When is human life legally considered a person?

[octothorp]

I don't see the logic of this article. The whole balance of the abortion question is balancing a fetus's right to life against a woman's right to choice regarding what goes on in her own body.
Once the baby is outside the mother's body, then you're weighing the infant's right to life against the parents' right to not want to take care of that baby. To me, one of these rights is fundamental and the other is frivolous. So this is a completely different debate from the abortion debate.

My first reaction was the similar to Flabbibulin's. It forms a classic strawman argument against abortion, misrepresenting what the current debate is and taking an imaginary position to an extreme.

[tjinaz]

That is true in a practical sense but in the academic/logical/legal sense it is not. Same is true of the abortion laws. At what point does a fetus cease to be simply a mass of living flesh in the womb and start to be considered a baby? That debate is ongoing and the core issues are the same. What would be the difference between a late term abortion and a killing a newborn? If you are looking at a developmental sense there is little difference in whether it is still in the mother or out? Also what is the difference between a premature baby and a late term abortion other than one is in and the other out of the body. To me it is mostly the desire of the parent and legally is not considered a childs rights issue but a woman's health issue. This is the leap that the ethics people in the article are making. A different set of standards as to what is considered life.

A lot of grey in all of this.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

re: kirant and tjinaz

Yes, it is a ridiculous conclusion because delivery is the only scientifically measurable event we have to officially reclassify a fetus as a person. What other moment in the timeline of a life can be used to say "this life form is now a person and not a potential person"? If you have a way of quantitatively measuring when an infant becomes self aware, please let me know.

Honestly, I'd be probably most satisfied with your months suggestion. It's the best thing I had thought of up until now.

All my point was that:
1) From the scientific side, the writers have a point and that our laws currently (and might still, even if we eventually do get perfect technology for this information) will protect individuals without right to life rights.
2) Morality and practical technological limits hamper the ability to apply academics.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Infanticide ......a eugenicist wet dream.....

[Wormius]

This hasn't been raised yet, but in cases of a murder involving a pregnant woman where both mother and fetus have died, has any precedent been set with whether the perperator was charged with one or two murders?

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Wormius

This hasn't been raised yet, but in cases of a murder involving a pregnant woman where both mother and fetus have died, has any precedent been set with whether the perperator was charged with one or two murders?

Wikipedia claims double murder is possible to argue, but rarely enforced, on murders of pregnant women.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by kirant

Honestly, I'd be probably most satisfied with your months suggestion. It's the best thing I had thought of up until now.

All my point was that, from the scientific side, the writers have a point and that our laws currently (and might still, even if we eventually do get perfect technology for this information) will protect individuals without right to life rights.

Practical application and academics struggle to meet and, since academics have the bonus of not always having to worry about morality, sometimes come off cold.

If anything, I would argue that it is easier to argue from a moral perspective that a newborn is only a potential person (ie not self aware). From a scientifc standpoint however, there is no single point or event in the development of an infant (from brain development to physical development) that signals a major shift to a higher state of being. Obviously major developments occur progressively, but there is no one moment where we can scientifically, and therefore legally, say that personhood has been acheived- only thing we have is delivery.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

When you separate individual morality from the equation, that is the correct assumption. A newborn does not have a fully developed sense of self or personality. Technically they are "potential" people. Same with fetuses, they are just outside the body. If you go by that standard the implications spread into all sorts of other grey areas. If you define when a baby actually becomes a person along these lines then the contrapositive must also be considered. When would an existing person cease to legally be a person? What happens when due to injury, or illness a person loses their sense of self and personality could they legally lose their rights and be killed?

I found this whole concept to be abhorrent but logical. The legality in defining when a person is considered legally a person cannot be based in morality as it is subjective and its definitions vary significantly from person to person and change over time.

This used to be the realm of religion but as that standard is on the decline this line of questioning will come up more and more.

That is the other part of this issue. I think technically some pets/animals (dogs, pigs, cats) have the equivalent mental capacity of 2-3 year old humans so do we afford those animals the protections of the human or the human the lack of protections we give to animals? Do we value human life over that of other species? An extension of the discussion of the dog that killed the baby.

The vast majority of laws are based heavily in morality. The law is not shaped solely by strictly definable boundaries, nor should it be.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

If anything, I would argue that it is easier to argue from a moral perspective that a newborn is only a potential person (ie not self aware). From a scientifc standpoint however, there is no single point or event in the development of an infant (from brain development to physical development) that signals a major shift to a higher state of being. Obviously major developments occur progressively, but there is no one moment where we can scientifically, and therefore legally, say that personhood has been acheived- only thing we have is delivery.

Certainly delivery is a clear-cut solution. Everybody knows what a delivery is and it's very easy to show when it occured...certainly one of the best legal solutions to the case.

