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?

[scourge99]

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.

That doesn't make it any less human. I.E., it doesn't make it any less of a homo sapien sapien.

You seem to be struggling with this so let me help you. I wouldn't call a fetus a "person". All "persons" (excluding the issue of highly intelligent animals and the possibility of extra terrestrials; lets not go into that just yet) we know are humans. But not all "persons" are humans.

"Person" is obviously a subjective term but it fits well in differentiating between a thinking, conscious, self aware, self determining being and one that is not, for example, a fetus or a brain dead human.

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.

But there is a difference between indifference/neglect and active destruction. That is, there is a difference between actively killing the fetus instead of the fetus simply dying from natural causes.

If a quadriplegic homeless man was sleeping in your bed unarmed and was not threatening your life then by law you aren't allowed to kill him. You are allowed to call the authorities to have him removed but you cannot do harm to him unless you fear for your life or the life of others. But the difference is the homeless man can be removed without harm to his life. The fetus cannot be. Would it be acceptable for you to remove the man from your house if the act would kill him? To further complicate matters, what if you invited the man into your house and then only later decided you wanted him to leave knowing full well that he would die if he did?

....alright... analogies are getting to weird. I'll cut to the chase.

Rights are established by the citizen state contract. At what point should a human be granted protection under the state? Conception? 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester? Birth? When they are named? Never?

Each of the listed times was used at one time or another by a different society for the determination. Which one do you agree with. Why or why not?

[realthinker]

Rights are established by the citizen state contract. At what point should a human be granted protection under the state? Conception? 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester? Birth? When they are named? Never?

Each of the listed times was used at one time or another by a different society for the determination. Which one do you agree with. Why or why not?

None of those, really. I believe that when the life of the fetus is no longer necessarily an encumbrance upon another distinct individual's life it can have full rights under the law as any other minor person. That means at viability. At the point that the child can be successfully separated from its mother and reared outside the womb it is a complete human being. Until then it's subordinate to the mother and cannot have a fully protected right to life because it is not entitled to the life of the mother, which is necessary for its continuance.

The decision regarding viability is something doctors make today already. They won't take a baby until its biological functions are sufficient for it to survive separated from its mother. The same judgment should be valid to determine the point after which abortion becomes murder.

[scourge99]

Rights are established by the citizen state contract. At what point should a human be granted protection under the state? Conception? 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester? Birth? When they are named? Never?

Each of the listed times was used at one time or another by a different society for the determination. Which one do you agree with. Why or why not?

None of those, really. I believe that when the life of the fetus is no longer necessarily an encumbrance upon another distinct individual's life it can have full rights under the law as any other minor person. That means at viability. At the point that the child can be successfully separated from its mother and reared outside the womb it is a complete human being. Until then it's subordinate to the mother and cannot have a fully protected right to life because it is not entitled to the life of the mother, which is necessary for its continuance.

Your arguments contradict eachother. Perhaps you can clear up some of my questions: A baby is an encumberance upon someone, usually the mother despite the fact it can survive out of the womb. A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

The decision regarding viability is something doctors make today already. They won't take a baby until its biological functions are sufficient for it to survive separated from its mother. The same judgment should be valid to determine the point after which abortion becomes murder.

Its a current medical fact that at different stages in development a fetus' chance of survival outside the womb are anywhere between 0% and close to 100%. How is that relevant to an argument regarding morality when removing the fetus is an intentional act? If human life is intrinsically valuable then wouldn't it make sense to try to save/preserve that life by not aborting it forcefully?

[realthinker]

Rights are established by the citizen state contract. At what point should a human be granted protection under the state? Conception? 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester? Birth? When they are named? Never?

Each of the listed times was used at one time or another by a different society for the determination. Which one do you agree with. Why or why not?

None of those, really. I believe that when the life of the fetus is no longer necessarily an encumbrance upon another distinct individual's life it can have full rights under the law as any other minor person. That means at viability. At the point that the child can be successfully separated from its mother and reared outside the womb it is a complete human being. Until then it's subordinate to the mother and cannot have a fully protected right to life because it is not entitled to the life of the mother, which is necessary for its continuance.

Your arguments contradict eachother. Perhaps you can clear up some of my questions: A baby is an encumberance upon someone, usually the mother despite the fact it can survive out of the womb.

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

The decision regarding viability is something doctors make today already. They won't take a baby until its biological functions are sufficient for it to survive separated from its mother. The same judgment should be valid to determine the point after which abortion becomes murder.

Its a current medical fact that at different stages in development a fetus' chance of survival outside the womb are anywhere between 0% and close to 100%. How is that relevant to an argument regarding morality when removing the fetus is an intentional act? If human life is intrinsically valuable then wouldn't it make sense to try to save/preserve that life by not aborting it forcefully?

Before viability that fetus does not have independent life of its own. The mother has a right to deny its right to her life.

