i like that this article was completely neutral, until the last paragraph, when the author decided to close with a divisive and clearly opinionated comment from the pro-choice side.

"this isn’t a moral debate on what value you place on the fetus"

oh really? then what is it? ohh! let me guess - your reproductive rights as a woman! my body, my choice!

OF COURSE this is a moral debate about the value of the fetus. it always has been, and always will be. the only reason the pro-abortionists claim it isn't is because the only time they can even come close to winning the debate is when the fetus is completely dehumanized.

What she meant by that was the protest itself wasn't a debate. It was a demonstration of support for women in a difficult position. Also, it's not pro-abortion, it's pro-choice. No one is pro-abortion. The choicers are all about Safe, Legal and Rare. When a woman gets pregant, her life is forever changed, no matter the choice she makes. Be it abortion, adoption or parenthood. Pro-Choice is about letting women decide which option is best for them. The fetus isn't dehumanized, simply because it isn't human. It's a collection of cells at the point of most abortions. The Canadian government says that you obtain personhood upon your first breath, and the bible agrees with that statement, saying in Genesis that God breathed life into Adam. It also has passages saying not to name a child until 2 weeks of life incase of death. And the bible even has graphic passages about how to perform an abortion. But if you aren't into Anti-Choice for those particular faith based reasons, that's cool too. I'm just not sure what your arguement would be. Because faith has reason to be illogical. It's faith.

I always say that the Pope should have the last word. Because no one understands a woman's reproductive needs like a celebate old man.

God is cool, but abortion is better.

We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children.

“What is this ban on abortion? It is a survival of the veiled face, of the barred window and the locked door, burning, branding, mutilation, stoning, of all the grip of ownership and superstition come down on woman, thousands of years ago.”

all five responses between 2:20 and 2:36 AM. you'd ALMOST think that was planned or something.

It actually wasn't planned. Well..maybe a little. It comes from talking on MSN to my fellow night workers, and all reading it proudly at the same time. We all thought, we should comment! And we raced to have the best one. Such is life huh?

Rajka-- I understand your point of view, and really think that common ground can be found between your personal viewpoints and mine as a person who identifies herself as pro-life. There are a few statements you made however that I feel I'd like to challenge a bit, if you would indulge me in some dialogue... :):

-- You say that no one is pro-abortion, and that pro-choicers are all about "safe, legal and rare",... And I will allow that for many pro-choicers this might be what it's about. But, later in your post you state that the fetus simply "isn't human." If you (and other pro-choicers who share this viewpoint) believe that the fetus isn't human, what reason would there be to strive toward making it rare?

And, what about those individuals (there are some) who view abortion as a necessary tool for population control (Are such individuals not pro-abortion then)? I'm not saying that this is the majority of pro-choicers, but I'm saying that these individuals do exist.

Based on your comments from the Bible, it seems to me that you think that individuals who are pro-life are necessarily religious also (I'm just assuming this from your comments, mind you, but you can correct me).. But I know atheists who are pro-life, simply on the basis of the fact that scientifically, once the sperm and egg join the organism is genetically and phenotypically distinct, and to them this means that they are a distinct human with distinct rights.

One more contention: You say that the fetus is simply "a collection of cells" at the point of most abortions. The earliest time most women are able to find out they're pregnant, however, is the second week after conception and fourth week after development. By the fifth week (3rd week after conception), the baby's organs are starting to form, and by the fourth week after conception (sixth week of development, second week a woman knows she's pregnant, IF she finds out as early as she can), the heart is already starting to pump blood (I got this information from the MAYO clinic, as unbiased a source as any--you can search under "fetal development-first trimester). According to Planned Parenthood, the most common in-clinic abortion (aspiration) occurs up to 16 weeks after a woman's last period, and the abortion pill is used up to nine weeks.. By nine weeks development, the baby already has arms that bend and toes. By sixteen weeks (we're now into the second trimester), the baby is able to make facial expressions (again according to the Mayo Clinic)... Thus, I'm not quite convinced that most abortions occur when the fetus is only a "collection of cells".

