Does the Fertilized Egg Equals Legal Person?
From today's New York Times:
"A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder. With this far-reaching anti-abortion strategy, the proponents of what they call personhood amendments hope to reshape the national debate."By the time most of my visitors will have read this thread, the voters in Mississippi will have voted and the constitutional amendment will have passed with all its potential consequences or simply defeated and with some folks in Mississippi unsatisfied. Read the article describing the significance of this vote and return and discuss here what you think would be the consequences of such an amendment passing in other states or even become part of the United States Constitution. Should a fertilized human egg be a legal person and the intentional destruction of that person be consider a crime such as a homicide (murder)? ..Maurice.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 8:34:00 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Fertility doctors will be outlaws. Freezing legal persons? And since we're talking about the US, what is the nationality of these legal persons prior to birth. The US constitution and law is very clear that all grants to citizenship are based on birth (born on US soil, born to US citizen, etc.). So, will women be carrying around undocumented immigrants (from where?) for nine months? Will a mother who doesn't follow the recommendation for bedrest be tried for manslaughter? Will child support and welfare be applied for at conception? Tax exemptions? Commuter lanes?
It's ludicrous legislation.
-Onion
The legislation is worrisome in that it is real, not just in someones mind or imagination, but actually going for a vote. I thought we were past the eras where religion and moral convictions trumped science and biology. I guess we are not. ..Maurice.
As always, it's never simple. The debate over when an fertilized egg becomes a legal person has been going on and will continue to go on. There is no set moral law or ethic to define when a being becomes a person. So as a society, we get to come to some kind of agreement on that and even that agreement is open to discussion and change. If it isn't,then this isn't the U.S. of A but some other dictatorial nation.
An egg is a living cell, a sperm is a living cell and when they unite to form a zygote, that is a living cell but when does it become a person? At the moment of fertilization? When it develops a beating heart? When it can survive independently of a placenta? When it emits its first cry and gulp for air? there are no final answers to these questions and a law is not going to change that. Just that some people don't like living with uncertainty and so they go the route of making a law so that they can rest easier. But personally, I think that is the wrong way to go about it. Especially when a law is enacted that takes away the freedom of a parent to make a choice at these difficult moments.
What bothers me even more deeply, though, is that this law is another step down the slippery slope to compromising one of the basic principles on which our country was founded; the separation of church and state.
It's an excuse to outlaw abortion, and overturn Roe vs. Wade.
The so-called personhood bid lost yesterday by a margin of about 58 percent to 42 percent, with 96 percent of precincts reporting, according to the Associated Press.
Do you think this defeat really sends a message to folks in other states regarding how realistic, practical and fair it is to set the legal definitionof a "person" or "personhood",with all of its legal implications, on an unimplanted but fertilized ovum which has not even had a chance of developing into what we currently accept as a "person"? ..Maurice.
For a view of what is "personhood" and how we as humans may define the expression, read the article "Diagnosing the 'Personhood' Problem: It's in Your Brain" by Jonathan D. Moreno in the Huffington Post. ..Maurice.
To reach the "truth" -- whatever that is -- you need to ask the right question. So, here's my attempt at that: Somebody on this thread tell me: At what precise point, what moment, does the fertilized egg become not just life, but human life worthy of all rights due to all human beings? And please provide your source for this information.
Doug, from the point of view of what is or is not ethical in the decision of "at what precise point,what moment, does the fertilized egg become not just life, but human life worthy of all rights due to all human beings?" one must consider another "when". That "when" is at what stage of the developing fetus treating the fetus as a person with "all the rights" will NOT deny all accepted persons all the rights that every person deserves in life. If providing the fetus at an earlier stage "all the rights" simply denies the rights to any other acknowledged person than certainly it would be ethically unjust to give that fetus the title of "a person with all the rights".
A person given "all rights" can not ethically deny others their given rights just because that "person" has, at some point, been given "rights". By ethical consensus we must find that point.
