Why does it matter whether a fetus is life or not?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

[realthinker]

i mostly agree with you Joey, but i don't feel a fetus is self-aware. they're conscious, but surely not aware of their own consciousness. as i continue to think about it (and literally hit myself), i suppose any stimulatiuon from pain would be an experience regardless of the level of consciousness. maybe i'm just becoming too depersonalized or something...

when i said "primitive", i was using it in comparison to other biological systems. for example, ours is far more complex and intricate than a fetus.

whether an abortion is painful or not for the fetus is not really an issue, in my opinion.

I'm quoting this post simply because it's last in the line having to do with pain, not for a particular point here.

Pain is a neurological response and as such is a simple biological fact. Pain is not a factor in morality. We feel pain every day for mundane reasons, perhaps even from simply what we eat or where we step. Such pain is not wrong, and certainly not evil, nor even reprehensible.

Pain is a factor in morality when a second, or perhaps third party witnesses another's pain as suffering. When we witness another person in pain that we can mitigate, most of us feel a moral compulsion to relieve that pain. When we witness someone causing another unnecessary pain we feel we are witnessing a moral wrong.

Suffering is an emotional reaction to pain. It is regret that there is pain. Suffering requires a cognitive capacity.

I believe that in the case of a fetus there is likely pain because of the simple neurological fact that it may have pain receptors. But I believe there is no suffering because there is no capacity to have a cognitive reaction to that pain.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 8 Post 80:

i mostly agree with you Joey, but i don't feel a fetus is self-aware. they're conscious, but surely not aware of their own consciousness.

I also see where you're coming from, I just disagree on whether self-awareness is a viable test under these circumstances. To me it doesn't so much matter whether a fetus can tell if its coming or going, but that it is indeed a life. I see these "self-aware" tests as a bit of a dodge regarding the more difficult issue of a fetus being a living being.

If I tie your position into the OP, I must conclude "since a fetus is not self-aware it is not a life", or some such similar language. To me this fails entirely based on the fact that a fetus is a life, deserving of its own protections, with provisions for the mother's rights.

when i said "primitive", i was using it in comparison to other biological systems. for example, ours is far more complex and intricate than a fetus.

I could only agree on the most superficial level here. A fetus is a real or potential human being.

whether an abortion is painful or not for the fetus is not really an issue, in my opinion.

Ask the fetus if he thinks its an issue.

My point in all this to ensure we don't just dismiss the fetus, but grapple with the very complex issue of what it means to abort a fellow human being. I don't accept the "easy outs" but contend we must think long and hard before we say killing another life, a relatively defenseless life, is what we as a society wish to condone.

I accept the mother has every right to her body, and I think that is the bottom line. What I won't do is try to diminish the importance of a fetus as a human being in order to make these difficult decisions more acceptable, or comfortable.

[Confused]

i mostly agree with you Joey, but i don't feel a fetus is self-aware. they're conscious, but surely not aware of their own consciousness. as i continue to think about it (and literally hit myself), i suppose any stimulatiuon from pain would be an experience regardless of the level of consciousness. maybe i'm just becoming too depersonalized or something...

when i said "primitive", i was using it in comparison to other biological systems. for example, ours is far more complex and intricate than a fetus.

whether an abortion is painful or not for the fetus is not really an issue, in my opinion.

Do you have anything to support your belief that a fetus is self aware? Any evidence to support your belief they hold no self-consciousness?

[scourge99]

i mostly agree with you Joey, but i don't feel a fetus is self-aware. they're conscious, but surely not aware of their own consciousness. as i continue to think about it (and literally hit myself), i suppose any stimulatiuon from pain would be an experience regardless of the level of consciousness. maybe i'm just becoming too depersonalized or something...

when i said "primitive", i was using it in comparison to other biological systems. for example, ours is far more complex and intricate than a fetus.

whether an abortion is painful or not for the fetus is not really an issue, in my opinion.

Do you have anything to support your belief that a fetus is self aware? Any evidence to support your belief they hold no self-consciousness?