To simplify the abortion controversy we must focus our attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.

Arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. This debate is about just one question: What is the unborn?

I am vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices I fully support for women. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.1 No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.

Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings.

Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:4

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s disease.

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.

Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

Ignoring the scientific and philosophic case for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest is the lazy way out; if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests. Check out the following resources
[1] Gregory Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons (Lomita: STR Press, 1999) p. 11. 2 See T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O’Rahilly, Ronand and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29. 3 A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation (New York: Viking Press, 1933) p. 3. 4 Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990) p. 18

I'm always happy to dialog! :) You asked me if I "believe that the fetus isn't human, what reason would there be to strive toward making it rare?". There is a simple reason. Just because something isn't human (yet) doesn't mean it isn't worth protecting. Fetuses are very much worthwhile things. So are trees. Trees aren't human. But we protect them. Or any other number of non-human things. There is also an effect on the mother. No one should have to make the choice if they can avoid it. By rare, I don't mean that people should have the baby more often than not, I simply mean that one shouldn't have to make the choice. One should have proper access to birth control, family planning, and rights to thier person so as to aviod the choice all together. But sometimes accidents (like rape, incest or condom rips) happen. And I applaud you for checking out the MAYO clinic, however they are in the States. In Canada most abortions happen within the first 12 weeks. And really, aren't we all just a collection of cells? ;) Also, I say right in my statement that one doesn't have to be religious to be Anti-Choice. Lots of people have lots of reasons to believe many things. Also, a shout out to Xavier, if you are who I think you are. I'm the chick with horns and red hair. Remember me? How's it going? But in my view, a fetus isn't a family memeber. They are a potential family memeber. Otherwise the census would count them. They would have funerals. They would be able to arrest women for drinking during pregnancy, or smoking under child protection laws. But these things simply aren't so. Because they simply aren't persons yet. I support a choice for women to control thier bodies and what happens inside them. It's pretty simple really.

Hi Rajka :)--

I think the main point of contention for us is when the fetus should be considered human.. Regarding some of your specific points, you stated:

"In Canada most abortions happen within the first 12 weeks" --By week 12, the baby has already developed fingernails, genitals, and the face has a human profile. His/her eyelids have the ability to close, he/she can move (in fact this starts in week 8, or 6 weeks into conception), etc. See http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/NSECTIONGROUP=2

Hm... You bring up an interesting point that we (I'm assuming you mean us as adults) can be described as just a collection of cells; if this is your view, then why couldn't we also be able to consider the fetus human? :)

In regards to our societal practices (e.g. the census, funerals etc.), societal constructs are fluid and can be subject to change. There was once a time that human slaves weren't considered citizens with full rights either... But did that make it correct?

And there are some that do have funerals for their unborn as well. I have someone very close to me who suffered a miscarriage at 20 weeks, and she and her family cremated the unborn infant's body and had a service for him. When they first requested the service though, some individuals providing such services treated them a bit incredulously, as if they couldn't understand why someone would want to hold a memorial for him. This made the experience all the more painful for the family members, and I don't think (and you will likely agree with me on this) that anyone should have to have their viewpoints ridiculed like that after suffering this loss.

Overall, I do agree with you that no one should have to make the choice if they can avoid it. But if accidents do happen, having a child (albeit unexpected) shouldn't have to be viewed as the end of one's freedom or the end of the world. I also agree that it's unfair if a woman is ever forced into choices like that (e.g. through rape or incest), and a woman shouldn't have to raise a child that she didn't have a choice in conceiving... But does that necessarily mean that the fetus has to be killed? There is adoption, and medical advances have gotten to the point where fetuses can survive outside the womb with medical support at around 25 weeks gestation. Given this, what if we instead through medical advancement develop a practice that makes a woman unpregnant without killing the child? This would change the abortion debate entirely.

Any comments welcome :).

To Gigi13th:

"...what reason would there be to strive toward making it rare?"

