When does a fetus become a human being? I don't know. Do you?
A lot of people think they do. We have heard a great deal from them since 1973 and Roe v. Wade. In the process, the two sides have fought pitched battles on a host of issues. They have made little if any progress toward dialogue with each other.
Perhaps we should start the discussion over. Perhaps "I don't know" is the place to start.
Perspectives on when human life begins have covered the spectrum over the past three millennia or so. The Greek Stoics believed that the fetus was not human till the moment of birth. Aristotle asserted that the embryo takes on a human soul 40 to 90 days after conception, depending on gender. The notion of "quickening" -- when the woman could first sense movement in her womb -- was sometimes used as a dividing line between ethical and unethical abortion. St. Augustine, in his Enchiridion, suggested that this question "may be most carefully discussed by the most learned men, and still I do not know that any man can answer it." (For more on the variety of approaches to the question, see Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade.)
True, Augustine didn't have access to ultrasound. One might argue that today's medical technology has proven what the ancients could only guess at. But while it has informed the debate to a great degree, it cannot provide a definitive answer, because "becoming human" is not a scientific question but a spiritual or philosophical one. And who can answer any such question definitively? Even that great bastion of Christian dogma, the Apostles' Creed--to which the Church has demanded undying fealty over the centuries--starts not with "I know," but with "I believe."
So the answer to "when does a fetus become a human being?" is a matter of belief, not certainty. But before we retreat back into those beliefs, and the pitched battles that have accompanied them, perhaps we should dwell with "I don't know" for a while.
Why? Because "I don't know" can jolt us out of our timeworn certainties. Consider this: If the human status of a fetus is a matter of belief, whose belief holds sway? In a free society, can we honestly prohibit individual believers from exploring and acting upon answers for themselves? Ironically, this question describes what, on most issues today, would be called a conservative position -- leave the decision-making power closest to the local community and the individual citizen -- yet many self-styled conservatives would cringe at this choice.
"I don't know" is no easier for those in favor of legal abortion. If human life might begin at any time between conception and birth, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and discourage abortions at any time, or at least earlier in the gestation cycle than we do currently? After all, conception is the first moment when all the building blocks to make a human being are in place.
"I don't know," if we take it seriously, pushes us to relax our grip on our cherished certainty -- at least long enough to consider the possibility that we may be wrong. When the certainty goes, so does the strident hostility that often accompanies it. Relieved of that anger, we have a window of opportunity to look afresh at people on the "other side" and ponder the question with them, rather than shout at them.
Gil Fronsdal, a Buddhist teacher and Soto Zen priest, suggests a meditation practice that involves adding "I don't know" to every thought. In meditation and throughout our daily lives--especially when we find ourselves judging our actions or those of others--we respond with "I don't know." "Repeating the words 'I don't know' allows us to question tightly-held ideas," Fronsdal writes. "Done thoroughly, 'I don't know' can pull the rug out from under our most cherished beliefs."
Abortion is an extraordinarily multifaceted issue, and the question of the fetus's humanity is but one (albeit an important one) among many. But if "I don't know" enabled us to explore this question together, we might build a foundation to explore the other questions as well. Who knows how far that might take us?
Follow John Backman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/backwrite
APNewsBreak: Kansas Eases Abortion Clinic Rules
Iowa Radio Host Calls Cain "Pro-Choice" and "Incoherent" on the Issue of Abortion
APNewsBreak: DA says abortion records destroyed
Russia's parliament adopts law restricting abortions to 12 weeks, with ...
Chinese abortion death due to birth quota enforcement, family claims
This is the very reason pro abortionists will never admit the truth of your premise.
You and your wife are welcome to err on the side of whatever you want to err on. You do NOT have the right to err on MY human, civil and Constitutional rights.
No, I don't know when a fetus? zygote? becomes a human being. I guess I would have to say that when the pregnancy is wanted, it's a baby. If it's not wanted, you can call it whatever you like as long as a woman isn't forced to carry it to term. This isn't about the baby. This isn't about life, really. This is about control. This is about women having sex outside of wedlock (like that has ever really made a difference, men would cheat on their wives and leave their families even in olden days) and women not wanting to be slaves to their own biology. We want to plan our families. We don't see ourselves as brood mares, dropping a baby every time a sperm connects with an egg. We have more to offer than just what our wombs present.
I would start by getting material to get the pregnant teen more informed early in the process, offer assistance such as a ride to the doc, or babysit. I have a practice of getting pamper after birth, for young teens I know of. Makes me feel good, and they feel better for it. We all have waaaaaaaaaay too much time. I could give up 20% of my fb and blog time in the fight against abortion. Your turn.
And no, it is not just in women or pregnant women that such situations arise, where the emotions sieze the upper hand and it is too late for reason. But this situation is one of the most conspicuous in its class.
