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'?

[Artheos]

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/

An argumentum ad hominem? Truly?

Can you debate the content?

[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?

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.

I'm not convinced it is a diversion. Can you demonstrate that it is incorrect?

Isn't it more of a developing potential human being?

I believe this article provides an answer to this question.

In general, this article seems well written, well researched and is public domain and should be worth exploring.

It also directly answers the question of the topic, on a logical and scientific basis.

[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 ..

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?

I already told you, they are making the fallacy of equivocation by equating "a human organism" with "a human being".

Do you think repeating your point stops the logical error?

[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?

I already told you, they are making the fallacy of equivocation by equating "a human organism" with "a human being".

Do you think repeating your point stops the logical error?

You didn't demonstrate a logical error, you shared an opinion without any real support. Further, you didn't address the content, but apparently stated an independent position.

I offer support that you were wrong:

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.

from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4857703 , the first hit I got when I googled, "human being and human organism".

The more we learn about the human nervous system, the more we understand how really unique we are as human organism.

from http://www.biology.buffalo.edu/courses/ ... ture7.html

Again, I corrected you and stated that it the distinction of human being and human organism was arbitrary and it appeared to be there only to support a presupposed position.

Responding with the equivalent of "no, it's not" to the conclusion doesn't really move the discussion forward.

[Goat]

Responding with the equivalent of "no, it's not" to the conclusion doesn't really move the discussion forward.

I did support it. A human being has awareness.. a foetus does not.

Ergo facto, it is the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Your denial of the facts is not withstanding.

Your source (a catholic based web site) might have reasons to try to equate a 'human belign' with a 'human organsim', but, there is no valid reason to outside their bias.

[Artheos]

Responding with the equivalent of "no, it's not" to the conclusion doesn't really move the discussion forward.

I did support it. A human being has awareness.. a foetus does not.

I do agree that you defined what you meant by it, but I don't agree that you supported it in the sense of giving the argument more weight. Additionally, self support and awareness are neither requirements for being human.

1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

Ergo facto, it is the logical fallacy of equivocation.

I'm disinterested in logic unless it is directly related to the science under discussion.

Your denial of the facts is not withstanding.

I'm afraid I'm the one asking to discuss a scientific article, so I can hardly be accused of denying facts.

Your source (a catholic based web site) might have reasons to try to equate a 'human belign' with a 'human organsim', but, there is no valid reason to outside their bias.

You should really drop the bias portion, it weakens your argument in my eyes. I don't care if it was site of folks that worship Mielikki, if the science is good, the science is good.

You also didn't recognize that my second two sources were the NPR and the University at Buffalo - The State University of New York, not to mention dictionary.com.

I'm interested in exploring the answer to the question of when a human being begins, and any scientific studies and research papers that can be brought to bear on this are relevant and should be considered.

I asked it it was wrong, and by that I didn't really expect to get a tautological argument that reinforces the perspective favored.

[FinalEnigma]

I'm interested in exploring the answer to the question of when a human being begins, and any scientific studies and research papers that can be brought to bear on this are relevant and should be considered.

I don't really think Science can answer that question. That is a philosophical question.

Science can tell you when fertilization occurs. Science can also theoretically tell you when consciousness occurs. it can tell you when a fetus becomes capable of self-support, of independent thought, and it even can tell you the earliest a premature baby can be born and survive - but it can't tell you what is defined as a human being, and it can't tell you at what stage of development a fetus becomes, for ethical and moral purposes, a human being.

[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/

An argumentum ad hominem? Truly?

Can you debate the content?

It is not really an ad hominem, it is a character accusation and an exposition of bias. There is a reason a judge is not allowed to deliberate on a case if he is financially, emotionally or otherwise invested in either outcome - bias is a real thing.

I have already on this thread recognized that as a scientist a zygote is genetically no different than that cell will be as an adult, but that does not mean it is biologically the same thing. A fetus is an obligate interorganism parasite unti it reaches the age at which it can survive without assistance for basic biological functions (i.e. breathing, heartbeat).

Technically speaking the article is entirely correct and no self respecting scientist would ever tell you that a human zygote is anything other than human from the moment of conception. The reason there is a debate as to "when a fetus becomes a person" is because there is a difference in the human mind as to what it is to be human and what it is to be a person. This is not a scientific question but a philosophical one and to try to analyze it scientifically is a false attribution fallacy.

Essentially the argument being made in the article is that since the zygote is part of a continuing cycle toward adulthood it is human in every sense of the word. This would be true if it was the subject of scientific debate, but the debate is moral - not biological and can therefore not be answered by science.

