When does an unborn organism become a person, if at all?

Serenity595

Serenity595

Active Member
Hello! :)

So, abortion has always been an issue in today's society. People disagree with each other on the subject. And while there are many arguments for and against abortion, the heart of the matter comes down to whether or not someone considers an unborn organism a person, and if they do, when they consider such a claim. Generally, society considers killing a person as immoral, whereas killing an unborn organism is usually considered morally gray, because of the definition of a person is widely disputed. Therefore, until one can distinguish what is a person and what isn't, they cannot logically conclude whether an abortion is immoral or not because the premise of what a person is has not been adequately defined.

With that in mind, may I ask you this: When does an unborn organism become a person, if at all?

For the sake of keeping everyone on the same page, these are the definitions I am referring to:

unborn: adj. (of a baby) not yet born
organism: n. an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form
person: n. a human being regarded as an individual

Also, if you disagree that an unborn organism is not an individual (in the sense that is a separate entity), please state so and why.

P.S. If this topic is considered too mature for the forum, I have no qualms with having it deleted if it causes great public distress. However, I hope that it can be discussed maturely and calmly regardless.
 
From my opinion, humans tend to discuss on a general note that a human organism becomes, in their point of view, human once they start to somewhat form human physical traits like hair, limbs, toes, and fingers. But also, that organism may also be considered human once it begins to form human characteristics, and mainly only the woman bearing the baby can truly know. Meaning, the baby can start kicking or feel like it's reacting to a melodic tune a mother may sing.

However, I agree that there are still ethical issues on what may society as a whole decide on when an organism may be considered human. It's like discussing what defines a planet: scientist's have long debated that since I read in the NatGeo book a couple of years back that they have come to a general consensus on what is a planet and if Pluto counts as one. Though, this is an agreement, there may still be small groups that may disagree on this issue, albeit less of an ethical predicament. Plus, abortion may be more of an issue because it comes down to personal life. Therefore, I cannot answer your question with a solidified answer, but can only convey these thoughts to your concern.

Cool thread I guess :)
 
I'm a firm believer that abortion is only the acceptable answer in extremely rare circumstances - pretty much where carrying the child to term is likely to seriously harm or kill the mother. Situations involving rape...I would strongly encourage the mother to carry the child to term anyway. I rarely see a mother who has chosen to abort, regardless of circumstances, and felt good about the ordeal.

On the topic in the title, I would agree with the Catholic Church (HA), that an unborn organism becomes a person at the moment the brain is capable of thought.
 
TheGurw said:
I'm a firm believer that abortion is only the acceptable answer in extremely rare circumstances - pretty much where carrying the child to term is likely to seriously harm or kill the mother. Situations involving rape...I would strongly encourage the mother to carry the child to term anyway. I rarely see a mother who has chosen to abort, regardless of circumstances, and felt good about the ordeal.

On the topic in the title, I would agree with the Catholic Church (HA), that an unborn organism becomes a person at the moment the brain is capable of thought.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you mention about the organism needing to have the capability of thought. Therefore, I must ask, what is it about the brain and thoughts that define this as being an individual? Is it because it brings the child closer to being human more than anything with the capacity for human reasoning? Or is it because it creates consciousness? Why does consciousness determine an organism's becoming of an individual?
 
Tai_K_Yagami said:
Interesting that you mention about the organism needing to have the capability of thought. Therefore, I must ask, what is it about the brain and thoughts that define this as being an individual? Is it because it brings the child closer to being human more than anything with the capacity for human reasoning? Or is it because it creates consciousness? Why does consciousness determine an organism's becoming of an individual?
Click to expand...
"I think, therefore I am."

Plain and simple, any being capable of thinking on its own is an individual.
 
Well for a start, not all unborn organisms become people because not all unborn organisms are human.

As for the actual question, it's a philosophical one:
Does a human exist when the zygote is first formed at fertilisation? It may only be a single cell but it already has the potential to grow into a human being.

Is it possible to argue that a person only becomes an individual when they are capable of living without the life-support offered by the mother's body? Ostensibly that would be birth, but you could argue that the child is a viable person if it can be removed from it's mother's womb and not die due to being underdeveloped.
 
Until the baby comes out it is still not a "person" in my book. It's a baby, a baby human. Well a fetus really, in some cases a fully developed fetus. Really in today's sex-driven society, abortion needs to be legal or else we'll have to start taxing people on having children.
 
This is way too edgy for me
The potential for butthurt is pretty borderline here

This is, by proxy, an abortion debate, no? The whole "is a fetus a person" dilemna?

