a couple of weeks on average after brain birth). States can be much more restrictive of abortion in the third trimester than they can earlier in the pregnancy. But third-trimester abortions can still occur under Roe v. Wade. Consider, after all, that the decision was based on a right to privacy of the mother. Even if the brain-born fetus is a human person who should therefore have some rights, mothers are undoubtedly human persons with rights; and that is what gets weighed in the third trimester under Roe v. Wade.

At base then, I argue that Roe v. Wade already gives us an excellent basis for deciding on abortion, ethically as well as legally. Would that we could agree on that. Think of it: we could get rid of the impediments to abortion early in the pregnancy that sometimes results in abortions' being sought in the third trimester; we could treat earlier abortions as medical procedures that should be funded just as other medical procedurses; and we could clarify what was acceptable in the third trimester (e.g., what conditions could not have been tested for earlier that might lead to the seeking of a late abortion). But that won't happen -- instead, we will continue to have a major societal fight over the question, leading to many tears on all sides.

Jan 27, 2004, 05:12 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	When does a person become a human person? That would seem to be a major issue. Some argue that this happens at the moment of conception -- although they are often unclear as to whether that moment is that of fertilization or of implantation (and in fact, the Catholic Church is not clear on that). Their argument is actually purely religious: that a soul is created at the moment of conception. They sometimes muddy the waters, however, by arguing that a unique biological entity starts at that point, even claiming that 'science proves' that humanity starts at conception. That this argument is mud can be shown by asking back whether humans are no more than biological organisms. There are few who argue 'human person from conception' who will agree that we are no more than biological constructs. Problems with the position: 1) If it's religious, why should it be imposed on the rest of society, on the irreligious as well as on the religious? And it is not the only religious view -- in fact, the traditional religious view was that the soul was infused at the point of quickening, weeks into the pregnancy. Some religions stick to this view, so why should one religious view be championed over another in public law? 2) It is not true that a unique biological organism is always created at conception. In fact, most fertilized human eggs do not survive to be born. That's a wastage of potential, and in fact partially a means of quality control, quite common to biology. But if a soul is created for each fertilized egg, then that is a wastage of souls that seems a bit strange. More importantly, even among fertilized eggs that survive, not all go on to become unique human individuals. Identical twins are fairly common, and multuplets hardly unheard of, yet they represent different people who result from the same fertilized egg. If only one soul is created at conception, which twin gets it? Moreover, not every individual results from a single fertilized egg. Fertilized eggs sometimes fuse together. Chimeras are organisms that contain the DNA of more than one fertilized egg. In at least one case, in fact, a human's DNA has been shown to have derived from more than one father. So, if more than one conception went into making a human, does that person have more than one soul? So, the moment of conception, whichever moment that is, is reasonable to define a human person only if (1) one uses a purely-religious view of 'soul' or (2) one sees humanity in purely-biologically-deterministic ways. What is a good point at which to state that a human person exists? I have noted that some religions place soul acquisition at the later stage (such as at quickening), but why should public law be based on some other religious teaching? Let's look further. The traditional view is, actually, that a person becomes a person at birth. In fact, by the US Constitution, a person born in the US becomes a citizen at birth. True, the development of the fetus is largely the same before and after birth; but the functioning is not. For one thing, at birth, the former fetus begins breathing air and no longer derives nourishment from connection through the placenta to the blood of the mother. Further, the newborn begins immediately interacting with the outside world, most importantly, beginning social interaction with other humans. Practical advantages of the use of birth as the dividing line include, of course, that the baby is no longer an inhabitant of the mother's body (abortion is no longer an option), and that our laws already use the moment of birth to define when a civil person exists, one who can be murdered for example. True, medical tech makes the moment of birth partially discretionary, and can push it back further in development; but the changes that occur at birth (and the legal and social statuses that go with it) still occur at that point. But then there is the 'what if' question: what if prior to birth there is a human person who is to some degree conscious of its own existence? Well, how would we know? Actually, we could place an early demarcation on the possiblity. At 'brain birth,' at about 22 weeks of gestation, the fetus' brain has developed sufficiently to 'boot up': brain waves begin that will continue through the life of the organism. Since we nowdays define death on the basis of brain death, why not define life on the basis of brain birth? The issue is that we don't know the implications of brain birth in this connection. While it seems unlikely that there could be any consciousness, including self-consciousness, before there was a functioning brain, with sufficient function to support consciousness, we do not know that brain birth signals that consciousness has begun -- it may be necessary, but might well not be sufficient, to that. Still, one could give the brain-born fetus the benefit of the doubt. And in fact, Roe v. Wade came very close to doing so by recognizing a different status for a fetus in the third trimester (a couple of weeks on average after brain birth). States can be much more restrictive of abortion in the third trimester than they can earlier in the pregnancy. But third-trimester abortions can still occur under Roe v. Wade. Consider, after all, that the decision was based on a right to privacy of the mother. Even if the brain-born fetus is a human person who should therefore have some rights, mothers are undoubtedly human persons with rights; and that is what gets weighed in the third trimester under Roe v. Wade. At base then, I argue that Roe v. Wade already gives us an excellent basis for deciding on abortion, ethically as well as legally. Would that we could agree on that. Think of it: we could get rid of the impediments to abortion early in the pregnancy that sometimes results in abortions' being sought in the third trimester; we could treat earlier abortions as medical procedures that should be funded just as other medical procedurses; and we could clarify what was acceptable in the third trimester (e.g., what conditions could not have been tested for earlier that might lead to the seeking of a late abortion). But that won't happen -- instead, we will continue to have a major societal fight over the question, leading to many tears on all sides.