The choice to terminate a pregnancy generally is made on one of two grounds: medical necessity and unwanted pregnancy. Both of these situations are undesirable, regardless of wether a fetus is human or not. Abortion for population control obviously falls under the category of unwanted pregnancy. Beyond this, abortion does carry potential physical and psychological risks that, while small, can be further minimized by making it rare. One does not stop trying to prevent a disease simply because it can be treated; one does not stop trying to prevent unwanted and dangerous pregnancies simply because they can be aborted.

"...once the sperm and egg join the organism is genetically and phenotypically distinct, and to them this means that they are a distinct human with distinct rights."

Cancers are phenotypically and genetically distinct from their host, but we do not endow them with rights. Cases such as those of Karen Keegan and Lydia Fairchild show chimerism in humans - they are the product of two sets of fertilized eggs which fused during development, but we do not consider them to be two people, even though they carry as many distinct cell lines as a pregnant woman.

"...Thus, I'm not quite convinced that most abortions occur when the fetus is only a "collection of cells""

The CDC indicates that in 2004, over 60% of abortions occurred in the first 8 weeks. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm)

To Xavier Balderas Olachea:

"To simplify the abortion controversy we must focus our attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong."

What about tubal pregnancy? Is the only moral act to allow both mother and offspring to die, given that the pregnancy will kill the mother before viability? Is it morally wrong to transplant organs from a brain-dead individual given that it will kill them? Is the soldier who sacrifices his life by jumping on a grenade to save his comrades committing a moral wrong by killing himself for the benefit of others? While I agree that as a rule of thumb, killing others is immoral, does an action's morality not depend on the circumstances, intent and context in which said action takes place?

"Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled"

How callous, to argue that killing requires no justification if the death is not human!

"Arguments based on choice or privacy miss the point entirely."

Arguments about choice and privacy are extremely important even if the unborn are considered human; To ignore them assumes that the unborn's right to life always supersedes the rights of all others.

"Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings."

You confuse two concepts here: wether they are scientifically living human organisms and wether they are philosophically human beings. You counter the argument that not all human organisms are human beings by simply stating the converse.

"Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today."

I have a mind, where as an embryo I did not. If this is not morally significant, what moral grounds are there against inducing brain-death if the body does not die? If I was a mind without a body, would my being be of less moral value? Our concept of humanity is not as simple as a biological distinction.

On SLED:

Size: I've certainly never heard anyone argue that an embryo isn't a person because it's small. Size comes up as a reference to the much more important issue of development.

Level of development:

"True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant?"

Well, for one thing, nobody argues that fully developed adults should be allowed to live in their mother's wombs against their will, and if all stages of development are human, miscarriage is homicide (although non-criminal by defense of unconsciousness.) If all stages of development are fully human persons, then a fetus in fetu parasitic twin is fully human despite its having stopped developing upon being absorbed into the other embryo or fetus. If it is possible for an embryo or fetus to develop into something we agree is not a person, either it never was a person or we can cease being a person, both of which mean personhood is distinct from being biologically human.

"Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings?"

As a society, we've consistently answered that with a yes, as any minor who wants to vote can tell you. Our rights and responsibilities change as we grow, even if some do remain constant from birth onwards.

"Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings."

By this criteria they may not be human, but that does not inherently exclude them from being valuable beings.

"Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s disease"

They may have limited human mental functions, but a zygote has none at all.

Environment:

"...how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human?"

This assumes one does not consider the unborn a person until the moment of birth and one considers them a person immediately after. But this is an arbitrary point; for instance the point of viability comes much earlier, and from this point it is possible to undergo a broadly equivalent step in development - the move to the stage where one develops outside the mother we normally just call birth. Indeed, from this point on a pregnancy would be terminated by means of inducing premature birth rather than abortion.

Degree of Dependency:

"If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them."

