 |
Comments |
|
 | Friday, May 30, 2008 at 11:37:23 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
What ***exactly*** constitutes "birth" for the purposes of determining the genesis of individual rights? |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 11:53:49 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Sajid
I have exactly the same question as Jim. Even if we define birth to be the point where a baby gets his rights, there is very little change happens to the baby itself in the few minutes that it is born. Claiming that now the baby is completely independent of its mother is also not entirely correct as it is only independent of being a part of its mother's body. What if at this point in time the mother decided that she had made a big mistake in having the baby. Does this mean that she has no further responsibility for the baby. It cannot mean that just like even after a messy divorce a person is held repsonsible for their children until they turn 18. An infant is also only a potential adult but it still has limited rights. So back to my original question--what exactly is the progression of limited rights from a fetus to an infant and what criterion must we use to do it objectively.
[Sorry for the missing punctuation. My shift key is not working.] |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 12:36:16 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Dr. Lyn
E-mail: llpowell48(at)aol.com
From the moment of fertilization, the embryo (no matter how she is made)is a separate, unique and distinct, living human being. Medical science tells us this; however science does not tell us how to treat this new, living being.(I was NOT a fertilized egg at my earliest moments of life. Neither was Gina. So just stop it with the fertilized egg stuff--that's not even good biology.)
In order to know how to treat this living being, we have to turn to philosophy. Notice, I didn't say that we turn to religion. We can leave religion out of this discussion; although I have good reasons to believe that we are all made in God's image and likeness and the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" applies to the unborn, too. However, I digress.
Philosophically, there are only four difference between the embryo Gina once was to the person that she is today. Size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency.
Just because Gina is larger than an embryo, doesn't give her the right to kill the smaller one. If that was the only justification for killing someone, there are a lot of us small stature people who are in trouble.
Level of development: a toddler is more developed than a newborn, a teen is more developed than a toddler, and so. How does this matter in how we should treat the embryo?
When Gina rolled out of bed this morning, she didn't become less valuable because she changed locations. How does a trip down the birth canal matter? Besides there are some, like Peter Singer, who think that to be perfectly coherent, pro-abortion people should be allowed to kill their newborns until they are self-aware which can happen between 1 and 3 months of life outside the womb. He believes that a self-aware puppy is more of a person than a newborn. Go figure? Again, I digress.
Degree of dependency, doesn't matter either. Is someone who is dependent on insulin, for instance,less valuable than someone who is not? Do astronauts lose their personhood when they are outside a space ship and dependent upon their space suit to survive? Of course, not. That's just plain silly.
So are most of the arguments that are used by pro-choice people to defend the taking of innocent human life in the womb or in the petri dish whatever stage of development.
Now for the strawmen: There are ways to do IVF that do not disrespect early human life. And under personhood laws, ectopic pregnancies would be handled the same way they are now, and, yes, there are some methods of BC that prevent implantation. Those would be dealt with by the legislators in the various states. Finally, miscarriages would not be prosecuted. These are just the "parade of horribles", talking points that the pro-aborts pull out every where they go.
When someone can make a good scientific and philosophic argument on why the embryo is not human and should not be given the right to life, I will concede this debate. Until, then I end with our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident,that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." People like Gina want us to forget our Declaration. The Constitution secures the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. (the unborn, perhaps?) |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 12:56:52 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Damon Peichl
E-mail: dpeichl(at)hotmail.com
Even if we agree that an embryo (or a fetus) is a distinct human individual, it cannot have the "right" to compel its mother to continue giving it the bodily fluids it needs to survive against her will. A grown adult cannot compel me to donate bone marrow, even though he may die without it, yet somehow a fetus has the right to compel amniotic fluid? Why? What evidence can be offered for the abrogation of the woman's rights in this fashion? An individual does not have a right to make demands of another individual's time or money, so why is it acceptable when those demands are of another individual's body?
Terminating a pregnancy is a clear-cut individual right. It cannot be argued against without re-defining the entire concept of rights. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 15:07:02 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Wendy
If the embryo is separate and distinct, why then can't it live outside of the mother's womb? It is _wholly_ dependent on the woman who is carrying it. The principle can't be denied by the fact that there is a continuum of growth of the fetus; there is a point where it can be medically defined to not be an independent entity, and a point where it is definitively an independent entity.
