definition of a human life
Sun, 2007-05-27 16:50
#1
definition of a human life
Sun, 2007-05-27 16:50
#2
The following snip is from a recent thread about the APC protest:
quote:
[b]Second, the anti-abortionists’ claim to “protect human life” is invalid, since a 12- or 18-week old fetus is scientifically, legally or biologically not a human person, as its features are not developed to that point. [/b]
I'm not looking for a pro-life/pro-choice debate, as I'm aware I'd be taking a pretty unpopular stance and this is the wrong board for that issue.
But what DOES interest me is the "scientifically, legally or biologically not a human person" idea and I'd like to discuss this civilly.
Here's where I'm at with it: legally, that's a no-brainer, the law is the law, and the law says a fetus is not a person.
But biologically/scientifically? If it is not a human, then what on earth is it?
I don't understand the criteria:
Having human features? Would a person who had their limbs and face burned off not be a person anymore?
Is it because the fetus couldn't survive on its own? Then what about a dialysis patient? What about an abandoned infant?
I have a lot of sympathy for the pro-choice POV although I'm not pro-choice anymore.
It's a very arbitrary distinction (born vs. unborn) and simply stating that it's a scientific truth doesn't really help. If we're to make headway in the debate, I think we'll have to use more uncomfortable (but more truthful) terminology.
Lastly, the quote above later referred to 12 to 18 week year old fetuses. But an abortion isn't restricted to those ages and, even if it were, it's simply not true that you cannot discern human features in a fetus.
Again, this is not about pro-choice/pro-life. It's about the definition of a human life.
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:07
#3
When I thought about it, I could not come to an answer, so I gave up.
I think we're switching from humanness to advanced sentience though. A lot of people, such as myself, feel more sympathy for a chimp or a dolphin under pressure than a four cell zygote; even though technically the 4 cell zygote is more human. The dolphin and chimp can think, feel, love, and plan. The 4-cell zygote can do none of those things.
When you grow up watching star trek episodes which debate whether or not the Doctor on voyager has rights, you get a different perspective. I thought the doctor should have rights.
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:14
#4
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]advanced sentience[/b]
Well, there you go. That would be a much more sensible standard.
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:18
#5
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]even though technically the 4 cell zygote is more human[/b]
That would clear up the debate on early abortion, I think. But what about late or very late?
For the record, I don't believe in the sanctity of human life. I'm quite sure my dog is of more value than Clifford Olson despite the species differential.
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:25
#6
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
Here's where I'm at with it: legally, that's a no-brainer, the law is the law, and the law says a fetus is [b]not a person[/b].But biologically/scientifically? If it is [b]not a human[/b], then what on earth is it?
I've bolded your "error" in order to ask this question:
Where did you learn to argue in this fashion - or does it just come naturally?
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:31
#7
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I've bolded your "error" in order to ask this question:Where did you learn to argue in this fashion - or does it just come naturally?[/b]
Thanks, unionist. I have always been led to believe that human = person and that's why I naturally argue so badly.
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:32
#8
Changing my question to:
But biologically/scientifically? If it is not a person, then what on earth is it?
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:35
#9
[b]person: a human being, whether man, woman, or child
human (noun): a human being
human (adjective): of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people[/b]
First definitions from dictionary.com so it seems I'm not the only one, unionist.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:38
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]But biologically/scientifically? If it is not a person, then what on earth is it?[/b]
Well, under the Criminal Code's lexicon, it is a "child" even before it is born - it just doesn't become a "human being" until it has proceeded entirely, and alive, from its mother's body:
quote:
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.
(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
So as you see, the Criminal Code not only considers the foetus as a "child", but even defines injury to the foetus as "homicide" if such injury causes the death of the foetus after it has been born alive.
Does that answer your question?
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:39
#11
Okay, yeah, I get it. A fetus isn't a man, a woman or a child.
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:41
#12
We cross-posted. Now you're saying that legally a fetus is a child. That kind of negates what I just posted above.
Again, the issue wasn't the legal definition. It's the scientific one that I'm interested in.
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:42
#13
laine lowe
How nice. A "nuanced" attempt to open up the abortion debate on a progressive board.
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:44
#14
Agreed. Sorry, Phrillie, but this is out of bounds. I don't care if you're pro-life, but keep it off of babble.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Sun, 2007-05-27 17:44
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]We cross-posted. Now you're saying that legally a fetus is a child. That kind of negates what I just posted above.Again, the issue wasn't the legal definition. It's the scientific one that I'm interested in.[/b]
But the term child is not a scientific term.