Pro-choicers, when is a human a human, and no longer "part of the mother's body"?

Question

Since the age of 'viability' is fluid (it keeps getting earlier based on improvements in technology) ability to live outside of the womb can't be the determination of when a fetus is actually considered a human.

So, when does a fetus become a human?

Joe M - Do you defend the right for a murderer to decide if their victim is worthy of living? Do you defend the right of a thief to decide if personal property really exists?

SuperAtheist - This is a very good point. One of my difficulties is figuring out why mothers aren't allowed to kill their young children before they really develop higher order thinking according to many pro-choice arguments.

In response to the "It doesn't matter, it's the woman's choice":

This argument is not much more useful than "Because I said so." Obviously at some point the baby has to be considered a individual with the rights not to have it's life ended, even if you think that point is when it finally emerges from the womb and breaths air for the first time, or mothers would be allowed to kill their children at the age of 2... or 4... or 14... or 40.

Answer 1

That's an excellent question, and I hope we'll get past the squabbling and start working on answering it.

"Viability" seems like a silly choice, as does conception. I think that the most reasonable criterion should be the point at which the developing embryo/fetus begins to have experiences.

Answer 2

Comes from a family of labor/delivery nurses and doctors. The earliest pre-mature that has survived is right around 4 months. And that was only after almost spending a year in the pre-natal ICU. So why do you say you can't determine the age of viability? You can. Over 98% of all abortions occur prior to 12 weeks. Obviously a 12 week old fetus would not possibly survive outside of the womb and is not a viable human life. Less than 1% of the abortions are what is called late term abortions (abortions occuring after 21 weeks) and those are always the result of health risks to the mother. I fully support a womans right to choose abortion up to and including 12 weeks with the exceptions of later abortions acceptable if the mothers health or life is at risk.

Answer 3

To answer your question directly, we could look at the end of life to make that determination. Generally, for people on life support, lack of brain activity is used to determine this. Most people would say keeping a brain-dead person on a respirator is cruel and a waste of resources. A similar argument could be made on the front end and it would put the beginning of life at 8-12 weeks depending on what you call brain activity.
I’m so tired of the argument being framed as pro-life vs pro-choice though. Let’s call a spade a spade: pro-life people should actually be called pro-prison because they advocate using the criminal justice system to solve this problem. Many anti-abortion people are also pro-choice because they believe that this important, sad decision can only be entrusted to a woman and her doctor. If you are really against abortion then change the focus to policies that say we truly value women’s and children’s health, for instance universal health care, nutrition, daycare, etc.

Answer 4

A fetus is already human, but when it becomes consciously aware of its self (the true definition o fa human), is when it's born.

Even though I'm pro-choice, having abortions outside of the first trimester is wrong because the fetus has actually started to form into a human, and has a small amount of consciousness (response to music, sound, etc), while if it's in zygote form (when it's a group of cells) it has no awareness of it self. Thus, I feel that abortions should only be preformed in the first trimester, not later.

Answer 5

According to Jewish tradition, life begins when the fetus

graduates from medical school and makes his parents proud.


seriously though, "pro-choice" means exactly that -- in favor of letting people decide for themselves.

My opinion is that until the "anti-abortion" folks are ready to commit to build a society where every child has nutrition, education and safety, the "anti" crowd has no quarter and should just stay out of the discussion.

Since the woman and her family will be expected to provide all for that new baby, the woman has the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

Answer 6

Two different questions there. You're assuming that a developing foetus passes directly from tissue to humanity, and that's too simplistic.

Newborns aren't really human by any sensible yardstick. They're a bundle of pre-programmed instinctive reactions, and they're designed to be as adorable as possible so they won't be killed. But what's going on in their heads - which is the real measure of a human - is utterly alien.

The long neural compilation goes on forever, but it takes at least a year before any of the activities could be considered a human subset.

CD

Answer 7

This is like asking when you are in Kansas and when you are in Colorado, judging by what you see outside your window.


It's hard to say exactly when you cross the line, but there are points where you can safely say you're on one side and on the other.

With abortion, however, generally the procedure is not done late unless there is some other overriding risk, or else is just would have been done earlier. Thus, I'm in favor of abortion being legal right up until birth, after which the woman is (usually) no longer in danger.

Answer 8

It all depends on what you believe, I believe in reincarnation and that we choose (basically) the life we are meant to learn by. On that logic why would you choose to be an abortion you have nothing to learn. However the person getting one may have to have that experience to learn by. By the way how many people who are pro-life adopt children that are minorities, disabled or been abused or just plain not wanted? It seems to me there are a whole lot of kids in this world who are already living that are not wanted. Why make more that are unwanted until we take care of the ones that are here.

Answer 9

In point of fact the fetus is NEVER part of the mother's body. The two blood supplies never actually meet and the skin tissues and cells of each remain separate. If the fetus was part of the mother's body then her immune system would reject it the same way that transplanted organs are rejected.

Therefore basing a definition of when a fetus is actually "human" (for which I assume you mean a viable living thinking feeling person) on when it is no longer part of the mother is a non-starter. Basing being "human" on it's dependence on the mother is also subject to debate as one could argue that even a month-old child is totally dependent on its mother under certain circumstances (e.g. allergy to formula milk).

This means that the viability test is the only realistic alternative. Although medical technology does indeed keep pushing the boundaries of infantile viability it should be borne in mind that many of the children born extremely prematurely suffer from a whole range of debilitating conditions and a significant number die within the first few weeks of birth.

Christians should also bear in mind that the bible clearly states that a fetus is not considered to be alive until it has drawn its first breath and on that basis abortion at any stage of pregnancy up until the due date is biblically acceptable.

According to the bible, life begins at birth - when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth

Answer 10

What is wrong with a "fluid" determination? If science advances to the point that you can take a two-week old fetus out of a woman and keep it healthy and alive outside of her, I am guessing that you would have very few abortions and very full orphanges with babies to adopt.