As to the issue of it just being a matter of size: a toddler does not have the same rights as teenager--a toddler doesn't have the right to drive; a teenager does not have the same rights as an adult--a teenager does not have the right to vote. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 16:19:16 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Sajid
To Wendy and Daniel,
As I stated in my first post, even after the child is born and until the child is 18 the mother, and in fact both parents are responsible for it. By your argument, at anytime the mother should be able to decide that she has had enough and any further attention she gives to her child does not give anymore pleasure to her and is thus an abrogation of her rights. Thus, she should not be judged if she chooses to ignore her child for the rest of her life. I Think this is not correct. The real issue is when we can give the embryo limited rights. Out of respect for human life, in our society parents are always held completely responsible for their children. This also applies to embryos and even to abortion--only parents can decide to when to terminate their fetuses. It seems that this is problem is a little bit subtle and perhaps we dont have any cut and dried solution to it. If anybody with expertise in this issue could weigh it would be great. I think Paul is a doctor, so his personal opinion would be much appreciated. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 16:33:58 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Dan G.
Human life begins when an individual has the biochemical/molecular biological capability to metabolize all of the necessary elements for life. The fetus cannot metabolize oxygen from the environment because its hemoglobin (Hb) is different (actually the hemoglobin changes 2 times, roughly between embryo -> fetus and then from fetus -> child). Neither the fetal nor the embryonic forms of Hb can extract oxygen from a gaseous environment; they are only suited to extracting it from 1) the yolk sac and 2) mom's blood.
This concept of metabolic independency also applies to the other side of this coin (i.e. those on life support); while the particular are different (not a Hb issue) the concept, I believe, holds.
This is a philosophical problem, but any argument must be backed by facts and any differences that are proclaimed to exist must be a consequence of a property in and of the object. Accompanying the change between the different life stages are changes in the biochemistry to accomodate the change in metabolite/energy source (yolk sac-> blood -> milk/formula) |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 16:35:53 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Dan G.
And speaking to those who are insulin dependent. You are capable of providing it for yourself (your life is in your hands); and if not, its no one's responsiblity (morally or legally) to do so. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 17:20:38 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Jim May asks: "What ***exactly*** constitutes "birth" for the purposes of determining the genesis of individual rights?" I would answer: when the umbilical cord is cut. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 17:28:35 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Sajid wrote: "...very little change happens to the baby itself in the few minutes that it is born." With all due respect, that is an false and frankly bizarre statement. The baby goes from being contained within and biologically attached to the mother's body, to not being contained within and biologically attached to the mother's body. Those are precisely the changes which constitute *biological individuation*, which is the second of the two criteria for the possession of individual human rights. The other is being the kind of being that possesses the capacity for a rational faculty (which, to our knowledge, humans distinctively possess). If you're not a physically separate entity, then you're not an *individual*, and you are outside the context of the concept of individual rights. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 17:34:11 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: GregM
Interesting discussion.
I want to play devils advocate for a min with Dan G's argument of "Human life begins when an individual has the biochemical/molecular biological capability to metabolize all of the necessary elements for life."
A baby needs mothers milk or formula for at least the first 6 months of life. Even pure water can make it very sick or kill it because of underdeveloped kidneys and should never be given to an infant to drink. So if a mother is in, say some third world country with no formula then a 5 month old baby cannot "metabolize all of the necessary elements for life". Now what? |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 17:37:21 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Just for the record, Paul and I are in complete agreement with Tony's comment above (#10). |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 17:43:45 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
To Sajid:
As Diana stated, I agree with the position Tony Donadio eloquently stated. Also, this does not require any specialized medical knowledge.
And on a lighter note, one of my (Jewish) colleagues used to joke that, "The Jews don't believe a fetus becomes a human being until it graduates from medical school"... |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 19:19:44 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Dan G.
GregM,
Pure water doesn't have any nutrients to metabolize. I don't believe that its toxicity to infants has anything to do with my premise. Next, we could take your third world country example and replace it with an adult and a desert with no food... no nutrients = no life.