Human life is not intrinsically valuable. It is at best valuable to other humans who might interact even remotely with an individual, and to those other organisms that might directly benefit from the life of an individual. I have no value for any individual whom I have no knowledge of. My existence is in no fashion improved by the fact that most of the people of the world exist. In fact, my life would be greatly improved if most of the people of the world did not exist.

[scourge99]

Rights are established by the citizen state contract. At what point should a human be granted protection under the state? Conception? 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester? Birth? When they are named? Never?

Each of the listed times was used at one time or another by a different society for the determination. Which one do you agree with. Why or why not?

None of those, really. I believe that when the life of the fetus is no longer necessarily an encumbrance upon another distinct individual's life it can have full rights under the law as any other minor person. That means at viability. At the point that the child can be successfully separated from its mother and reared outside the womb it is a complete human being. Until then it's subordinate to the mother and cannot have a fully protected right to life because it is not entitled to the life of the mother, which is necessary for its continuance.

Your arguments contradict eachother. Perhaps you can clear up some of my questions: A baby is an encumberance upon someone, usually the mother despite the fact it can survive out of the womb.

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

So? Instead of forcing the burden on the mother you are forcing it upon someone else otherwise the same result happens: the child/fetus dies.

This is like arguing that its OK to remove the child from a mother's womb because some other mother MAY choose to put it within her's. You are just forgoing the consequences of death that inevitably results without SOMEONE filling the responsibility the mother has left.

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

And you CONTINUE to ignore my rebuttal about this.

A baby or a small child also has a DEPENDENCE or "encumbrance" upon their mother. Simply because its not a direct physiological dependence does to mean it is any less significant. If you leave a child or baby in the woods they will die just like a fetus would if it was removed from its mother. Are you advocating that it is OK to abandon children and babies because they too are an encumbrance upon the mother or parents? Yes, the encumbrance is fundamentally different but its nonetheless an encumbrance. Why is one acceptable and one unacceptable specifically? How can you precisely justify one over the other?

The decision regarding viability is something doctors make today already. They won't take a baby until its biological functions are sufficient for it to survive separated from its mother. The same judgment should be valid to determine the point after which abortion becomes murder.

Its a current medical fact that at different stages in development a fetus' chance of survival outside the womb are anywhere between 0% and close to 100%. How is that relevant to an argument regarding morality when removing the fetus is an intentional act? If human life is intrinsically valuable then wouldn't it make sense to try to save/preserve that life by not aborting it forcefully?

Before viability that fetus does not have independent life of its own. The mother has a right to deny its right to her life.

WHY does independent life matter? Children and babies cannot survive without parental care. Are you advocating it is acceptable to abandon them? Children and babies will almost assuredly die without parental care.

Human life is not intrinsically valuable. It is at best valuable to other humans who might interact even remotely with an individual, and to those other organisms that might directly benefit from the life of an individual. I have no value for any individual whom I have no knowledge of. My existence is in no fashion improved by the fact that most of the people of the world exist. In fact, my life would be greatly improved if most of the people of the world did not exist.

I find it amusing considering that right this very instant the only reason you live such a pleasure filled and comfortable life is because of the many people who exist. The computer you use for discourse right now is only possible because of the billions of people who live in this world. The food you eat on a daily basis is plentiful because of this. You chastise the world around you yet you bask in its comforts oblivious to the fruits it provides you.

Is there room for improvement? Without a doubt. Millions of people starve but overall life has greatly improved for the average resident of earth. But without this society that you so heart-fully disrespect you would live a terrible and otherwise grueling existence of hard labor, ignorance, disease, and agony. You would likely not live past 30.

Remind yourself of this next time you turn on your air conditioning, take a juicy bite of your double whopper, or sleep without worry of pain or death in your cleanly washed sheets on your bed. Those "individuals who you have no knowledge of" and who you have "no value for" give you what you take for granted on a daily basis whether you appreciate their existence or not.

[realthinker]

Rights are established by the citizen state contract. At what point should a human be granted protection under the state? Conception? 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester? Birth? When they are named? Never?

Each of the listed times was used at one time or another by a different society for the determination. Which one do you agree with. Why or why not?

None of those, really. I believe that when the life of the fetus is no longer necessarily an encumbrance upon another distinct individual's life it can have full rights under the law as any other minor person. That means at viability. At the point that the child can be successfully separated from its mother and reared outside the womb it is a complete human being. Until then it's subordinate to the mother and cannot have a fully protected right to life because it is not entitled to the life of the mother, which is necessary for its continuance.

Your arguments contradict eachother. Perhaps you can clear up some of my questions: A baby is an encumberance upon someone, usually the mother despite the fact it can survive out of the womb.

