Ethics. That's what his question is about. I am sorry to hear that you think religion should influence such discussions.

I myself believe it's a question of the state of development of the fetus. I am not an expert but see that some countries consider three months, others 24 weeks as the point when a bundle of cells become a person, to use the OPs words. They will have based their decision on doctors' advice.The truth is somewhere in that area, I believe. Certainly long before birth.

This does not mean that I'd advocate an easy, no-questions-asked abortion before that point in time, for exactly the reasons that have been mentioned already.

The process of foetal development is no different, as far as I know, from that of any of the higher mammals. But somewhere, somehow, a sea-change takes place which makes us human... or do you think we are just an improved model of chimpanzee (albeit much improved!)? My feeling is that that change is either set into motion when the sperm fertilises the ovum, or when the baby is born. To suggest that it happens any time between these two events seems to call for some additional external intervention.

I'm not sure about your external intervention, but yes, that's what I'm saying. Or are you saying that abortion is OK if performed on apes but not on humans? If so, I would like to hear why.

You may call a cell culture a living being, but I wouldn't call it a person. Am I ethically allowed to kill a cell culture? Would the answer make a difference between a cell culture in a petri dish and a cell culture inside a human body?

I don't quite see where you get the idea that I'm advocating abortion in the case of the higher apes. I don't think the issue arises.

No, I don't call a cell culture a living being. However long you go on culturing a cell culture in a petri dish, it will never, as far as I know, become a human being. In a human body, however, something, somehow triggers the change which results in a human being. As a Christian, I would call it a soul; I'm not asking you to agree with me (you won't, anyhow) but I'd like to know what you think happens.

I can accept the idea that the full development of the foetus is programmed through the initial fertilisation, or that something happens on birth which makes a human being what he/she is.... but I don't see how it starts happening some time in the second trimester unless there is some external trigger which makes it happen.

The process of foetal development is no different, as far as I know, from that of any of the higher mammals. But somewhere, somehow, a sea-change takes place which makes us human... or do you think we are just an improved model of chimpanzee (albeit much improved!)? My feeling is that that change is either set into motion when the sperm fertilises the ovum, or when the baby is born. To suggest that it happens any time between these two events seems to call for some additional external intervention.

I'm not sure about your external intervention, but yes, that's what I'm saying. Or are you saying that abortion is OK if performed on apes but not on humans? If so, I would like to hear why.

You may call a cell culture a living being, but I wouldn't call it a person. Am I ethically allowed to kill a cell culture? Would the answer make a difference between a cell culture in a petri dish and a cell culture inside a human body?

I don't quite see where you get the idea that I'm advocating abortion in the case of the higher apes. I don't think the issue arises.

No, I don't call a cell culture a living being. However long you go on culturing a cell culture in a petri dish, it will never, as far as I know, become a human being. In a human body, however, something, somehow triggers the change which results in a human being. As a Christian, I would call it a soul; I'm not asking you to agree with me (you won't, anyhow) but I'd like to know what you think happens.

I can accept the idea that the full development of the foetus is programmed through the initial fertilisation, or that something happens on birth which makes a human being what he/she is.... but I don't see how it starts happening some time in the second trimester unless there is some external trigger which makes it happen.

You mentioned chimpanzees and then discussed abortion with regards to humans. See your comment above referring to "what makes us human". I may have jumped to the conclusion that you made a difference between humans and apes.

I am not very familiar with in-vitro fertilization, but understand this is fertilization outside of the human body. Anyway, I consider every fertilization the same, whether inside or outside the human body. But maybe I am to scientific, and as you correctly stated, I am not seeing it from a Christian perspective.

I don't know when the cell culture becomes a human being, I am not a biologist. I also don't know what a soul is. But you are right, there is something that makes the initial cell culture human. I say it happens during pregnancy, but I am not expert enough to say when. You say it happens at conception, and I respect your opinion.

My perspective is that if a foetus can survive outside of the womb then it is already a person. Most abortions take place between 7-12 weeks.

Abortions after 16 weeks or so are a messy affair and not something you would want to witness I assure you.

Gore aside my feeling is the law on this will continue to evolve but you will not eradicate abortion. Human nature is not often in tune with common sense.

As to the Catholic perspective I can see why they say a person is such at conception. It does nothing to help a pregnant teenager, alone, who has no way to support her child properly.

As a scientific materialist, I don't believe in a 'soul' and have no truck with supernatural mumbo-jumbo to define personhood- but I doubt very much that babies are what I would recognise as persons through much of their development until birth. Arguing about when 'life' begins assumes there is a clear scientific definition of life, and there isn't. Viruses are semi-alive and need other cells to do their reproduction for them. Babies- even fully grown, brought-to-term newborns- are incapable of feeding themselves or doing a number of self-care operations which are generally part of attempts to define 'life'- though they can be trained socially into such a state. So is it the baby alone who is alive, or the collection of persons with their training and self-care practices?