This is a key issue, even if one believes that all unborn are human. Dependency on a sentient being to survive is a very different thing than dependence on a substance, and this has important implications for the concept of the right to life. In the context of this debate, viability is the point at which one is no longer dependant on a host organism, not the point at which one can survive without assistance, so the issue of medicines and the like are irrelevant. The right to life does not automatically entitle you to force others to support you without their consent, and it certainly does not entitle you to violate the bodily autonomy of others, especially if it causes risk or suffering. Does a diabetic have the right to take insulin from your pancreas without your consent? Does someone suffering from renal failure have the right to use your kidneys as a dialysis machine against your will? To simply take a kidney for themselves? Clearly, the right to life is not the right to live regardless of the cost to others; otherwise tissue and blood donation would be compulsory. Instead, like all rights it is limited when the exercise of that right fundamentally infringes on the rights of others.
I am not entitled to take the nutrients from your intestines, the blood from your veins and the breath from your lungs without your consent, regardless of my level of development or the depth of my need because you have the right to autonomy over your own body. Pregnancy depends on these very things, and that right to autonomy includes the right to remove what is technically a parasite. The removal of an unwanted pregnancy does not fundamentally always have to violate anyone's right to life (life can be sustained outside of the body in some circumstances) but not removing it always fundamentally violates the mother's right to bodily autonomy as its presence is not with her consent. Even if a developing human organism cannot survive without a host and is considered a person, its right to life is not violated by its removal because it does not have an inherent right to feed off of the body of another against their consent; it simply is unable to exercise its right outside the body because of its parasitic nature. If we are all equal, it has no more right to its mother's blood than it does to yours. Conjoined twins with shared systems are a clearly separate issue; those parts and systems of the body which are shared are the bodily property of both twins, and both have equal rights in regards to them.

"In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature."

But this does not address the basic thesis of your argument! What you are arguing here is that a fetus is a human because humans vary in stages of development and other factors but have a human nature; it does not address wether a fetus has a human nature.

"Ignoring the scientific and philosophic case for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest is the lazy way out; if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests."

There is no purely scientific case for the pro-life view; even if there was an ironclad scientific argument for the personhood of the unborn, there's no reason grounded in science not to kill. Science can inform the philosophical debate, but the pro-life view depends both on interpreting the science in such a way that prenatal organisms are persons and the assumption that their right to life is absolute, inalienable and overrides all other possible rights. Neither of these can be said to be anything less than contentious.

Hi Matt :)--

By the statement "making it rare" I had thought that Rajka meant making abortions rare, not necessarily unwanted pregnancies. Of course prevention in the first place should be first and foremost, and I agreed with this in my response post.

In the contentions you brought up regarding the morality of killing--e.g. removing the child in an ectopic pregnancy, a soldier sacrificing his life, etc.--of course the morality of killing can depend on context. The vast majority of pro-lifers (including myself :)) are aware that we cannot allow both mother and child to die in ectopic pregnancies--to do so would not be pro-life. In cases like these, when the goal is not to kill the fetus/child but rather to save one life when both lives are TRULY (as this term is abused) in fatal danger, certain procedures are acceptable under a pro-life standpoint. As for the soldier sacrificing himself, this is the soldier's option to terminate his own life; in contrast, in abortion the fetus does not have the opportunity to make a choice--someone else makes it for her. For a brain-dead individual it would likely depend on whether the individual had expressed the desire to be a donor before becoming braindead, and also on the individual's known moral views (for example, in the Navajo heritage it is not acceptable to donate blood, hair, organs etc.). There are other likely criteria too of course, but bringing up the point you did doesn't necessarily discount the pro-life stance-- it simply means that abortion needs to be considered individually as all other forms of killing are, and if one believes that abortion is not justified in the majority of cases in which not having an abortion wouldn't result in the death of another, this person is pro-life.

--About the CDC's 60% and 8 weeks: read the Mayo Clinic's (or any unbiased info source on fetal development, for that matter) regarding the fetus's stage of development at 8 weeks. Much development has already occurred at this point, and the child is able to start moving. And, this statistic still leaves ~40% of abortions that occur after 8 weeks...