For example, it is accepted by law and Catholic religion as an example, that if a clinical situation pits the life of the mother against the life of the fetus, the right of the mother to continue life trumps the continued existence of the fetus. In this regard, the consensus is that the fetus does not have the "right" to life over that of its mother. What does this decision say about the personhood of the fetus? It's all a matter of consensus by us persons. ..Maurice.
Maurice: Yes, the principle of the Double Effect -- The good must be willed. The evil must not be willed but merely tolerated. We can never do evil to achieve good. The end doesn't justify the means.
At what point after the female egg is fertilized does it possess the full genetic make up and its own principle of life? Do we know?
You bring up extreme cases -- the life of the mother vs. the life of the fetus. How about cases that aren't extreme. How about basic "choice" for whatever reason.
If you kill a 20-week baby born prematurely, you can be guilty of murder in this country. If you assault a pregnant woman (20 weeks) and kill the fetus, you can be charged with murder. But a 36-week baby can be subject to a partial birth abortion. We have laws that allow unborn children to inherit property.
If a couple gets pregnant, and they start planning a room for the new arrival, it's a "baby." They buy a crib, paper the walls, design the room, buy clothes. They may do this when the "baby" is only 20 weeks. If they decide to abort (for non life threatening reasons), it's a fetus and has no rights.
What I'm asking -- is the definition of human life, then, completely relative? Is there no objective definition? If we can't determine one because we don't know, shouldn't we be giving it the benefit of the doubt?
You're argument seems to be suggesting that "age" may be a controlling factor. You write: "That "when" is at what stage of the developing fetus treating the fetus as a person with "all the rights" will NOT deny all accepted persons all the rights that every person deserves in life."
The term "accepted persons" bothers me. What wre the criterion for "acceptance?" Age? If we use age as a criterion, the young will always be at a disadvantage born or unborn. They'll never win this argument.
Doug, I would say that there is no science to define a "person" unless it is defined as any human who is already born into the world. Even being born in rare cases might not necessarily define a person since an anencephalic can be born and yet has no brain, only a brain stem. Shouldn't some potential for thinking be one criteria? Therefore when personhood occurs is something set not by science but by the consensus of others. And that is why it will be settled, perhaps finally, in the United States by our Supreme Court. ..Maurice.
Maurice: I don't claim to have all the answers -- but I'm saying that under some legal contexts in our country a fetus is defined as a human being with rights. I'm also saying our law seems confused on this issue, with no clear standard. I also suggesting that since there is no "science" to determine what constitutes human life, there is a valid argument that we lean toward giving a fetus the benefit of the doubt. The possible "scientific" definition of human life as some born into the world -- doesn't seem logical to me. First, you have to define "born." Do you mean natural birth? A fetus can be taken from the womb at quite an early stage and survive. Indeed, a fetus can be conceived in a test tube. Is that being "born?"
Yes, the Supreme Court can create a definition. But that would not be primarily a scientific, nor a moral, nor even a philosophic or theological definition. It would be primarily a political definition.
Are we then saying there is no objective definition of human life? Various political systems (like Nazi Germany) can create their own laws that determine the definition of human life, what's of value and what isn't? Is there a "Natural Law?"
I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here. Your response?
It appears this topic has been pretty much decided by the few posters. I do understand the difficulty involved in ethical questions like this. I also understand that once it all becomes pretty much relative, i.e. the definition of what constitutes human life and what life gets that designation and what doesn't -- once it becomes relative, history has shown us there is indeed a slippery slope. The American public didn't get to vote whether to free the slaves. Lincoln did it on his own. He claimed the moral high ground. Even during the civil rights era -- if you had taken a vote as to whether to outlaw segregation, how do you think it would have come out? Was it a relatie question? Should each state have been given the right to segregate? Don't forget the federal government had to send troops south to enforce the new civil rights laws.
Post a Comment
<< Home