Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Message auto-removed [View all]

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
18. Here's a great piece I refer to often...
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 04:48 PM
Nov 2013
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

Argument

One of the most common pro-life claims is that "life begins at conception." Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does personhood begin?"

Pro-life advocates claim that personhood begins when the sperm and egg join to form a zygote. The zygote is genetically unique and complete and will be the grandparent of every other cell this person will ever have. The fact that the zygote is the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes of a future person seems -- at first -- to be good evidence of personhood. But consider the counter-examples.

There are many entities which are genetically complete, which contain all 46 human chromosomes, which we nonetheless do not recognize as persons: ancient fossils, blood samples, hair cuttings, fingernail clippings, even skin cultures grown in burn centers. This is proof that genetic completeness, in and of itself, does not constitute personhood.

....

Viability as a test for personhood

If pro-choice advocates reject conception as the first moment of personhood, then the question becomes: when do pro-choice advocates believe that personhood begins? One of the best tests of personhood is viability, upon which the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade was based. Viability is defined as the ability to live outside the womb. It is based upon the broader logic that "a person is as a person does." In other words, people normally breathe on their own, circulate blood on their own, fight off most germs on their own and sustain normal cellular activity on their own. A fetus is able to achieve these functions once it reaches a weight of about 5 pounds. This usually occurs between the 7th and 8th month of pregnancy -- coincidentally, about the time that the baby has finished its brain and central nervous system. The extra womb time appears to be a biological courtesy.

Critics charge that a baby cannot survive outside the womb for long without a mother's feeding, care and protection. Certainly the child is a person by now, so how can viability be a test for personhood? This common objection is based upon a confusion of the terms viability and dependency. They are not at all the same thing, although both are needed for human survival. Viability is defined as an individual's ability to survive as a person. Dependency is defined as one's reliance upon society to survive as a person. Remember our broader definition that "a person is as a person does." The newborn baby breathes, circulates, perspires, digests, immunizes and sustains bodily and cellular functions just like a normal person. But it is also normal for people to depend on each other for food, shelter and survival, from the day they are conceived until the day they die.


more at link

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Message auto-removed [View all] Name removed Nov 2013 OP
Roe V. Wade established a Trimester system which was subsequently modified in the Casey decision. Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #1
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #2
I believe so. Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #4
No idea quinnox Nov 2013 #3
Viability is still 24 weeks. Fetal development does not change with the times. Barack_America Nov 2013 #5
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #8
No it doesn't. idwiyo Nov 2013 #9
Viability is defined at greater than 50% survival with maximum intervention. Barack_America Nov 2013 #13
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #16
Nope. Daemonaquila Nov 2013 #27
Nope. Daemonaquila Nov 2013 #20
No, it doesn't, not really Warpy Nov 2013 #63
on a side note, elehhhhna Nov 2013 #94
If and when we ever do achieve womb transplants... Barack_America Nov 2013 #96
My head hurts. Puzzledtraveller Nov 2013 #6
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #21
a fetus in NOT viable at 20 weeks cali Nov 2013 #7
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #10
Ok, I will answer with questions etherealtruth Nov 2013 #11
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #15
Logically ...? etherealtruth Nov 2013 #22
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #24
This is relevant in that in your scenario etherealtruth Nov 2013 #30
If the state was an interested party, it would promote abortion. Daemonaquila Nov 2013 #36
The central nervous system isn't intact until 24 weeks in utero. Therefore, JaneyVee Nov 2013 #12
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #14
some handmade34 Nov 2013 #45
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #46
I concur. Auntie Bush Nov 2013 #97
and certainly not a bunch of male politicians Blue_Roses Nov 2013 #102
Legally Mandated Forced Birthing. Is it really ever OK to legally enslave a woman? nt Zorra Nov 2013 #17
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #23
The moment of. n/t gollygee Nov 2013 #25
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #28
I would call it aggravated assault gollygee Nov 2013 #31
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #38
OK so obviously you don't think women CAN be trusted with children gollygee Nov 2013 #39
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #48
This is about whether the government should be involved. athena Nov 2013 #73
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #77
Let me ask you another question. athena Nov 2013 #80
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #85
The spouse is a separate person who isn't getting all the necessities of life gollygee Nov 2013 #86
No one is saying Congress should not make any laws. athena Nov 2013 #90
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #92
yes MattBaggins Nov 2013 #101
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #42
Because it is a separate person at 1 minute gollygee Nov 2013 #49
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #54
tou won't gwt an answer in that Niceguy1 Nov 2013 #33
Purists? gollygee Nov 2013 #37
no, the state is charged with looking Niceguy1 Nov 2013 #41
So long as that baby is getting all food, oxygen, and everything from the women gollygee Nov 2013 #43
ys they are because it is a viable life. Niceguy1 Nov 2013 #50
"I believe that women own their own bodies." ZombieHorde Nov 2013 #75
This is in the context of pregnancy gollygee Nov 2013 #78
In the realm we are discussing, it has no legal interest except post natal interest. Zorra Nov 2013 #51
A second after birth. MattBaggins Nov 2013 #100
Here's a great piece I refer to often... PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #18
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #19
I assume you are in favor of forced organ donations. athena Nov 2013 #26
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #29
So you are in favor of forced abortion but against forced organ donation! athena Nov 2013 #34
You think people don't own their own bodies gollygee Nov 2013 #35
Don't be silly gollygee etherealtruth Nov 2013 #52
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #57
good luck. you're gonna need it. Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #59
That's a bit harsh MattBaggins Nov 2013 #103
Where do you place that point? etherealtruth Nov 2013 #62
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #68
I am sure we can agree smoking is a legal activity etherealtruth Nov 2013 #72
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #87
I am one of those funny people that believe woman ... etherealtruth Nov 2013 #91
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #93
I note that you have neglected to answer my questions. athena Nov 2013 #74
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #81
Organ donation preserves existing life etherealtruth Nov 2013 #82
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #88
It is necessary to look at inconsistencies in the reasoning etherealtruth Nov 2013 #89
What if part of an organ or tissue were needed for a newborn baby? gollygee Nov 2013 #83
People die because of organ unavailability. athena Nov 2013 #84
If the technology existed to transplant the fetus to a male MattBaggins Nov 2013 #105
I'm thinking the same thing kydo Nov 2013 #32
Perfectly said. Daemonaquila Nov 2013 #40
Sounds accurate to me etherealtruth Nov 2013 #44
You lost me at "Women have the right to choose whether they will get pregnant or not." cyberswede Nov 2013 #47
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #53
what about rape? n/t kydo Nov 2013 #55
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #58
yeah but what about the fetus? n/t kydo Nov 2013 #61
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #65
then why are you bothering us with this thread? n/t kydo Nov 2013 #66
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #69
right .... kydo Nov 2013 #71
This message was self-deleted by its author madinmaryland Nov 2013 #76
What about contraceptive failure? uppityperson Nov 2013 #99
also, something that many women on birth control Blue_Roses Nov 2013 #106
let me simplify it for you. choice. that simple. nt seabeyond Nov 2013 #56
I suppose whenever viability outside the womb occurs LittleBlue Nov 2013 #60
probably an unpopular view, but it's mine so I'll express it regardless.... mike_c Nov 2013 #64
I love your two cents! etherealtruth Nov 2013 #67
You can add mine in and make it 4 cents. nt Walk away Nov 2013 #104
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #70
Viability will never be 20 weeks or less REP Nov 2013 #79
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #95
It is impossible to "terminate a pregnancy after birth" because there is NO pregnancy then. uppityperson Nov 2013 #98
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Message auto-removed»Reply #18