Ah, no time! Have to go to class. But I will try to respond later if possible... :)

Go Matt Go! Also, just wanna say congrats to all for keeping this civil and on topic. It's great to see. All to often this debate can suffer due to personal attacks or hostility towards others. We're awesome!

Gigi13th:

“Of course prevention in the first place should be first and foremost, and I agreed with this in my response post.”

Making unwanted pregnancies rare is a precondition for making abortions rare; history shows that as long as there is a need to terminate pregnancies, people will seek abortion.

“In the contentions you brought up regarding the morality of killing…”

My point is simply that the question of the morality of abortion can not be reduced to “are they a person, because killing people is a grave moral wrong under any circumstances.” in regards to Xavier’s blanket statement to that effect. Even if we agree that a fetus is a person, the issues are not so cut and dry.

“…regarding the fetus's stage of development at 8 weeks.”

That’s 60% within 8 weeks, not 60% at eight weeks. In fact, before 8 weeks, the embryo has not yet developed into a fetus. Also, these statistics are misleading because weeks of gestation are measured from the beginning of the last menstrual period, not fertilization, so the actual age of the embryo is usually about 2 weeks lower than the weeks of gestation. This means that over 60% of abortions are performed within the first 6 weeks of embryonic development. A picture of a 6 week old embryo to give you a better idea of the level of development we’re discussing: http://www.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/devel/c7.47.6wk.embryo.jpg

Most importantly of all, on the personhood of the embryo:

I think part of the issue here is that we’re not distinguishing between the definition of human and person. Human in the context I’m discussing is membership in the species Homo Sapiens, whereas personhood is being an individual with rights and an inherent equality and moral worth. The pro-life argument rests on the assumption that being biologically human is the sole requirement for personhood. But consider the following thought exercise:

If tomorrow, we were to discover a new species which by some miraculous circumstance had evolved to be indistinguishable from Homo Sapiens without genetic testing, clearly we would consider them persons, as they thought, felt, lived and loved like persons who are human beings, with all the same needs and potential.

I’m sure you’ll agree that a person’s appearance does not affect their value as a person, so our hypothetical species would still be persons if their bodies looked very different than ours. I’m sure you’ll also agree that a person’s value does not depend on their organ functions, as you are arguing that humans in developmental phases that don’t even have organs yet are persons, so even if the bodies of the new species worked differently from ours, their inherent value as people would not be affected. Indeed, one can posit the question of personhood in all sorts of biological terms – is a human with chromosomal abnormalities any less a person? One with altered brain chemistry? In the case of our hypothetical species, personhood occurs despite the complete absence of biology we would consider human.

But if we can not rule out personhood for an individual based on their differences from what we consider “normal” human biology, it follows that similarity to “normal” human biology is not a criteria of personhood. Indeed, biology does not seem to affect the moral worth, and indeed personhood of an organism at all. If biology has no bearing on whether an individual is a person, arguments about the biology of humans in development are a red herring, and the genetic makeup of a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus or space alien birthing pod neither entitles nor precludes it from personhood.

Hi Matt :)--

On your thought exercise: I think you are trying to make a case for necessary vs. sufficient conditions. However, your contention only holds if people agree with the way you've split the world up... For example, what if another person defined personhood in a different way, e.g. biological homology being a necessary condition? Or biological homology being the only sufficient and necessary condition? I think you have made an allowance for this already though by stating that this is the pro-life viewpoint. :)

To indulge you with my personal perspective a bit on this topic :), the way I see things is simply that once the sperm and egg join, growth is already happening, at a RAPID pace. Each week a new milestone occurs, and getting bogged down in the semantics is extraordinarily tricky and complicated. That is why I consider it more feasible and safer in a moral sense to regard the unborn embryo, then fetus, etc. as human and person as soon as development begins. Because this development marks the beginning of a growth process that is rapid and has many different milestones that can be pointed out and are each important in their own right.

Also, in one of your previous comments I noticed you used the term "zygote"; however, I believe a woman does not find out she's pregnant until after the child has passed through the zygote stage at least into the blastocyst stage, and the embryonic period (in which the brain, organs, spinal cord etc. already begin forming) follows about a week or less after.