Traditionally, babies have been considered expendable in many societies- who correctly recognised that the baby had no immediate contributions to make, especially if it seemed that the child was ill or sickly in some way. Given the relative prosperity we live in, I don't think we have the right to judge them.

However, in other societies- classical Sparta comes to mind, though it wasn't because they were warm and fuzzy- babies were a community resource, essentially, and would be raised by the state- meaning that individual women didn't have to worry about the economic or time issues involved for them individually (unless they were already working in childcare).

Having said all of that, there is no 'absolute' way to answer the question- which is partly why the arguments continue. Leaving it up to the individual women involved is essentially agreeing with this formulation (and it is where I personally stand).

If the baby has already been born- at that point if the woman doesn't want to claim responsibility, it is time for the state to take over- that's where adoption, orphanage, etc., come into play- but that is already a system in place. If the state ever decided it couldn't afford more children in the system, then I suppose it would have to ask its citizens to make some tough choices (do you want to pay more so we can support these babies, or should we euthanise them?)

Up to the point where the baby needs the mother's body to survive, I would let it be the mother's choice- we certainly don't need a huge crowd more of children in the world whom their own mothers/parents didn't actually want to exist and/or be born to risk being raised by such persons.

Pretty much my standing as well. I think its the natural way of things for the mother to decide.

Pretty much my standing as well. I think its the natural way of things for the mother to decide.

Well, the natural way of things is to let the body decide . . . but I agree with you: Mother's choice . . . but where to set the limit

Having started this topic thinking one thing, I seem to be now moving towards agreement with the Catholic Church's position, that 'personhood' begins at conception. I can accept that it might begin at birth, but I cannot see the logic of deciding it begins somewhere in between.

IJWT's post is interesting, but it's mostly about post-birth development, and is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. The grim Spartan culture is hardly something we would want to emulate, anyway.

So, if personhood begins at conception, what about abortion? I still say yes in cases of rape, or where the mother is at risk, or where the baby will be born handicapped. I also think it must be available to e.g. teenage unmarried mothers-to-be, and other unsuitable mothers. I fully realise that the word 'unsuitable' conjures up all sorts of state interference... and would like to think about that one further.

I do not think, from my Christian point of view, that an abortion destroys a soul; can't we trust God a little more to deal with that?

Babies- even fully grown, brought-to-term newborns- are incapable of feeding themselves or doing a number of self-care operations which are generally part of attempts to define 'life'-

Interesting post IJWT but on this point, there are also many Adults who cannot perform those tasks either. They don't even have a choice to end their own life, never mind someone making the decision for them. However, we would probably go off an a tangent on that subject.

^Yes, all of these things are also ethical tangles with no clear answers. Old people who couldn't pull their weight were sometimes abandoned by nomadic tribes in hard times. The world is a murky place. I would argue for extending the net of public care as far as possible without making exponentially self-defeating decisions (for a theoretically possible but unlikely example, you shouldn't promise unlimited care for hundreds of children of couples who both have the same expensive latent genetic disease combinations). Most of our health care rules only work if the bad things that happen are by chance, not by design.

^^Isaanbirder, I thought I did address abortion- the choice should go to the mother whose body the baby is using. Otherwise there's no way to make a choice. That includes the choice about at what point the abortion should be carried out.

^^Isaanbirder, I thought I did address abortion- the choice should go to the mother whose body the baby is using. Otherwise there's no way to make a choice. That includes the choice about at what point the abortion should be carried out.

I think that is a simplistic answer. Yes, I agree that great weight should be placed on the mother's wishes, but it takes two people to make a baby, and the father also has a right to a say. You use the expression "the baby is using". That sounds to me like The Midwich Cuckoos, by John Wyndham, which I hope you've read... and will have enjoyed.

To a certain extent (what extent?), the society in which the mother lives must have some say. But above all, medical personnel must have a say in that they alone know when it is safe to abort a baby.

I wish we could find some way in which abortions, if they must be carried out, are carried out by qualified personnel, not by backstreet abortionists. That requires a liberalisation of abortion laws, but also perhaps a crackdown on prostitution, which inevitably spawns underage prostitution and the resulting birth of babies to young girls who really don't know what's what. Yes, this should be avoidable, but it isn't avoided.

After reading many posts on this forum from men who take no responsibility in raising their own children, either here or back in their home countries then I am not convinced that men should have a say. Most times, they are not the ones who end up raising their kids, sure there are great dads out there, mine being one of them but I have developed a very cynical response to some men because of posts on Thaivisa (and the lack of rebuttal by the decent guys I should add) and the lack of responsibility many members show and the seeming willingness to piss off and have a great time while the mothers are the ones who raise the kids. And no, I am not referring to Thai men.