I think what you mean to ask is WHEN does a fetus typically become sentient and when does a fetus become conscious. One would have to examine the development of a fetus. Assuming conscious thought is dependent on the body then there are distinct periods of time when organs such as the brain and central nerveous system develop. I believe its known that somewhere near the end of the second trimester that the brain and nerveous system is developed enough where conciousness is at least physically possible.

[tickitytak]

i mostly agree with you Joey, but i don't feel a fetus is self-aware. they're conscious, but surely not aware of their own consciousness. as i continue to think about it (and literally hit myself), i suppose any stimulatiuon from pain would be an experience regardless of the level of consciousness. maybe i'm just becoming too depersonalized or something...

when i said "primitive", i was using it in comparison to other biological systems. for example, ours is far more complex and intricate than a fetus.

whether an abortion is painful or not for the fetus is not really an issue, in my opinion.

Do you have anything to support your belief that a fetus is self aware? Any evidence to support your belief they hold no self-consciousness?

language is required for self-awareness. without it, you can't begin to recognize, comprehend or organize thoughts. there is some self-awareness in certain animals, and these animals can communicate in a very primitive language. for example, apes can be taught sign language and communicate their feelings or desires.. even recognize themselves in a mirror (though this recognition isn't solid proof of awareness of the self).

a fetus does not have language or a developed brain. it may be conscious on some level, but it cannot be self-conscious.

[McCulloch]

language is required for self-awareness.

Really? You have evidence? I cannot find the reference, but I think Pinker disagrees.

[realthinker]

From Page 8 Post 80:

i mostly agree with you Joey, but i don't feel a fetus is self-aware. they're conscious, but surely not aware of their own consciousness.

I also see where you're coming from, I just disagree on whether self-awareness is a viable test under these circumstances. To me it doesn't so much matter whether a fetus can tell if its coming or going, but that it is indeed a life. I see these "self-aware" tests as a bit of a dodge regarding the more difficult issue of a fetus being a living being.

If I tie your position into the OP, I must conclude "since a fetus is not self-aware it is not a life", or some such similar language. To me this fails entirely based on the fact that a fetus is a life, deserving of its own protections, with provisions for the mother's rights.

when i said "primitive", i was using it in comparison to other biological systems. for example, ours is far more complex and intricate than a fetus.

I could only agree on the most superficial level here. A fetus is a real or potential human being.

whether an abortion is painful or not for the fetus is not really an issue, in my opinion.

Ask the fetus if he thinks its an issue.

My point in all this to ensure we don't just dismiss the fetus, but grapple with the very complex issue of what it means to abort a fellow human being. I don't accept the "easy outs" but contend we must think long and hard before we say killing another life, a relatively defenseless life, is what we as a society wish to condone.

I accept the mother has every right to her body, and I think that is the bottom line. What I won't do is try to diminish the importance of a fetus as a human being in order to make these difficult decisions more acceptable, or comfortable.

You're missing the point. A fetus before viability is NOT a human being. It cannot be because it has not developed such that it can live from its own biological processes. It is simply not capable of being a human being. You cannot ask it anything because it's incapable of understanding or responding in any fashion. it cannot even sustain its life. It is necessarily sustained by its mother's life.

No amount of anticipating what it may become changes what it is, or what it is not.

[scourge99]

From Page 8 Post 80:

i mostly agree with you Joey, but i don't feel a fetus is self-aware. they're conscious, but surely not aware of their own consciousness.

I also see where you're coming from, I just disagree on whether self-awareness is a viable test under these circumstances. To me it doesn't so much matter whether a fetus can tell if its coming or going, but that it is indeed a life. I see these "self-aware" tests as a bit of a dodge regarding the more difficult issue of a fetus being a living being.

If I tie your position into the OP, I must conclude "since a fetus is not self-aware it is not a life", or some such similar language. To me this fails entirely based on the fact that a fetus is a life, deserving of its own protections, with provisions for the mother's rights.

when i said "primitive", i was using it in comparison to other biological systems. for example, ours is far more complex and intricate than a fetus.

I could only agree on the most superficial level here. A fetus is a real or potential human being.

whether an abortion is painful or not for the fetus is not really an issue, in my opinion.

Ask the fetus if he thinks its an issue.