Again about the 60% and 8 (or 6) weeks: After four weeks conception (6 weeks total development), the heart is pumping blood and the neural tubes are closing... And as I said in a previous post, the earliest a woman can typically find out she's pregnant is about 2 weeks after conception, or 4 weeks development. At five weeks organs are already forming along with the brain and spinal cord.. (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112)... So IF a woman finds out as early as she can (which doesn't necessarily happen), she has to make a quick decision before some major developmental milestones take place.

And again, this statistic still leaves about 40% that occur after 6 or 8 weeks, if it is indeed an accurate statistic. One problem with any statistics on abortion at this point is the fact that reporting requirements are not federally mandated (that is, some states do not even have reporting requirements, at least in the U.S. See the comments section of http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html#CM for more information). So... we're not even certain what the "real truth" is regarding abortion numbers and practices, and we likely won't ever know even if federally-mandated reporting does end up happening (although our stats would probably be slightly more accurate if this were to happen...)

Gigi13th

"some states do not even have reporting requirements, at least in the U.S."

So glad I live in CANADA. Where because it's government funded (sort of) we do keep records. Unlike those pesky americians who keep popping up in a policy debate that has nothing to do with them. Need proof? Check out stats canada.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/ind01/l3_2966_2967-eng.htm?hili_none

"On your thought exercise: I think you are trying to make a case for necessary vs. sufficient conditions."

I'm arguing that being biologically human is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for personhood on the grounds that the definition of personhood is not a biological characteristic. The relation between the two in this case is that being biologically human is not a necessary condition of personhood; indeed there is no necessary condition of personhood that depends on being a member of a given species. Given this, it logically follows that the criteria that define personhood are independent of species membership. If these criteria are independent of species membership, species membership in and of itself can not be a sufficient condition for personhood.

"However, your contention only holds if people agree with the way you've split the world up..."

Well, I think the fact that we can have this debate at all demonstrates that the concept of being a person and the concept of being a Homo Sapiens are not logically equivalent, even if one believes they are equivalent in practice.

"For example, what if another person defined personhood in a different way, e.g. biological homology being a necessary condition?"

If biological homology is a necessary condition, a species identical to humans in every way that evolved separately would not be considered persons. (they would be analogous but not homologous) While the chances of such perfectly convergent evolution are astronomical, there is no logical reason that it is impossible. Would you argue that you are not a person if you were to discover that you were a member of such a species?

"Each week a new milestone occurs, and getting bogged down in the semantics is extraordinarily tricky and complicated. That is why I consider it more feasible and safer in a moral sense to regard the unborn embryo, then fetus, etc. as human and person as soon as development begins."

But this holds for all mammals, and we do not hold that all mammals are people. That an organism is a person beyond a certain point of development does not logically imply that they are before this point. Indeed, this is rhetorical fallacy in the form of an argument from ignorance - that one does not know when a human organism becomes a person does not imply that it is from the moment of fertilization.

"...I believe a woman does not find out she's pregnant until after the child has passed through the zygote stage at least into the blastocyst stage, and the embryonic period..."

This is irrelevant to the question of personhood, unless you believe that one is not a person if others do not know you exist. If so, being biologically human clearly is not a sufficient condition.

On abortion statistics in regards to gestation time:

The meaning of the statistics depends entirely on the implications for each level of development. That an embryo possesses a heartbeat or organs does not imply they are persons, as these characteristics are shared by person and non-person alike.

Matt--

Again, what you're arguing for in regards to necessary and sufficient conditions is simply your viewpoint... Which is okay :). It's not necessarily based on science or logic, it's simply your view. For example, one can make an argument that all the characteristics you listed as qualifying your hypothetical "new species" as persons are sufficient but not necessary, and that having the same biological and genetic predeterminants can also be sufficient but not necessarily necessary. Your argument based on necessary and sufficient conditions is your own point of view and I can respect that :).

