When does a fetus become a Human Person with Rights?

Abortion is the focus of some of the most intense social, cultural, political, religious, and ethical debates in modern American society. Some regard abortion as something people should be able to choose while others say abortion is a great evil which is destroying the moral fabric of society. Many of the debates turn on the status of the fetus: Is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have moral or legal rights? How we define a person and the fetus may decide the abortion debates.

The simplest definition of a person may be "a member of the species homo sapiens, the human species." The fetus obviously has the same DNA as everyone else and can't possibly be classified as any species other than homo sapiens, so isn't it obviously a person?

One premise in the argument that homo sapiens are the same as persons with rights is the idea who we are today was all present in a fertilized ovum because all our DNA was there. This is wrong. Much of what we are, even physical traits like fingerprints, is not determined by DNA. An embryo may or may not split into twins or more. Twins, identical or fraternal, may join during development, leading to a single person with more than one set of DNA. Environment counts for much of what we are.

Maybe we should focus on the ability to have interests: if someone is going to have a claim to a right to life, shouldn't we first require that they have an interest in living and continuing to live? An ant has no conception of self and no interest in living, so has no right to life, but an adult human does. Where on this continuum does a fetus fall? Not until the necessary brain connections and activity exist, and that's not until several months into a pregnancy.

If someone has a claim to a right to live, shouldn't they have some sort of independent life of their own? A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a "right" to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman. The same isn't true of anyone else - at most, a person's claim might entail support and help from the community at large. It would not, however, entail being hooked up to the circulatory system of another human.

For many religious believers, a person has rights because they are endowed by God with a soul. It is thus the soul that makes them a person and requires that they be protected. There are different opinions, though, on when a soul appears. Some say conception, some say at "quickening," when the fetus begins to move. The state has no authority to even declare that a soul exists, however, much less pick one religious conception of the soul and decide when it enters a human body.

Even if the fetus isn't a person from a scientific or religious perspective, it could still be declared a person in a legal sense. If corporations can be treated as persons under the law, why not a fetus? Even if we decided that a fetus isn't a person, that doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal. Many non-persons, like animals, are protected. The state could theoretically assert an interest in protecting potential human life, even if it isn't a person, but does it even matter if the fetus is a person?
Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone's body? No - it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one's body to save the life of another, but it couldn't be forced by the law.

It is assumed that if the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. This position is incompatible with what most people believe, even most anti-choice activists. If the fetus is a person and abortion is murder, then those involved should be treated like murderers. Almost no one says that either abortion providers or the women should go to jail for murder. Making exceptions for rape, incest, and even the mother's life are also incompatible with the idea that abortion is murder.

Many may assume that a proper definition of "person" would end debates over abortion, but reality is more complex than this simplistic assumption allows. Abortion debates involve debates about the status and rights of the fetus, but they are also about far more. It is arguable that the right to an abortion is primarily a right of a woman to control what happens to her body and that the death of the fetus, person or not, is an unavoidable consequence of choosing not to remain pregnant.

It is little wonder that many people are anti-abortion in the sense of not approving of the death of a fetus, but pro-choice because they regard the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body as fundamental and necessary. For this reason, then, anti-abortion activists in America are best described as anti-choice because the ability of women to choose is the political issue.

Comments on topic would be appreciated.

 

At conception. It is the only non-arbitrary threshold that can be used.

 

At 18 years.

 

so you disagree with yourself then.

Is a blastocyst a human being?

 

On the contrary, your ignorance is showing!

Does a blastocyst come before conception or after? I would educate myself before making yourself look so stupid in the future.

 

Don't you know .. after conception "obviously"

 

Of course I know, but now do you see how your assertion that I contradicted myself is ignorant?

 

not at all because you have, and if you cannot see that then you are blind.

 

Oh? I thought life began at 40.

 

OK I suppose I have to spoon feed this to you.

I said life begins at conception.
you said that if I say a blastocyst is a human being, then I am contradicting that assertion.
Then You admit that a blastocyst comes after conception.

So if I am saying life begins at conception, stay with me here....focus
and I say a blastocyst is a human being
And a blastocyst comes after conception,

My assertions are consistent, not contradictory!

 

It is contradictory because you have also said that there is a "person" at conception, interchanging life and human being or "person" doesn't work, they are different things.. I do not disagree that there is life at conception, there is also life before conception, whether that life is a "person" is debatable.
To say that a blastocyst is a human being is factually incorrect, the truth is that part of the blastocyst will become a human being, while the rest of it will become the placenta .. the blastocyst as a whole is not a human being or "person."

life does not a human being make.

 

What are the defining qualities of personhood?

 

A sperm is every bit as much of a potential person as a blastocyst, just in a different phase. Also, it is alive in the same way. A living cell that could potentially become a human being.

But somehow it is ok to kill millions of those in an attempt to make 1 blastocyst. Sometimes, it's ok to kill millions of those and just send em down the shower drain for no other reason besides "It feels good".

That is where the hypocrisy part comes in. At least in my mind.

 

Are you asking me?

 

you say they are different things, in actual reality they are not. Therein lies your confusion.

A distinct human life begins at conception, I am surprised after all that has been posted here you still don't understand that!

A blastocyst is a person, the fact that the person creates the placenta with a portion of his/her cells does nothing to negate personhood at all.

 

You keep repeating this claim over and over again yet provide no valid arguent in support of this position. Then you run away and hide, and show up on another threat spouting the same claim with no support.

Where is your evidence, argument, logic or anything valid that supports your conclusion that the Blastocyst is a living human ?

 

You made many good points, however here are some nitpicks:

Id say that self-awareness and interest in living are pretty advanced mental feats that even born babies do not have until months or years after birth. A foetus with brain activity is possibly sentient (capable of feeling) and has some mental states, but nothing too complex.

Not true after the foetus is viable. This occurs at around 6th month, and will probably be reduced with advancement in medicine.

Dont they? I think many pro-life indeed want this.

 

No, I'm a painfully slow typist!

The youngest ever surviving premature baby was 21 weeks six days gestation. He has held that record for a decade of medical advances. More "older" premies survive nowadays, with fewer handicaps than before, but we seem to be at or near the minimum survivable age, short of an artificial womb being invented.

 

You should actually read my posts, you may learn something.

 

Should you ever decide to give valid support for your claim I would be happy to read and learn. Thusfar you have not even bothered to make an argument, never mind a valid one.

There is not much to be learned from you restating our claim , over and over and over and over.

 

That is not what you said, you said "life" begins at conception, which is true .. you cannot squirm out of your failure just be adding "distinct human" to your original assertion in order to try and support your inaccurate claim that "person" and "life" are the same.

How many times does it have to be said (& proven) before it sinks in .. there is no "person" in a blastocyst, so how can he/she "create" the placenta. Every single cell there has the capability to become a fetus, there is no conscience decision for some to become the fetus and others to become the placenta, a decision involves making a choice . are you know trying to say that these cells can make choices.

 

You just continue to post illogical and irrational junk. See the bolded part of your own quote.

 

Life begins at birth. Sorry but that is a scientific fact.

 

Even Roe V Wade disagrees with that idiocy!

 

You are both wrong, life actually began 4 billion years ago. lol

Personhood is what is important, not life.