My premise is that a child has the ability to metabolize the essentials for life on its own. The fact that there are only a subset of foods for which it can do so (which may've been where you were going with your argument) doesn't preclude the fact that it can, given the appropriate materials, metabolize it itself. What's more, the example I used (oxygen) is the "critical node", I believe. Given that it can metabolize any food at all, if it cannot pull oxygen out of the air its not going to live.
Dan |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 20:38:29 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Gina,
I like your statement, "But the particular freedom of religion does not mean the right to pass laws forcing citizens to live by biblical values."
It helps unconfuse that issue. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 21:26:11 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Tony Donadio writes:
"Jim May asks: "What ***exactly*** constitutes "birth" for the purposes of determining the genesis of individual rights?" I would answer: when the umbilical cord is cut. "
Good. I'm with that so far. In a discussion with a friend of mine (who is a mom), we wrestled with this question, and came to the idea that a key element of birth is **physical separation** from the mother, what we could call "individuation" or even "autonomization". Unwieldy terms, those, but they indicate what I'm getting at; they represent my current understanding of when a potential human being becomes an actual human being.
Now let me attempt to test it with what is IMO a genuine possibility in the near future: artificial wombs.
Incubators and other devices that we use today to save premature babies can be construed as primitive artificial wombs. As the tech improves, ever younger preemies can be saved. If someone kills a preemie, it's murder. This fits the separation idea so far. Note that my current understanding of the personhood of premature babies, is that it is not contingent on self-sufficiency; the earliest preemies cannot survive without technological support.
But embryos, also separated from the mother, are **not** considered actual human beings -- we use them in research and/or freeze them for later use. The only thing distinguishing embryos from preemies that I can see, is viability -- and in *both* cases, that is a function of the capabilities of current technology and nothing else. Seeing as technology may very well advance to the point of artificial wombs that can bring even an embryo or zygote to term, what happens to embryonic stem cell research then?
Bear in mind that I am not an expert on gestation, so I may be missing something essential about what defines an embryo versus a fetus. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 22:36:31 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Dan G.
E-mail: gibsondj(at)gmail.com
Jim,
FYI, I believe the difference between embryo and fetus is centrally that the embryo isn't yet in biochemical communication with the mother's blood supply whereas the fetus (via the umbilical cord) has. There may be other things as well, but I don’t know them at present.
Regardless of the technology to support life at any stage; each stage has an identity that distinguishes it from the other forms. The embryo/fetus in your imagined artificial womb is still an embryo/fetus. If the physical separation is used as the sole criteria then as an aborted embryo/fetus is removed from the womb, dying in the process, then becomes a person an is murdered in the same act. Or, if a miscarriage occurs, could the mother be charged with neglect or manslaughter? What’s more, using technology as the basis of the argument here could lead to one to be beholden to someone on life support against your will (the technology to sustain the cellular activity does exist…) While these are not arguments in in and of themselves, this does seem wrong.
The physical separation is an easily graspable event and as I understand it from previous posts it might be the current legal standard, but I do not think that it encompasses all of the causal factors that are required for personhood (it IS one, it is necessary, but it is not sufficient). I’m reminded of the anecdote in Atlas Shrugged about trying to bring the fountain of youth down from the top of the mountain… Yes, we need to make arguments accessible to the public at large, but there is only so much you can do without leaving out essential elements.
What is important to focus on is not just the question of alive vs. not alive or human vs. not human. For instance, the foreskins of circumcised infants can be donated to scientists who then use them to grow cell cultures of fibroblasts (the “middle” part of the skin and other tissues). The cells are alive. The cells contain a human genome. But they are not a human being… a human being is first and foremost AN ORGANISM (i.e. a living entity which possess multi-cellular and multi-tissue structure. From this it is easy to understand why blastocysts (pre-embryonic… typical source for “embryonic” stem cells) are not human beings, they have no organs. Further, neither do fetuses have organs until a certain point.
This discussion does need to take place at the philosophical level, but the entities discussed MUST be identified at the scientific level in minute detail. How else with the identity of the object be known, and therefore determine how it is to be treated? I’m not a full time student of philosophy (perhaps Diana can help me here), but isn’t the metaphysics using potentiality as identity non-objective? And isn’t that the central argument of the anti-abortion movement is that the embryo/fetus is defined by its potential state? |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 22:39:35 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Dan G.