And also regarding my argument being an argument from ignorance-- it is not necessarily depending on how personhood is operationalized. If it is operationalized in terms of having all biological determinants of a human being an acceptable sufficient condition, then we could call a fertilized egg a person. Again, this is a matter of viewpoints, and I again can respect that you don't agree with mine. :) If it comes down to it, no one I guess can "know" when a human becomes a person because it personhood is not operationalized uniformly, and if this is the case then any attempt to define when a human becomes a person is simply another argument from ignorance. I personally believe however that my argument from ignorance is the safest in terms of morality.

The reason I brought up the zygote/embryo distinction is that you appeared to be using it to justify abortion by implying that abortions happen during the zygote phase when no neural connections have yet formed, and when there's no perceivable brain activity... But if abortions happen at five weeks development (a.k.a. 3 weeks), neural connections are already being made and limited brain activity can thus be perceived, which neutralizes the contention you were making.

Regarding your final contention: if an embryo has a heartbeat, is it not a human heart? Are there any other non-persons besides an embryo (if you choose to define an embryo that way) that naturally possess human hearts? The characteristics may be similar, but are not fully shared when you consider the distinctiveness of the type of heart that is beating. :)

Gigil13th:

"Again, what you're arguing for in regards to necessary and sufficient conditions is simply your viewpoint."

No, I'm arguing that membership in a particular species is not inherently a sufficient condition for personhood in and of itself because it presupposes that the definition of personhood can be generalized to a biological characteristic. This does not mean that species membership can never be a sufficient condition, but for it to be so, one must first establish that all members of the species individually meet all the conditions for personhood. Thus your argument that being a human organism is a sufficient condition for personhood rests on the assumption that all human organisms are persons; a classic example of begging the question. Indeed it appears your argument is the one unsupported by logic.

"For example, one can make an argument that all the characteristics you listed as qualifying your hypothetical "new species" as persons are sufficient but not necessary and that having the same biological and genetic predeterminants can also be sufficient but not necessarily necessary."

My argument doesn't qualify the new species as persons, it qualifies individuals of the species as persons. The line of reasoning you propose does not escape the logical fallacy elaborated above, but it does reinforce my argument that the characteristics that define personhood are distinct from the characteristics that define membership in a species.

"And also regarding my argument being an argument from ignorance-- it is not necessarily depending on how personhood is operationalized. If it is operationalized in terms of having all biological determinants of a human being an acceptable sufficient condition, then we could call a fertilized egg a person."

Certainly, but the argument you stated was in support of the proposition that a fertilized egg has the moral worth of a person. Thus, what you are arguing here is that if a fertilized egg is a person, it has the moral worth of a person. Definitely true, but no more relevant to the argument than whether or not the sky is blue.

"If it comes down to it, no one I guess can "know" when a human becomes a person because it personhood is not operationalized uniformly, and if this is the case then any attempt to define when a human becomes a person is simply another argument from ignorance."

Not at all! A human becomes a person when they meet the conditions for personhood. While there may be variation between individuals as to when this occurs, one can definitively define an individual as a person when they do, and definitively define them as not when they have not yet developed the capability to do so.

"I personally believe however that my argument from ignorance is the safest in terms of morality."

Define safe in the context of the morality of an argument.

"...neural connections are already being made and limited brain activity can thus be perceived, which neutralizes the contention you were making."

No, because the biological characteristic of brain activity is not sufficient grounds for personhood unless all beings with brain activity are persons.

"Regarding your final contention: if an embryo has a heartbeat, is it not a human heart?"

Not necessarily; a heartbeat in a human does not a human heart make, unless you define an implanted artificial or transplanted animal heart as a human heart.

Are there any other non-persons besides an embryo (if you choose to define an embryo that way) that naturally possess human hearts?"

Yes. Parasitic twins (not to be confused with conjoined twins) can have them and most dead humans have one too.

"The characteristics may be similar, but are not fully shared when you consider the distinctiveness of the type of heart that is beating."

That all observed persons to date have a human heart does not imply that having a human heart makes one a person.