The key word you might have missed is "necessarily". Once it reaches viability the life of a fetus is not necessarily tied to the life of the mother. After viability anyone with sufficient medical skill or parenting skill might maintain the baby's life. Until that point the fetus's life is necessarily an encumbrance on the mother's life. Nothing can sever that link without killing the fetus.

So? Instead of forcing the burden on the mother you are forcing it upon someone else otherwise the same result happens: the child/fetus dies.

I'm not suggesting anything happen to the fetus. I simply said that until viability any action taken on the fetus is the mother's prerogative. After viability, if she decides to abort the state has a right to prevent it. If the mother wishes to make arrangements for someone to take it after viability but before natural birth, that's fine by me.

This is like arguing that its OK to remove the child from a mother's womb because some other mother MAY choose to put it within her's. You are just forgoing the consequences of death that inevitably results without SOMEONE filling the responsibility the mother has left.

You made up the option of allowing a mother to do something with a viable fetus before natural birth. I don't think I ever suggested it.

A fetus existing inside a mother is not killing the mother in most typical pregnancies. It is merely relying on the mother to sustain life much like children and babies rely upon their parents for life as well. Why is it OK to kill the fetus and not the children in such a case?

Again, it's the necessary encumbrance that an unviable fetus represents to the mother's. It does not have life of its own accord. Therefore it cannot have an independent right to life. If the mother wishes to retract the fetus's subordinate right to her life I feel it's her prerogative. After viability, however, there are two independent lives and it's within the state's right to force the mother to respect the baby's right to life.

And you CONTINUE to ignore my rebuttal about this.

A baby or a small child also has a DEPENDENCE or "encumbrance" upon their mother. Simply because its not a direct physiological dependence does to mean it is any less significant.

Yes, it is. It is less significant because after viability the state or other interested party can elect to accept that responsibility. That's something that takes place every day, quite routinely.

If you leave a child or baby in the woods they will die just like a fetus would if it was removed from its mother. Are you advocating that it is OK to abandon children and babies because they too are an encumbrance upon the mother or parents? Yes, the encumbrance is fundamentally different but its nonetheless an encumbrance. Why is one acceptable and one unacceptable specifically? How can you precisely justify one over the other?

Before viability there may be decisions to protect the life of the fetus that would have a negative impact on the mother's life. That makes it impossible to fully protect the rights of both in some circumstances. Because the fetus's life is unsustainable without the life of the mother, its life is subordinate. The fetus cannot be granted rights because to do so would necessarily lessen the rights of the mother.

The decision regarding viability is something doctors make today already. They won't take a baby until its biological functions are sufficient for it to survive separated from its mother. The same judgment should be valid to determine the point after which abortion becomes murder.

Its a current medical fact that at different stages in development a fetus' chance of survival outside the womb are anywhere between 0% and close to 100%. How is that relevant to an argument regarding morality when removing the fetus is an intentional act? If human life is intrinsically valuable then wouldn't it make sense to try to save/preserve that life by not aborting it forcefully?

Before viability that fetus does not have independent life of its own. The mother has a right to deny its right to her life.

WHY does independent life matter? Children and babies cannot survive without parental care. Are you advocating it is acceptable to abandon them? Children and babies will almost assuredly die without parental care.

Human life is not intrinsically valuable. It is at best valuable to other humans who might interact even remotely with an individual, and to those other organisms that might directly benefit from the life of an individual. I have no value for any individual whom I have no knowledge of. My existence is in no fashion improved by the fact that most of the people of the world exist. In fact, my life would be greatly improved if most of the people of the world did not exist.

I find it amusing considering that right this very instant the only reason you live such a pleasure filled and comfortable life is because of the many people who exist.

My "pleasure filled and comfortable life" is incidental. I have it because I can and because it is convenient. If technology and commerce were other than it is today where I choose to live, I'd have a different life. I grew up in a poor family. We grew our own food and made a lot of our own clothing. I could go back to that with no trouble if the situation warranted it.

The computer you use for discourse right now is only possible because of the billions of people who live in this world. The food you eat on a daily basis is plentiful because of this. You chastise the world around you yet you bask in its comforts oblivious to the fruits it provides you.

I don't think I'm chastising anyone. Please point out my chastisement and identify to whom it is directed.

Is there room for improvement? Without a doubt. Millions of people starve but overall life has greatly improved for the average resident of earth. But without this society that you so heart-fully disrespect you would live a terrible and otherwise grueling existence of hard labor, ignorance, disease, and agony. You would likely not live past 30.

Remind yourself of this next time you turn on your air conditioning, take a juicy bite of your double whopper, or sleep without worry of pain or death in your cleanly washed sheets on your bed. Those "individuals who you have no knowledge of" and who you have "no value for" give you what you take for granted on a daily basis whether you appreciate their existence or not.

I certainly value society and what it has to offer, but I don't have to value each and every particular individual.