On a side note, you have asserted several times that because the source is biased does not mean the science is bad, and I tend to agree in this situation that the science is sound. This does not, however, work as a general rule and it is dangerous reasoning. When science is for hire, it cannot be trusted and there are 3 things that must be considered:

Does the study consider the correct factors and not exclude important agents?

Is the experiment fair and controlled? (does not apply in this case as the conclusion is based on observation, not experimental evidence)

Does the evidence support the conclusion?

Those three are the most important, but there may be one other important question: Does the person/group doing the research have anything to lose by coming up with one conclusion over the other or have any obvious incentive for finding one conclusion over the other? In other words: What is the motive for the research?

The study you are talking about fails on two points:

There is no experimental setup to the study - it is just a matter of redefining terminology and therefore not a true study, and those writing it have an obvious bias in agenda for doing so.

[Artheos]

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/

An argumentum ad hominem? Truly?

Can you debate the content?

It is not really an ad hominem, it is a character accusation and an exposition of bias. There is a reason a judge is not allowed to deliberate on a case if he is financially, emotionally or otherwise invested in either outcome - bias is a real thing.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I based my assessment on the above generally accepted definition, note the emphasized portion.

I have already on this thread recognized that as a scientist a zygote is genetically no different than that cell will be as an adult, but that does not mean it is biologically the same thing. A fetus is an obligate interorganism parasite unti it reaches the age at which it can survive without assistance for basic biological functions (i.e. breathing, heartbeat).

This appears to be the same argument presented by goat. I think your comment about parasitism also intimates a bias. From what I recall, in order to be a parasite, an organism must be a different organism than the parent organism.

Technically speaking the article is entirely correct and no self respecting scientist would ever tell you that a human zygote is anything other than human from the moment of conception.

I appreciate that you've validated the article, does this include the two conclusions below?

The reason there is a debate as to "when a fetus becomes a person" is because there is a difference in the human mind as to what it is to be human and what it is to be a person.

By determining if in fact we are discussing a human being, we can more clearly discuss the resulting questions.

This is not a scientific question but a philosophical one and to try to analyze it scientifically is a false attribution fallacy.

Perhaps, but discussing it with full knowledge of what we can know about the topic scientifically is not only important, but imperative.

Essentially the argument being made in the article is that since the zygote is part of a continuing cycle toward adulthood it is human in every sense of the word. This would be true if it was the subject of scientific debate, but the debate is moral - not biological and can therefore not be answered by science.

The conclusion of the article is:

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.

A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined moment of conception, a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species"human beings.

These are conclusions regarding the nature of the beginning of a human being, and should be established and agreed upon, if they are correct, before proceeding with the discussion of personhood as a philosophical or legal discussion.

On a side note, you have asserted several times that because the source is biased does not mean the science is bad, and I tend to agree in this situation that the science is sound. This does not, however, work as a general rule and it is dangerous reasoning.

I agree, which is why I asked repeatedly for refutation of the content of the article.

The study you are talking about fails on two points:

There is no experimental setup to the study - it is just a matter of redefining terminology and therefore not a true study, and those writing it have an obvious bias in agenda for doing so.

This wasn't an experimental article, but was based on already understood information. In other words, it takes accepted scientific knowledge and parses it, thus experimental study would not be necessary, unless they attempted to introduce previously unknown information. Studying and evaluating existing information is clearly a valid pursuit of knowledge.

The article is complete, the bias is there - note: the bias was introduced directly in the article at the beginning - and all that matters is the content at this point, since we can simply examine the presented argument and determine if the data or conclusion is wrong.

So then, do you agree with the article that from conception, we are talking about a human being?

[Bio-logical]

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I based my assessment on the above generally accepted definition, note the emphasized portion.

You are correct that disregarding any data that comes from a source with an agenda is bad reasoning, but my post was not directed at the author per-se, instead it was meant to enlighten readers that the author comes from a religiously funded group, something that should cause an extra degree of scrutiny while examining conclusions. Bias is a real thing in many aspects of life and when there are occasions that bias is likely it is all the more important to seek it out. The author appears to have done a pretty good job in containing his bias and compensating for it within his writings and conclusions, but the bias is evident in the motive for the research. The paper does not state anything that is new reasoning in any way - life has always been regarded in the same fashion. What he is doing is trying to create a clear definition of human life beginning at conception to open the way for a court case(speculation admitted). This is the same tactic as the Christian effort to redefine marriage as "one man and one woman" and to force textbooks to include the phrase "evolution is only a theory". While in both cases they are doing nothing sinister, they are doing what they do as strategic moves for another motive, and that is the same reason for the article at hand.