My point in all this to ensure we don't just dismiss the fetus, but grapple with the very complex issue of what it means to abort a fellow human being. I don't accept the "easy outs" but contend we must think long and hard before we say killing another life, a relatively defenseless life, is what we as a society wish to condone.

I accept the mother has every right to her body, and I think that is the bottom line. What I won't do is try to diminish the importance of a fetus as a human being in order to make these difficult decisions more acceptable, or comfortable.

You're missing the point. A fetus before viability is NOT a human being. It cannot be because it has not developed such that it can live from its own biological processes. It is simply not capable of being a human being.

Why do you presume viability is what biologists use when determining an organisms species? A fetus is undoubtedly a human being. It is not an adult human being but it is a human being nonetheless.

You cannot ask it anything because it's incapable of understanding or responding in any fashion. it cannot even sustain its life. It is necessarily sustained by its mother's life.

Hence its designation as a fetus. A human fetus; homo sapien sapien.

[JoeyKnothead]

You're missing the point. A fetus before viability is NOT a human being. It cannot be because it has not developed such that it can live from its own biological processes. It is simply not capable of being a human being.

Why do you presume viability is what biologists use when determining an organisms species? A fetus is undoubtedly a human being. It is not an adult human being but it is a human being nonetheless.

You cannot ask it anything because it's incapable of understanding or responding in any fashion. it cannot even sustain its life. It is necessarily sustained by its mother's life.

Hence its designation as a fetus. A human fetus; homo sapien sapien.

I'll echo scourge99's position, and ask the same questions.

[realthinker]

From Page 8 Post 80:

i mostly agree with you Joey, but i don't feel a fetus is self-aware. they're conscious, but surely not aware of their own consciousness.

I also see where you're coming from, I just disagree on whether self-awareness is a viable test under these circumstances. To me it doesn't so much matter whether a fetus can tell if its coming or going, but that it is indeed a life. I see these "self-aware" tests as a bit of a dodge regarding the more difficult issue of a fetus being a living being.

If I tie your position into the OP, I must conclude "since a fetus is not self-aware it is not a life", or some such similar language. To me this fails entirely based on the fact that a fetus is a life, deserving of its own protections, with provisions for the mother's rights.

when i said "primitive", i was using it in comparison to other biological systems. for example, ours is far more complex and intricate than a fetus.

I could only agree on the most superficial level here. A fetus is a real or potential human being.

whether an abortion is painful or not for the fetus is not really an issue, in my opinion.

Ask the fetus if he thinks its an issue.

My point in all this to ensure we don't just dismiss the fetus, but grapple with the very complex issue of what it means to abort a fellow human being. I don't accept the "easy outs" but contend we must think long and hard before we say killing another life, a relatively defenseless life, is what we as a society wish to condone.

I accept the mother has every right to her body, and I think that is the bottom line. What I won't do is try to diminish the importance of a fetus as a human being in order to make these difficult decisions more acceptable, or comfortable.

You're missing the point. A fetus before viability is NOT a human being. It cannot be because it has not developed such that it can live from its own biological processes. It is simply not capable of being a human being.

Why do you presume viability is what biologists use when determining an organisms species? A fetus is undoubtedly a human being. It is not an adult human being but it is a human being nonetheless.

You cannot ask it anything because it's incapable of understanding or responding in any fashion. it cannot even sustain its life. It is necessarily sustained by its mother's life.

Hence its designation as a fetus. A human fetus; homo sapien sapien.

I'm not arguing the labeling. I'm arguing the significance. It's obviously human. But without life of its own, independent and without necessary encumbrance upon any particular other life, it cannot be a human being. It is necessarily subordinate to the life the mother upon whom its continuance depends.

For a fetus to have a right to life before it is on its own viable one must also give it some right to its mother's life as well. We would not do that for a living person. If an ailing person's life were tied necessarily to the life of one very particular individual person we would not take away that individual's right to life and livelihood to sustain the other. We'd not force that individual to attach his body to another's and assume threat to his own life and to sacrifice his livelihood, even for a temporary condition. Rather we'd accept the death of the ailing individual as a proper consequence of the ailment. No one has the right to another's life. That's why we don't have slavery. That's why we don't force donation of blood or organs.