Thousands have died just today, and with no detrimental affect to me or the society in which I live. People around the world today have arbitrarily decided to kill people around them. Even that arbitrary killing has had no effect on me. I could walk through my own city and point to fifty people at random and remove their entire existence, and there would be no consequence to me. Homeless people die in the streets every day. Convicts are sentenced to death and killed. Their deaths may have more value than their lives.

That makes it impossible for human life to be intrinsically valuable. Lives may be valuable in the aggregate. They may be valuable in relation to one's self. But every single instance of human life is not necessarily valuable, from any but each individual's perspective.

This doesn't mean that I don't prefer that everyone out there live a long and productive and happy life. Indeed I do. But it's of little consequence to me whether that happens for any but a few particular individuals or not.

There's one thing you're overlooking here too. A fetus before it is born is not a living person. The best that could be said is that some day it might be a living person. There is certainly no intrinsic value in potential.

[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.

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.

ah thank you very much.

[tickitytak]

if a fetus is life, and all life deserves rights, are you proposing that we never kill anything? even plant life is life... oh wait, perhaps you're stating that all human life deserves these rights. well, what is so significant about human life? there is no intrinsic value, no objective significance. we're just like everything else on this planet.

how do i know language is required for a self-aware consciousness? try thinking about anything without using language. even if you picture a chair in your mind, you're going to think "chair" and all its associated uses and whatever significance it has to you. none of these thoughts could exist without a language for you to identify and organize them with. when you think without language, nothing of human creation has any real significance. the most significant things to you will be the people you interact with, and that's because we're a social species. when you think without language, you think like an animal... and one could speculate that if our species had never developed a language at all, you would be a primitive beast right now. a fetus is even more primitive than that, so to suggest that it could have self-awareness and answer my questions and comprehend suffering... it's absoutely ridiculous.

if 100,000 people that i don't know at all were to die right now, it wouldn't affect me unless i subjectively gave them significance.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 10 Post 98:

if a fetus is life, and all life deserves rights, are you proposing that we never kill anything? even plant life is life... oh wait, perhaps you're stating that all human life deserves these rights.

A fetus is a life. It meets all criteria, right down to its dna. This is a fact we shouldn't gloss over or disregard when this discussion winds its way to the issue of abortion. Whether cursory or strict, any examination will tell us this is a life - in form, in function, in all observable properties.

We shouldn't gloss over facts if we're to consider this life.

how do i know language is required for a self-aware consciousness? try thinking about anything without using language.

Are deaf mutes unable to realize their own cognizance?

none of these thoughts could exist without a language for you to identify and organize them with.

Thought precedes language. Any language used is to describe a thought. Sentient beings are only such if they have thoughts, not the ability to tell others what these thoughts consist of.

when you think without language, nothing of human creation has any real significance.

Do I not appreciate those humans to which I can't speak in their language? Humans have significance, imo, by being humans.

Those humans who are unable to speak or think in a language, or are even comatose, are significant because they are humans.

the most significant things to you will be the people you interact with, and that's because we're a social species.

Most here indicates your personal opinion. I don't interact with the vast majority of the people on this planet, but I still consider them significant.

when you think without language, you think like an animal

When you think, you do so as an animal. It's kinda part of the description of being both animal first and human second.

and one could speculate that if our species had never developed a language at all, you would be a primitive beast right now.

Had those "primitive beasts" not fought tooth and nail for survival, you wouldn't be here. Perspective.

a fetus is even more primitive than that, so to suggest that it could have self-awareness and answer my questions and comprehend suffering... it's absoutely ridiculous.

Shouldn't we all suffer when pondering the fate of this fetus? It is life, it meets all known criteria, we simply can't squeeze this fact between the couch cushions. If we wish to decide the fate of this fetus bound to the issue of whether it can tell us of its worth, we shouldn't be of such conceit we'd not realize this simple test alone should not be the deciding factor of its value.

if 100,000 people that i don't know at all were to die right now, it wouldn't affect me unless i subjectively gave them significance.

Others subjectively, and more importantly objectively are affected.

[McCulloch]

how do i know language is required for a self-aware consciousness? try thinking about anything without using language.

You are incorrect on two levels. Firstly, the question was with regard to self-aware consciousness not thinking. Secondly, I can think about things without language. Here is an example. Think of a tune (one without words). I do that without knowing the names of the notes or the names of the intervals. I can change the rhythm, put it into a minor key, make variations etc, all without language.

even if you picture a chair in your mind, you're going to think "chair" and all its associated uses and whatever significance it has to you. none of these thoughts could exist without a language for you to identify and organize them with. when you think without language, nothing of human creation has any real significance. the most significant things to you will be the people you interact with, and that's because we're a social species. when you think without language, you think like an animal... and one could speculate that if our species had never developed a language at all, you would be a primitive beast right now.

I do think like an animal. Plants, as far as I know don't think and humans are animals.