Personally I'd say an unborn "organism" would be a "person" when it's about 36 weeks old - that is, about a month off from birth.
(If we're using human standards because other animals have shorter / longer gestation periods.)

Ultimately fetuses (feti?) are not responsible for their existance, as it where. They don't interact with other beings ('cept maybe their mother) and they don't meaningfully affect anyone (except for their mother. Although I guess Dad's gotta buy Mum smoked salmon and Miracle Whip if she wants it.)

Applying this to the broader abortion debate, I think abortion is OK and it shouldn't garner the social stigma it does.
To quote Tim Minchin,
"I believe that a woman has the right / To choose what happens to her body / Without suffering the judgement / Of the conservative right."
Or alternatively
"Just because what Heaven said / Was said before they'd leavened bread / Just 'cos Jesus couldn't read / Doesn't mean that we should need... [To] stop a pregnancy when it's / Just a tiny blastocyst."

Yeah.
Realistically Tim Minchin has the answer to everything.
 
xHallucinationx said:
Until the baby comes out it is still not a "person" in my book. It's a baby, a baby human. Well a fetus really, in some cases a fully developed fetus. Really in today's sex-driven society, abortion needs to be legal or else we'll have to start taxing people on having children.
Click to expand...
Or we could be responsible about our lifestyles, not be pigs and eat everything in sight, not insist on owning our own house (think condos), switch to green energy, etc etc etc. Unless you live in an overcrowded country, we have more than enough room and food on earth to support 20 billion people...if we stop eating large livestock like cows and pigs.
 
TheGurw said:
Or we could be responsible about our lifestyles, not be pigs and eat everything in sight, not insist on owning our own house (think condos), switch to green energy, etc etc etc. Unless you live in an overcrowded country, we have more than enough room and food on earth to support 20 billion people...if we stop eating large livestock like cows and pigs.
Click to expand...
Well that would be the dream society. But people are too stupid to realize the fact we can live better, and nobody will accept the change.
 
kimbal86 said:
Well for a start, not all unborn organisms become people because not all unborn organisms are human.

As for the actual question, it's a philosophical one:
Does a human exist when the zygote is first formed at fertilisation? It may only be a single cell but it already has the potential to grow into a human being.

Is it possible to argue that a person only becomes an individual when they are capable of living without the life-support offered by the mother's body? Ostensibly that would be birth, but you could argue that the child is a viable person if it can be removed from it's mother's womb and not die due to being underdeveloped.
Click to expand...

This is a true. I should have clarified that an unborn organism, in this context, refers to a human baby that is not yet born.

Personally, I think a human exists the moment it is conceived, because at that moment, unless hindered otherwise, it will grow into a healthy baby one day. In my opinion, it is no longer the potential to be a baby (I refer potential to eggs before they are fertilized by sperm), it IS a baby.

I don't think it's right to argue whether a baby is a person or not depending on what it needs to survive. Say, a baby was born and had to be put into ICU. Does that make it any less of a baby? Or how about the several years after a baby is born that it requires someone to take care of it? I don't think "independence" equates to "human being". Again, back to the ICU illustration: if a baby was taken out of ICU when it desperately needed it to survive, does that make it any less a human being?

This brings me to my bigger point: Why do people think that unborn babies live in a metaphysical reality rather than a physical and concrete one? Why is a baby only a baby when someone wants it to be one?

Why will people ask how an unborn baby is doing and what his or her name is going to be when the pregnant woman wants it, but then when the pregnant woman doesn't want it, it's not even considered a person? Something can't be defined simply because of someone's emotional state. "It exists, therefore it is."

xHallucinationx said:
Until the baby comes out it is still not a "person" in my book. It's a baby, a baby human. Well a fetus really, in some cases a fully developed fetus. Really in today's sex-driven society, abortion needs to be legal or else we'll have to start taxing people on having children.
Click to expand...

So how does a baby human not equate to being a person?

EDIT: Or how does a human fetus not equate to being a person?

EDIT: Which is better: avoid 3,288 abortions per day in the U.S. by making it illegal or have to pay taxes?
 
Serenity595 said:
So how does a baby human not equate to being a person?

EDIT: Or how does a human fetus not equate to being a person?

EDIT: Which is better: avoid 3,288 abortions per day in the U.S. by making it illegal or have to pay taxes?
Click to expand...

A baby human and a human fetus are people. But are unborn and therefore the mother should still have the choice on what she chooses to do with the chilf. I also don't see how making abortion illegal avoids taxes. If anything if it was illegal we would have to pay taxes.
 