One place we can start is to separate sex from pregnancy. In the moral sense sex outside marriage is wrong; I never read that being pregnant is wrong or bad. If we nurtured unwed mothers more it would go a long way toward stopping abortion. Then, we could apply the same effort to teen sex.
Prosecution and punishment are, sadly, the only ways to bring this War on Women to an end.
Philosophers and other social actors(whom I have nothing but disdain for) seek to alter very simple, objective definitions to further their own agendas and worldviews.
Never, in the history of recorded science, has a non-human being turned into a human being by becoming older and bigger.
A "being" is a living organism. The foetus that can't live on its own ISN'T a living organism, it's just a shuman-shaped growth in the body of a human being (yes, although it may surprise you, women ARE human BEINGS". Good luck with you philosophy !
The fetus becomes a person when the mother makes an positive emotional connection to carrying the fetus to term. The commitment to a positive outcome. This may include the quickening, it may include when she realises she is pregnant, it may be when she shares the news with family.
But to ask any woman to carry, against her will, a child to term is to commit her to a sentence without a trial. In the specific cases of rape - this is clear. In the cases of medical viability, and a woman knows her child is damaged - the same. In the case of a woman knowing she is bringing her child into a life of poverty, yet another version of this issue.
If the fetus is carried by a woman who is hostile to it, I wonder if the right to lifers have considered the inherent possibility in that case that the 'host' and negative feelings/behaviours/actions may actually damage this 'soul' in the long run?
The fact remains 'we don't know' if that's the case, so who would want to risk in-utero emotional damage?
Just a thought.
Always made me wonder if there was a similar association that they claim with music?
Either way, I came to that conclusion when I had her: you've got to want that child or what damage are you causing it?
In response to your comment to the effect that you don't believe there's any such thing as a Christian mystic: Christian mysticism has been around for a long, long time. An argument can be made that Jesus disciples were the first Christian mystics. Rather than rely on religious beliefs and intellectual knowledge, Christian mystics want to know (as in "sexual intercourse intimacy") God on an experiential basis in the present moment- seeking transformation thru actual relationship into unity with God.
Rather than attempting to set ourselves up as some kind of Pope (the supposedly "ultimate" leader of a fear-based religion dishonestly named after Christ), mystics seek only the removal of ourselves from that which intervenes between us and an utterly intimate relationship with God - first and foremost in that would be freeing ourselves of the illusion that we are God or can control Him in any way be it thru sacrifices or belief systems.
But this misquote shows a total failure to understand not just the Creed, but even faith itself. The verb "I believe" has a few basic, different meanings, Backman chose the wrong one. In the Creed, "I believe" does not mean "I think it may be so". It means, "this is the faith handed down infallibly to us from the Apostles, who knew it from Christ himself".
Still, he and I could both be all wet. I'll need to dig into this further. If you have sources, I'd appreciate them.
The second is Henry Bettenson's "Documents of the Christian Church" which include not only the Creeds, but commentary on them and contemporary discussion of them.
Last but not least, there is Jaroslav Pelikan's classic "The Christian Tradition". You would want the first volume.
Once you give the opportunity, all those who would succumb to such a fallacy will re-image the argument in a way that portrays science as epistemologically insufficient. These people may partly crave perpetual indecisiveness.
The problem is that no one ever seems to justify HOW neuroscience CAN'T provide this knowledge. You included, Mr. Backman.
That's a fair criticism, so let me try to answer it. It seems to me that neuroscience can describe, with great accuracy, the chemical and electrical dynamics of the human brain. I'm enthralled by what the field is discovering about the brain's effect on emotion, spirituality, etc., and I absolutely think it deserves to be taken seriously. But, in order to use these data to help us determine when a being is human, we have to agree on what human IS. Is it when the being has 40% of the functioning of a "normal" ex utero human being? 60%? Are certain capacities essential for being human and others not? How does this affect our understanding of people with profound disabilities?
I don't see that science has the tools to make this determination. Maybe this quandary demonstrates that "humanity" is an artificial construct, and therefore the question is moot, but I can't see many people buying that.
So, to the larger point: Yes, I do think science is epistemologically insufficient to explain absolutely everything. I do not crave perpetual indecisiveness. Science deserves all the respect and consideration it gets. But there are other ways of knowing, and I believe we should avail ourselves of them all.
In the spirit of this discussion, I admit that perhaps I'm all wet. Which is why I would love to hear your response.
But you should know by now: proving a negative is SO hard, most people just give up and call it 'impossible'.
Now in truth, it is not always impossible (it is easy to prove that there is no line that meets a plane in exactly three points); but when possible, it still tends to be very difficult. This is why we haven't proven that the abominable snowman does not exist.