Is a fetus a "living human being"?
I was reading another blog recently, and it raised the question: is a human fetus really a "living human being"? The blogger stated that people asked to describe characteristics of a living human being outside of a context of the abortion would likely come up with descriptions that would not at all resemble a human fetus (though I think the blogger was probably thinking of a human embryo instead). Let's assume for a moment that the way people describe a "living human being" is such that no fetus would fit the description: does that preclude the fetus from being considered human? If you asked me to describe a "living human being" I would probably include things like "two hands with prehensile digits" and "two eyes" - does that mean someone loses his humanity if he loses one or both of his hands... or one or both of his eyes? I don't think very many people would maintain that's the case. So if a fetus (or embryo) has only two or three out of a hundred characteristics one associates with "living human beings," does that mean it should be automatically considered nonhuman? Or nonliving? Which is it, by the way? Isn't an embryo (let alone a fetus) living? Isn't it human?
I have heard the argument that before a fetus is born, it is "living, but not a life" - this doesn't make sense to me. What defines "a life"? According to common usage, "a life" is the life of a person. A person is a unique human individual: someone who is distinct from all other persons (and whose rights, under the law, are not contingent on any other person's consent or allowance). A human embryo is perfectly unique: it ceases to be a mere part of its mother as soon as it is formed by the uniting of her haploid gamete with a paternal haploid gamete. In layman's terms, there's a unique person as soon as a man and a woman's sex makes the woman pregnant. From that time on, there is a unique person that did not exist before. Not a Bible-thumping religious belief, not an ideological supposition, not a guess: biological fact. Science can teach us that a human embryo is, from fertilization, a living human individual. It's not a matter of faith. The only question now is "When will it be a matter of law?" Those appalled by the millions of deaths caused by the legality of abortion in this country can only hope it is soon.
SRS
P.S. Some who oppose the legality of abortion object to the use of the term "fetus." To an extent, I can sympathize. To most people such a word dehumanizes those it is used to describe. However, fetus is latin for "baby." Specifically, the young of the species that produced it. In this case, that would be human.
I have heard the argument that before a fetus is born, it is "living, but not a life" - this doesn't make sense to me. What defines "a life"? According to common usage, "a life" is the life of a person. A person is a unique human individual: someone who is distinct from all other persons (and whose rights, under the law, are not contingent on any other person's consent or allowance). A human embryo is perfectly unique: it ceases to be a mere part of its mother as soon as it is formed by the uniting of her haploid gamete with a paternal haploid gamete. In layman's terms, there's a unique person as soon as a man and a woman's sex makes the woman pregnant. From that time on, there is a unique person that did not exist before. Not a Bible-thumping religious belief, not an ideological supposition, not a guess: biological fact. Science can teach us that a human embryo is, from fertilization, a living human individual. It's not a matter of faith. The only question now is "When will it be a matter of law?" Those appalled by the millions of deaths caused by the legality of abortion in this country can only hope it is soon.
SRS
P.S. Some who oppose the legality of abortion object to the use of the term "fetus." To an extent, I can sympathize. To most people such a word dehumanizes those it is used to describe. However, fetus is latin for "baby." Specifically, the young of the species that produced it. In this case, that would be human.
posted by weblogbob83 at 4:27 AM
4 Comments:
What definition of "living" does an embryo or fetus fit, though?
If you're talking about enshrining something into law, then I would hope that we're talking about science, not religion or philosophy. By the science behind this, we're generally talking about either medicine or biology, since those are the two main sciences that deal with things that are "living".
Medically, someone is considered to be "dead" once their brain ceases to function. Brain death is currently the legal and medical definition of when life ends. By the reverse, that would mean that a fetus is not "alive" until there is a recognizable EEG pattern, which typically does not appear until 24-27 weeks after the process of conception finishes.
Biologically, something is not considered "alive" unless it passes the tests of homeostasis and adaptation (among other things). When talking about a human fetus, this is considered the point of viability, which generally occurs at 22 weeks.
Any definitions preventing abortions prior to this are not protecting something living, they are protecting something which has the potential to become living in the future. While that may be your goal, the implications in protecting something simply because it has the potential to be alive (and thus infringing upon the rights of another in order to do so) has very serious legal ramifications which would need to be reviewed a great deal before being enacted.
Is presumed not living the same as actually not living? Just because a human being might not have a detectible brain functioning, does that mean there is not actual life? Do you think that we have a full grasp on the mystery of life?
If you think so, then look up the story on Zack Dunlap. 21 year old presumed not living after car accident because of no detectible brain activity, like you mention. But, He was then found to be living. "36 hours after the accident, doctors performed a PET scan of his brain and informed his parents, along with other family members who had gathered to keep vigil at the hospital, that there was no blood flowing to Zack’s brain; he was brain-dead. Doctors showed the scan to Zack’s parents, and, Doug Dunlap told Morales, “There was no activity at all. No blood flow at all.” ‘They said he was brain-dead’"
But just when they had determined there was no life there, they happily found they were mistaken. A cousin did not accept no appearent brain functioning as being dead and tested Zack's "nonliving" body for reaction to pain (a physical stimulous). Guess what was determined? " It was a sign of life. “We went from the lowest possible moment to, ‘Oh, my gosh, our son is still alive!’”.
At www.today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23775873/
Which should we presume, a human being to be alive until proven otherwise or dead? Which side should we error on?
What is the one thing we know for sure a human being needs to be alive? A heart beat? What does a fetus have? A heart beat!
We go by what we know now, rather than basing decisions on baseless superstitions and hopes. If we later medically find that it's really the ability to wiggle your left toe that shows whether you're truly "alive" or not, then at that point in time, the definition has changed, and thus the beginning of life questions should obviously also be reexamined.
However, I don't see any indication that this individual case has caused the entire medical community to reverse their definitions of "life". As an internet article, this followed the typical pattern of "report facts exactly as you're told them, and maybe do some simple fact checking if you get bored later" .
However, even if the story is true as reported, there's still a fatal flaw in that argument. You're talking about a human being with a fully developed and (previously) functioning brain. A fetus has no brain activity, because it doesn't yet have a brain developed to have activity in. We're not talking about a machine malfunction on the cusp of a few days determining whether there's an EEG pattern, we're talking about whether there's *any* activity whatsoever, in *all* human fetuses. Bring me a developing fetus at 12 months with a recognizable EEG pattern, and then we'll talk about maybe we're just not using "good enough equipment" rather than having a fundamental misunderstanding of how human development works. (Side note: I've just given something that would "prove" to me that my basis of my decision is incorrect. Can you do the same, and say "if you can present to me x, then I'll admit that my premise is wrong and thoroughly re-evaluate my claims"?)
(Side note: The misconception that "heartbeat = living" has been around since the middle ages, and is roughly as informed as a "doctor" from the middle ages. I can stop your heart and later still revive you. Not so, with your brain. In all reporting I've found on Zack Dunlap, people either attributed his recovery as a "miracle from God" or pointed out the much more mundane answer - his doctors were very likely just extremely lucky that their diagnoses on his was wrong as was caught before they killed him. When it comes to those who are living, I 100% agree that it's usually better to err on the side of caution, unless otherwise noted (ie DNR, etc) by the patient ahead of time.)
Bob, you are one of few intelligent people around. Very well spoken.
We should also take into consideration the initial start of becoming pregnant; if you can't handle the consequences, don't have sex. Its that easy. And it tears me apart when you hear stories of nurses from hospitals that witnessed these abortions. And they literally see this living being that gets ripped out, and dumped in the nearest sink. To be left to die. And then gets put out with the rest of the garbage on garbage day. Sad.
Post a Comment
<< Home