From a biological point of view, it's less optimal. All delivery represents is the moving of the fetus from mother to open world. However, we also have a poor crop of options as for biological definitions. Months is possible, but we have to decide what month it's set at...what qualifies someone to live? Our nervous system? Circulatory? The purely academic answer is given here, but it'd be near impossible to apply in reality.

Ultimately, the answer isn't going to be perfect...something will give, be it the biological reasoning or the ease of legal application.

Agreed with the defining "higher state of being" part, something I was trying to state from the start (in terms of sentience)

[tjinaz]

The vast majority of laws are based heavily in morality. The law is not shaped solely by strictly definable boundaries, nor should it be.

Who's morality? The bulk of the West is based on Judeo-Christian influences, that is on the way out. What will replace it? Most morality goes back to religion and as society is moving more towards "progressive" concepts beyond religion and erasing the hard lines what will it morph into? This could be the first of many changes as society as the culture moves away from religion.

[SebC]

On the other extreme, Wilmington (Delaware) has a passed a resolution urging personhood rights for sperm.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Who's morality? The bulk of the West is based on Judeo-Christian influences, that is on the way out. What will replace it? Most morality goes back to religion and as society is moving more towards "progressive" concepts beyond religion and erasing the hard lines what will it morph into? This could be the first of many changes as society as the culture moves away from religion.

Totalitarianism.

[krynski]

This topic is extremely controversial, and i am going to try and stay out of it for the most part. I dislike getting between rights like these. I will say that although in many parts of the world, abortion nullifies a child's living rights....however, in most of these societies, a fetus can be a beneficiary. As an example, if the father were to die and they had life insurance, the fetus could receive that compensation. I don't know all details pertaining to the matter, but this is my understanding.

I honestly don't know where to draw a line- if to draw a line on the matter of abortion. I have done studies on development of vertebrates, and there's just is no clear line to draw IMO. In some cases, I honestly think if you're stupid enough to get pregnant, you should deal with the consequences. Eugenics is an interesting matter, but i think it should be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, if you can't afford medicare for children with congenital anomalies, you should be able to receive funds/programs from the government and things should work out that way.

If i had to apply an "oops" occurring for me at any point in time, I would honestly prefer to just raise the kid. It would be me and my partner's mistake, and sometimes you should just live with the choices you make. I don't believe life should have a "rewind" button for "later" -or never.

[Vulcan]

The first thing we do in this life is inhale. The last thing we do is exhale so I believe that life begins when a baby takes it's first breathe. Arguing about sentience is a different question but once a human baby takes a breathe it's a human.

I don't like abortions, especially when used as a form of birth control but than again I'm not a woman so that decision isn't mine.

[TurnedTheCorner]

The definition of when life begins depends entirely on how crazy the person is.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The first thing we do in this life is inhale. The last thing we do is exhale so I believe that life begins when a baby takes it's first breathe. Arguing about sentience is a different question but once a human baby takes a breathe it's a human.

I don't like abortions, especially when used as a form of birth control but than again I'm not a woman so that decision isn't mine.

I can't say I would agree. I would say the first human thing after birth would be breathe. Sure, humans breathe. We also bleed. We also feel various sensations. I can't see why breathing would be a particular indicator of "life as a human being". What about Cesarean section babies? They breathe far before their "time". Also, premature babies are given supplements to increase the surfactant in the lungs so a baby is capable of breathing. There are ways to stimulate early breathing.

By your example, you would classify a child as "human" once it breathes? What about the capacity to breathe?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by valo403

I assume Calgaryborn's bat signal has been triggered

[FlamesAddiction]

My personal belief is that birth is the moment a human fetus becomes a person.

That doesn't mean that fetuses should be below certain considerations that we extend to persons in a legal sense though. I don't see why killing something that isn't a person (which is an artificial quality) should be openly tolerated.

For the record, I am pro-choice from a legal standpoint... I think people should have the choice and it's no else's business. Morally, I am pro-life in most circumstances.

[Makarov]

^ You sort of touch on this, but I think its important to note that just because a fetus isn't legally a person until birth (with all of the rights which come along with that) doesn't mean that the government can't still legitimately regulate something like abortion (for example, by prohibiting or discouraging late term abortions except in extenuating circumstances.)

[valo403]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Who's morality? The bulk of the West is based on Judeo-Christian influences, that is on the way out. What will replace it? Most morality goes back to religion and as society is moving more towards "progressive" concepts beyond religion and erasing the hard lines what will it morph into? This could be the first of many changes as society as the culture moves away from religion.

The society in which the law exists, that's why law is a living breathing thing. It evolves and adapts to suit the society in which it resides. Acting as if law is a static set of rules show a complete lack of understanding of the concept. Do you think the Code of Hammurabi still applies?