When is human life legally considered a person?

[tjinaz]

Debate over when a fetus/baby actually is considered a person and protected by law has been going on for years.

Ethics board at Oxford now says it should be legal to kill newborns. Not that different from a fetus and should have no rights. A logical extension of the abortion argument just taken outside the body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...perts-say.html

Discuss.

[Makarov]

I can actually see the argument from a purely academic perspective (in the sense that it seems very doubtful that a newborn baby is self-aware in any meaningful way), but then it raises the very troublesome issue of where does one actually draw the line. Practically speaking, birth is just such a nice, clear line in the sand demarking "personhood" that I think it would be crazy to abandon it.

[tjinaz]

The other disturbing thing in the article is the idea of killing disabled babies. It appears the concept of Eugenics never really died.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

The other disturbing thing in the article is the idea of killing disabled babies. It appears the concept of Eugenics never really died.

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. That is a horrific devaluing of the lives of disabled persons and really cannot be tolerated (in Canadian society anyway).

EDIT: Although, on second thought, is it intolerable if a person chose to abort a fetus because a doctor diagnosed (within the first couple of months for example) that the child would be born with some horrible disablility? I don't know. These are actually quite interesting moral problems.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

The other disturbing thing in the article is the idea of killing disabled babies. It appears the concept of Eugenics never really died.

Of course it never died, it just moves to different societies.

I remember when my sister was pregnant with her first, and the doctor said that there was a good chance that the Baby would be born with Down's and he started talking to her about aborting it.

She carried the baby to term and fortunately he was a perfect kid, but to an extent that discussion is eugenics.

The Chinese have been practicing sex based eugenics forever due to their limititation on number of kids, its not eugenics in its purest form but its an unintended side effect of family limitations.

To me the clear line in the sand is at birth, even though a part of me things that a fetus is a functional being far earlier then that, but it can't function outside of the mothers body.

But there is proof of brain activity beyond autonomic functions.

[Flabbibulin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe their intention is the opposite of what many will assume and their conclusions are highly sarcastic- ie. if it is permissible to kill a fetus, why not newborns as well??

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Of course it never died, it just moves to different societies.

I remember when my sister was pregnant with her first, and the doctor said that there was a good chance that the Baby would be born with Down's and he started talking to her about aborting it.

She carried the baby to term and fortunately he was a perfect kid, but to an extent that discussion is eugenics.

The Chinese have been practicing sex based eugenics forever due to their limititation on number of kids, its not eugenics in its purest form but its an unintended side effect of family limitations.

To me the clear line in the sand is at birth, even though a part of me things that a fetus is a functional being far earlier then that, but it can't function outside of the mothers body.

But there is proof of brain activity beyond autonomic functions.

You posted before my edit, but this is exactly the sort of circumstances I was talking about. I mean, would your sister have been morally culpable if they had decided that they weren't prepared to raise a severely disabled child? I don't think so.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe their intention is the opposite of what many will assume and their conclusions are highly sarcastic- ie. if it is permissible to kill a fetus, why not newborns as well??

You mean that you think this was released with a pro-life agenda? Yeah, I suppose that is possible. I actually think that its a legitimate and interesting question though (no doubt one that is emotionally charged though).

[kirant]

EDIT - Reading fail

[Makarov]

For the record, I don't think that I support late term abortions (in the absence of extenuating circumstances), but that is different than assigning actual "personhood" to an unborn fetus. For example, if an unborn fetus is, legally and morally, a person, should it be legal or moral to permit an unborn child to die if it is necessary to save the life of the mother? These are really difficult questions but I think that they are legitimate to ask.

[valo403]

I assume Calgaryborn's bat signal has been triggered

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

You posted before my edit, but this is exactly the sort of circumstances I was talking about. I mean, would your sister have been morally culpable if they had decided that they weren't prepared to raise a severely disabled child? I don't think so.

I think that's almost a subjective argument, her decision whichever way is effected by her moral values so yes she is responsible for her own decision.

She also based her decision on her own values, what seperates this argument for Eugenics is that the choice was left to the family. On the Eugenics equation the state would have mandated the termination of the pregnancy and the mother would have no choice in the matter. In that scenario she would have no moral cupability.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I can actually see the argument from a purely academic perspective (in the sense that it seems very doubtful that a newborn baby is self-aware in any meaningful way), but then it raises the very troublesome issue of where does one actually draw the line. Practically speaking, birth is just such a nice, clear line in the sand demarking "personhood" that I think it would be crazy to abandon it.

This always has seemed like a thought process I've imagined working quite well. The legal system works pretty poorly with this region of thought and the science/practical applications don't line up well.

Academically speaking, he has said very little wrong...Newborns probably can't be classified as human persons, but potential human persons. Legally though, it becomes a massive mess as theory can't be applied well to real world cases and many borderline cases will be called into play.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by kirant

Academically speaking, he has said very little wrong...Newborns probably can't be classified as human persons, but potential human persons.

Sorry, but that conclusion is a joke.

edit- I wonder what the general consensus would be if we made the same conclusion with household pets like cats or dogs- a newborn puppy cant be considered a sentient being yet, therefore we should be allowed to kill half a litter if we want. Crazy to think this theory would probably receive more outrage in our society than the one presented by this study.

I really don't understand what is wrong with freedom to choose, but with very clear restrictions? If you're pregnant at 3-4 months for example, you should be able to decide at that time whether you want to go ahead with the full term. Insert argument about pregnancy problems, Down's syndrome etc etc... ya ya, i understand those are often revealed later in the pregnancy.

[tjinaz]

Sorry, but that conclusion is a joke.

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.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Sorry, but that conclusion is a joke.

Removing morality, the bare definitions of persons makes their extension that newborns don't have perfect right to life is true. As the original article notes, this is not new ground and has been stated in other places before.

There is no clear distinction for making judgements as to when to end this process however. How can you prove to someone they've moved to become suffiently self-aware? This is where academics (which in this case is cold and cruel, but rational) and law (which may not follow the intent perfectly, but is the best we can get) contrast with each other. I don't think there is a perfect solution that'll completely satsify the academic definition.

EDIT - of course, it's even worse with morals added...morally, killing a newborn is pretty bad.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. That is a horrific devaluing of the lives of disabled persons and really cannot be tolerated (in Canadian society anyway).

EDIT: Although, on second thought, is it intolerable if a person chose to abort a fetus because a doctor diagnosed (within the first couple of months for example) that the child would be born with some horrible disablility? I don't know. These are actually quite interesting moral problems.

There was a time when severely disabled kids were put to one side of the delivary room at birth and it was left to fate to decide, most just passed away in the first few minutes, it is weird and unfortunate that medical science has advanced to a point where they can keep just about anything alive without really considering whether that is, in and of itself, a good thing.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Sorry, but that conclusion is a joke.

edit- I wonder what the general consensus would be if we made the same conclusion with household pets like cats or dogs- a newborn puppy cant be considered a sentient being yet, therefore we should be allowed to kill half a litter if we want. Crazy to think this theory would probably receive more outrage in our society than the one presented by this study.

This strikes me as a bit of a strange example. Don't farmers routinely drown litters of kittens or puppies in burlap sacks in the river if they can't find a good home for them? Or is this just a stereotype (I don't know any actual farmers)?

[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.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This strikes me as a bit of a strange example. Don't farmers routinely drown litters of kittens or puppies in burlap sacks in the river if they can't find a good home for them? Or is this just a stereotype (I don't know any actual farmers)?

It was an attempt to point out the social value that we now seem to place on human infants, and not an actual comparison of the development of dogs and humans.