I have already on this thread recognized that as a scientist a zygote is genetically no different than that cell will be as an adult, but that does not mean it is biologically the same thing. A fetus is an obligate interorganism parasite unti it reaches the age at which it can survive without assistance for basic biological functions (i.e. breathing, heartbeat).

This appears to be the same argument presented by goat. I think your comment about parasitism also intimates a bias. From what I recall, in order to be a parasite, an organism must be a different organism than the parent organism.

To be defined as a parasitic animal you are correct. However, the definition still holds as far as classification of behavior. A human is not a parasite as an adult and it is irrational to abort every fetus of every placental mammal because it is parisitizing its mother, but that does not change the fact that it is. For the most part the parasitic behavior is beneficial to both mother and child in the long run since it continues her genes and its life, but a fetus is an obligate parasite by every definition of the word outside of it being a different species. This does beg the question, Is a leach any less of a parasite if it attaches itself to a much larger leach?

Technically speaking the article is entirely correct and no self respecting scientist would ever tell you that a human zygote is anything other than human from the moment of conception.

I appreciate that you've validated the article, does this include the two conclusions below?

We'll get there

The reason there is a debate as to "when a fetus becomes a person" is because there is a difference in the human mind as to what it is to be human and what it is to be a person.

By determining if in fact we are discussing a human being, we can more clearly discuss the resulting questions.

This is not a scientific question but a philosophical one and to try to analyze it scientifically is a false attribution fallacy.

Perhaps, but discussing it with full knowledge of what we can know about the topic scientifically is not only important, but imperative.

This is where the bias i referred to before comes into play. The resulting questions would be is it legal to end a human life now that we have scientifically shown a fetus is human? It is not scientifically imperative to know that a fetus is human, we all knew that before the study was done. It would be scientifically imperative to know if a human woman was carrying a canine fetus, since that would not be the kind of fetus we would expect to find in her. What the science behind this is doing is setting the stage for a massive straw man attack which will challenge the law assuming the false idea that we were wrong about what a fetus was when we wrote the law. Nobody ever questioned whether or not an abortion is ending a life that would be human, they just questioned if it is more immoral to end that life or force a woman to allow it live off of and inside of her until that life becomes self-sustainable - an answer which was established a long time ago and since anti-abortionists cannot come up with a way to defeat it, they try to go around it and pretend it was never the question.

Essentially the argument being made in the article is that since the zygote is part of a continuing cycle toward adulthood it is human in every sense of the word. This would be true if it was the subject of scientific debate, but the debate is moral - not biological and can therefore not be answered by science.

The conclusion of the article is:

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.

A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined moment of conception, a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species"human beings.

These are conclusions regarding the nature of the beginning of a human being, and should be established and agreed upon, if they are correct, before proceeding with the discussion of personhood as a philosophical or legal discussion.

They have always been known since we first understood cell biology. Of course a fetus is a living human! What else would it be? These are, as I said, obvious straw man conclusions asserting in a way that presumes it is new knowledge something that has been known forever.

On a side note, you have asserted several times that because the source is biased does not mean the science is bad, and I tend to agree in this situation that the science is sound. This does not, however, work as a general rule and it is dangerous reasoning.

I agree, which is why I asked repeatedly for refutation of the content of the article.

Did I do it yet. Science in article is sound, conclusions sound, motive and necessity are very questionable. I could do the same sort of study definitively proving that gays are human beings as well if I were ramping up for a human rights case on their side.

The study you are talking about fails on two points:

There is no experimental setup to the study - it is just a matter of redefining terminology and therefore not a true study, and those writing it have an obvious bias in agenda for doing so.

This wasn't an experimental article, but was based on already understood information. In other words, it takes accepted scientific knowledge and parses it, thus experimental study would not be necessary, unless they attempted to introduce previously unknown information. Studying and evaluating existing information is clearly a valid pursuit of knowledge.

The article is complete, the bias is there - note: the bias was introduced directly in the article at the beginning - and all that matters is the content at this point, since we can simply examine the presented argument and determine if the data or conclusion is wrong.

So then, do you agree with the article that from conception, we are talking about a human being?

I always have and so has the rest of science. These are not new conclusions just common knowledge repackaged in artillery shells.