E-mail: gibsondj(at)gmail.com
Oops. Last paragraph, second sentence "with the identity" should be "will the identity". |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 23:23:20 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Gina Liggett
E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net
The comments above are very interesting to read. I would like to respond to some of them. The difference between a developing embryo and the moment of birth-- at which point the cord is cut and the newborn becomes physically separate--is the difference between potential life and actual life. Potential life does not have rights, but actual life does. For example, a mother who thinks she made a mistake cannot stuff her newborn into the garbage can without being charged with murder! But a woman properly retains the right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason whatsoever because her rights always take precedence over a potential human in her body.
While there is a "progression" in terms of embryological development, there is NOT a progression in terms of fundmental rights. They are absolute and begin at birth. At birth, the potential life that has been attached to the mother becomes a separate entity (and the fact the helpless baby needs to be taken care of by parents for many years has nothing to do with what we're talking about).
Concerning whom our Constitution pertains to, even in the Roe v Wade decision, Justice Blackmun states that nowhere in the the US Constitution does the term "person" refer to anyone other than the already-born.
Rights are secular concepts that apply to a civilized and free human society. And the attempts by many religious activists to "biblicize" our moral fabric and create an American form of "sharia" law must be fought without relent every step of the way!
And as far as an infant having rights, he or she has full rights: s/he can even own property, for example if someone gives that property to the baby in a trust. Just look at the big broohaa over Nicole Smith's baby's inheritance! (Legal priveleges like getting a driver's license are obviously only applicable and possible at a certain age and stage of life and have nothing to do with the false idea of a "progression" of rights).
And the example of a mother changing her mind about keeping the baby or teenager etc. etc. also have nothing to do with rights applying to potential life. A mother abandoning her child has to do with failing her legal responsibilities to the child.
Bottom line: rights don't apply to the unborn, only to the born--and certainly not to a fertilized egg, despite all arguments that minimize the egregious implications if that irrationality-in-the-extreme becomes a law. |
|
| Friday, May 30, 2008 at 23:46:03 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Sajid
To Tony,
Point taken. Jim does raise some interesting technical points and one can also consider more special cases like siamese twins. However, the crux of my confusion was my faliure in realising the immense changes that do take place in the few minutes in which a baby is born. Good call. |
|
| Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 9:33:37 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: JT
E-mail: JT30014(at)hotmail.com
Tony or Diana, so you hold that if a baby is removed from the mother's womb after a nine-month pregnancy, has a pair of scissors inserted into its skull to kill it, and *then* has its umbilical cord snipped, that's *not* a violation of its right to life? |
|
| Monday, June 2, 2008 at 13:56:09 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Dr. Lyn
E-mail: llpowell48(at)aol.com
So when did women get the right to abort their children? According to Gina, this right was identified to them at birth when they went from being a non-person to a person after the umbilical cord was cut. So, female babies in the womb do not have the right to life, but if they survive the womb, then they have the right to abort. Hhhmmm. Am I the only one to see that this is a strange way to talk about unalienable, given to us by our Creator (according to our founding fathers--I don't make this stuff up)rights?
If our rights come from government (like the SCOTUS and Roe v Wade) then they can also be taken away from us by another government or a future Supreme Court or anyone who can find some "penumbras" in the Constitution.
I have read all the discussion and so far no one has convinced me philosophically that human embryos deserve to die. There is no potential human life, there is only human life. We can draw all kinds of arbitrary lines, but any arbitrary line that is drawn will always eliminate someone who has escaped death in the womb and is living on the outside now.
I suggest that we define the beginning of life by its end. Death is defined when an organism's cells have stopped communicating with each other. If you examine a dead body, will there be cells that are alive on that body? Yeah, for quite a while. However, they are NOT talking to each other in a coordinated way anymore! Hence, death of the organism. Why can't we define life as when an organism's cells begin communicating? Then life begins at fertilization.
|
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 21:49:25 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Dr. Lyn writes: "(according to our founding fathers--I don't make this stuff up)"
Yes you do. The notion of a "creator" is made up. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
Comments