But killing people is wrong, correct? So why is it right to do under certain circumstances (since we're not talking about self-defense, here)?

I didn't mean that you avoid taxes if abortion is illegal; I was trying to point out that many unborn babies dying is worse than people being taxed on having children.
 
Serenity595 said:
But killing people is wrong, correct? So why is it right to do under certain circumstances (since we're not talking about self-defense, here)?

I didn't mean that you avoid taxes if abortion is illegal; I was trying to point out that many unborn babies dying is worse than people being taxed on having children.
Click to expand...
Having a child is a big deal. A very expensive big deal. Every child deserves to be raised right with it's parents, so if a person knows they're not ready or they don't want children, they can get rid of the child instead of making their early life miserable.
 
Serenity595 said:
But killing people is wrong, correct? So why is it right to do under certain circumstances (since we're not talking about self-defense, here)?

I didn't mean that you avoid taxes if abortion is illegal; I was trying to point out that many unborn babies dying is worse than people being taxed on having children.
Click to expand...

To you killing may be bad or "evil" but as you undoubtedly know, everyone has different sets of moral and ethical codes. The argument that murder is acceptable under certain circumstances may relate to the question raised, but the statement itself is broad enough in it's messaging that I don't believe that it's a feasible counter-argument to Hallu's point.

xHallucinationx said:
Having a child is a big deal. A very expensive big deal. Every child deserves to be raised right with it's parents, so if a person knows they're not ready or they don't want children, they can get rid of the child instead of making their early life miserable.
Click to expand...

Or the parents could put the child up for adoption if they know that their financial situation can't sufficiently raise a newborn child?

I myself agree or disagree with abortion depending on the factors that lead up to the pregnancy of the individual. For example, I find a victim of rape wanting an abortion acceptable as the pregnancy was forced and the victim had no choice in the matter, while I disagree with cases in where the mother did not use sufficient contraception methods to avoid the risks of unwanted pregnancy.

In the end, the whole debate of "what defines a human being" like everything else in existence is shrouded in gray, and as such there are no right or wrong answers or opinions on the matter at hand.
 
Skryter said:
To you killing may be bad or "evil" but as you undoubtedly know, everyone has different sets of moral and ethical codes. The argument that murder is acceptable under certain circumstances may relate to the question raised, but the statement itself is broad enough in it's messaging that I don't believe that it's a feasible counter-argument to Hallu's point.



Or the parents could put the child up for adoption if they know that their financial situation can't sufficiently raise a newborn child?

I myself agree or disagree with abortion depending on the factors that lead up to the pregnancy of the individual. For example, I find a victim of rape wanting an abortion acceptable as the pregnancy was forced and the victim had no choice in the matter, while I disagree with cases in where the mother did not use sufficient contraception methods to avoid the risks of unwanted pregnancy.

In the end, the whole debate of "what defines a human being" like everything else in existence is shrouded in gray, and as such there are no right or wrong answers or opinions on the matter at hand.
Click to expand...
You really think a woman should put up with what happens when they are carrying and giving birth to a child? When people talk about abortion all they seem to care about is the child. When in reality, the child doesn't even really remember anything. (Don't say shit. If you remember when you were in the fucking womb your head is dense) Yet the woman (In most cases) puts on a lot of unwanted weight, goes through pain, annoys the fucking shit out of anyone around her, and then has to deliver the baby she never wanted. Only to put it in an adoption center, because someone decided that abortion is wrong. Let's tax people and have not just to have a war on drugs, a war on terrorism, but a war on ABORTION!
 
xHallucinationx said:
You really think a woman should put up with what happens when they are carrying and giving birth to a child? When people talk about abortion all they seem to care about is the child. When in reality, the child doesn't even really remember anything. (Don't say shit. If you remember when you were in the fucking womb your head is dense) Yet the woman (In most cases) puts on a lot of unwanted weight, goes through pain, annoys the fucking shit out of anyone around her, and then has to deliver the baby she never wanted. Only to put it in an adoption center, because someone decided that abortion is wrong. Let's tax people and have not just to have a war on drugs, a war on terrorism, but a war on ABORTION!
Click to expand...

My point was aborting the child simply because of the parents financial situation is quite, for lack of a better or tact term, moronic. An adopted child can live a perfectly happy and fulfilling life even without the support of their biological parents. If you read the rest of my point you would see i agree with abortion on a case to case basis. If the mother did not want to have a child and the baby was conceived through consensual sex, then the parents should have taken contraceptive measures to avoid conceiving the child in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top