At what stage does the foetus become a person?

[otseng]

From Murder of abortion provider George Tiller:

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

If pressed on the issue, I would argue that it is not until a baby is able to understand some form of language with explicit lexical content that it attains the full status of personhood with all the rights due to it. But that would take far too long to explain here.

I am tending toward a detemination based on when the complex neo-cortex develops to a stage where it supports self aware consciousness.

For debate:
At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

[otseng]

apologies to Otseng here. These few posts are only partially related to the topic at hand.

Though it's not related to the topic, I'm glad you chimed in. As a matter of fact, I liked your post so much I put some tokens in your tip jar.

But, if you would like to continue the discussion on it, please start a new thread so it would be easier to find. And I hope it will continue to have the open and sensitive discussion that has been shown so far.

[aerobatty]

You're right about the world's view on it. although I read once that there is a country(I don't remember what country) that has outlawed suicide, and made suicide attempts punishable by death.

Sounds like you can't lose if you want to off yourself. Unless, of course, they make the punishment death slow and painful.

[aliadams]

40 days to become a separate person, no abortion after that.
40 days is a grace period in case of rape.

40 weeks is born

40 lunar months long term memory starts functioning

40 lunar years wisdom is bestowed upon the human mind.

and God knows best.

Ali Adams
God > infinity

[Artheos]

From Murder of abortion provider George Tiller:

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

If pressed on the issue, I would argue that it is not until a baby is able to understand some form of language with explicit lexical content that it attains the full status of personhood with all the rights due to it. But that would take far too long to explain here.

I am tending toward a detemination based on when the complex neo-cortex develops to a stage where it supports self aware consciousness.

For debate:
At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I found a paper here: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/ima ... _print.pdf

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism"i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception. This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

Are they wrong?

[Goat]

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I found a paper here: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/ima ... _print.pdf

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism"i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception. This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

Are they wrong?

Yes, they are. They are invalidly equating human organism and human being.

[Artheos]

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I found a paper here: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/ima ... _print.pdf

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism"i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception. This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

Are they wrong?

Yes, they are. They are invalidly equating human organism and human being.

And what is the difference?

[Goat]

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I found a paper here: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/ima ... _print.pdf

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism"i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception. This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

Are they wrong?

Yes, they are. They are invalidly equating human organism and human being.

And what is the difference?

Consciousness for one. Also, being able to exist independently ..

[Artheos]

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I found a paper here: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/ima ... _print.pdf

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism"i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception. This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

Are they wrong?

Yes, they are. They are invalidly equating human organism and human being.

And what is the difference?

Consciousness for one. Also, being able to exist independently ..

I would point out that the scientists who wrote the paper appeared to equate human organism with human being, "is this new cell a new human organism"i.e., a new human being?"

It seems like this is an attempt to recover earlier arguments by drawing a distinction where there wasn't one previously.

Here's the reasoning they followed broken out:

1) Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second.
2) Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development.
3) The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism.
4) Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception.

How is this wrong?

[Cathar1950]

I haven't finished reading it yet, but I found a paper here: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/ima ... _print.pdf

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism"i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception. This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

Are they wrong?

Yes, they are. They are invalidly equating human organism and human being.

And what is the difference?

Consciousness for one. Also, being able to exist independently ..

I would point out that the scientists who wrote the paper appeared to equate human organism with human being, "is this new cell a new human organism"i.e., a new human being?"

It seems like this is an attempt to recover earlier arguments by drawing a distinction where there wasn't one previously.

Here's the reasoning they followed broken out:

1) Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second.
2) Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development.
3) The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism.
4) Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception.

How is this wrong?

It is also a fetus. It is not a newborn or a premature baby. But this all seems to boil down to the definition of a human being. Is human potential the same as being a human? Isn't it more of a developing potential human being?
I think that is a big leap from what we mean by a human being or persons.
I don't think anyone is doubting there is something different then the egg and the sperm. This sounds a little like a diversion.

[Bio-logical]

The westchester institute for ethics and the human person is a known religious think tank. they are funded by churches and it is science with the mission, from their website, "The relationship between religion, science, and reason as sources of moral insight for modern society."

This is not objective science any more than a tobacco company finding cigarettes aren't addictive.

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/