Hi again Matt :)--

"Not at all! A human becomes a person when they meet the conditions for personhood. While there may be variation between individuals as to when this occurs, one can definitively define an individual as a person when they do, and definitively define them as not when they have not yet developed the capability to do so."

This is exactly the point I was trying to make... In my viewpoint, the conditions of personhood are different than yours, and I will elaborate on this further as I go through the rest of your responses :). But an argument from ignorance simply means that a person states something is true simply because it has not been proven false, and vice-versa. For any argument about the conditions of personhood, no one can prove that your view of personhood is wrong and mine is right, and etc., because there is no generally accepted operational definition yet. Thus anyone's viewpoint of personhood can be labeled an argument from ignorance at this point.

Regarding your comments to my final contentions:

"Not necessarily; a heartbeat in a human does not a human heart make, unless you define an implanted artificial or transplanted animal heart as a human heart."

-- An embryo's heartbeat does not come from an artificial transplant, thus you make a mute point here in the context of our discourse. An embryo's heartbeat comes from an embryo's heart, and you allowed in your previous that an embryo can be considered human.

"Yes. Parasitic twins (not to be confused with conjoined twins) can have them and most dead humans have one too."

--Both of these examples are mute also in the context of our greater discourse for a few reasons. First, who is to say that a dead human is no longer a person?--For some cultures the dead are just as animated as the living.

Second, in both of the cases you mentioned above, development has ceased-- in a parasitic twin, the "parasitic" twin of the two stops developing on its own during gestation (becoming vestigial) and the death of a human marks the termination of the biological functions (including the use of a heart) of the human. In contrast, the embryo is undergoing continuous development and his/her biological functions, once they begin, are not terminated unless miscarriage or abortion occurs. To go back to the parasitic twin example, we could perhaps call the parasitic twin non-living because its development has been terminated, and regarding the dead human we can definitely say that function has been terminated. We cannot do so with an embryo, then fetus, etc. that is developing along her natural course of development.

And finally--

"That all observed persons to date have a human heart does not imply that having a human heart makes one a person."

I agree; if you took a human heart, for example, and transplanted it into a robot or member of another species, of course I know that this does not make the new owner of the heart human. I am not trying to make the point that any one individual characteristic makes one a person. It is ALL the inherent characteristics of the embryo COMBINED that make it an individual person. In every example that you gave--from tumors to dead humans to parasitic twins, etc. etc.-- none of these are fully identical to an embryo, whether it be in capacity or characteristic. A tumor cannot become a full-bodied human and neither can a parasitic twin, and a dead human is no longer living of course,--unlike the embryo, fetus etc., who is not decaying but is rather rapidly developing and growing into a full-bodied human. If:

--the embryo is distinct from all other "non-person" examples in terms of the pertinent ability to, and the active action of developing and growing into a human that is genetically distinct from the parents that she came from,

--and if there is no consistently accepted definition of personhood (as the concept of personhood is simply an emergent construct anyway),

who is anyone to say that my view of the embryo being a person is wrong? What if I define personhood as having the ability to actively grow into or be a human genetically distinct from the parents that she is developing from? No other "non-person" can do that as far as I'm aware (if you plan to make a sperm/egg argument in your rebuttal, remember that the sperm and egg do not have the ability as individual cells to do this either; they do not have this ability until they're joined together). The only other organisms I know that can do what I've specified above would be considered "people" by anyone I know..

Anyway, this is likely my last post for a while, as I'm a terribly busy college student and this is taking up much of my time (as I'm sure it is yours as well :)) I will definitely read your reply if you post one and allow you the final word, but after this I would like to call a break and close this thread on my end for the moment. Hopefully we can pick up this conversation again soon... (If you ever want to message me about these topics I have a myspace that I check periodically during my college off-time-- the url is www.myspace.com/imlostbutillmakeit. NO SPAM PLEASE--I ask you to be respectful). I love the opportunity to dialogue, but unfortunately time is short until December :). Perhaps we can talk more again about these topics at that time?

Thanks :).