That said, for those who believe life begins at conception, I do hope you are all strict vegetarians and consider all life sacred and don't eat meat.

Non sequitur *HUG* for Sbk.

IB: I think my solution is simple, true, but simple enough to work. If the woman wants the man involved, fine. If not, fine. If she wants to carry the baby to term, fine. If she doesn't, fine.

Maybe one flip side of this, though, should be made- is that I would argue that if she chooses to carry the baby to term and wants to raise the child, the man is not inherently obligated to pay unless he was given the power (by the woman) to reject involvement himself (and did not exercise it). That makes it clear that all the parties are involved of their own free will(s). Presumably if the man is granted a role by the woman, the act of conception itself was mutually agreed (or an accidental birth control foul during consensual sex).

I find it hard to understand why a man wouldn't provide for his children regardless of how he feels about the mother. If you have sex without using protection then you are taking the risk...no matter what a woman says to you.

Imagine how a child would feel to be shown such a document stating the father wanted nothing to do with them even before they were born.

Sadly its how many men do appear to think. Total lack of responsibility.

There are many mothers and fathers who do not want the responsibility. True, it is a terrible thing, but many people don't get good guidance or families. So I think it's best as a society to give them an out- have an abortion, or give up the child for adoption. Don't make the person/couple who doesn't want the child raise it.

Of course, adoption doesn't always work out either, but that's another story.

Even though this is Bedlam, personal insults are not allowed. Some posts have been removed.

Non sequitur *HUG* for Sbk.

IB: I think my solution is simple, true, but simple enough to work. If the woman wants the man involved, fine. If not, fine. If she wants to carry the baby to term, fine. If she doesn't, fine.

Maybe one flip side of this, though, should be made- is that I would argue that if she chooses to carry the baby to term and wants to raise the child, the man is not inherently obligated to pay unless he was given the power (by the woman) to reject involvement himself (and did not exercise it). That makes it clear that all the parties are involved of their own free will(s). Presumably if the man is granted a role by the woman, the act of conception itself was mutually agreed (or an accidental birth control foul during consensual sex).

If all men and women were rational, unselfish, and fully aware of their situation, this might work.

My partner and I have three 'adopted' sons whose natural parents discarded them for one reason or another.

Frankly, I have no idea what the answer to the problem of irresponsible parents is. But I am sure freely available abortion is not the way to go.

After reading many posts on this forum from men who take no responsibility in raising their own children, either here or back in their home countries then I am not convinced that men should have a say. Most times, they are not the ones who end up raising their kids, sure there are great dads out there, mine being one of them but I have developed a very cynical response to some men because of posts on Thaivisa (and the lack of rebuttal by the decent guys I should add) and the lack of responsibility many members show and the seeming willingness to piss off and have a great time while the mothers are the ones who raise the kids. And no, I am not referring to Thai men.

That said, for those who believe life begins at conception, I do hope you are all strict vegetarians and consider all life sacred and don't eat meat.

I have answered the first part of this in the last post.

No, I am not a vegetarian; and I do not eat people. The subject of this thread is 'personhood', not 'life' As a Christian, I believe that people differ from animals in that they have souls.

But for those who deny that people have souls, presumably man is just a higher form of animal, and therefore you should treat all animals as you would treat men... and become vegetarians.

After reading many posts on this forum from men who take no responsibility in raising their own children, either here or back in their home countries then I am not convinced that men should have a say. Most times, they are not the ones who end up raising their kids, sure there are great dads out there, mine being one of them but I have developed a very cynical response to some men because of posts on Thaivisa (and the lack of rebuttal by the decent guys I should add) and the lack of responsibility many members show and the seeming willingness to piss off and have a great time while the mothers are the ones who raise the kids. And no, I am not referring to Thai men.

That said, for those who believe life begins at conception, I do hope you are all strict vegetarians and consider all life sacred and don't eat meat.

I have answered the first part of this in the last post.

No, I am not a vegetarian; and I do not eat people. The subject of this thread is 'personhood', not 'life' As a Christian, I believe that people differ from animals in that they have souls.

But for those who deny that people have souls, presumably man is just a higher form of animal, and therefore you should treat all animals as you would treat men... and become vegetarians.

But I doubt all vegetarians are anti-abortionist. Or perhaps they are...maybe someone can shed some lght on this...perhaps from a Hindu perspective?

That said, for those who believe life begins at conception, I do hope you are all strict vegetarians and consider all life sacred and don't eat meat.

What does vegetarianism have to do with this? Anyway, if you consider all life sacred, it will include plant life.

I'm not joking. People cut a rose off it's root to say "I love you". Why-oh-why do you have to kill an innocent plant to prove your live to me, I wonder. Why not give me a dead squirrel instead? (Actually, I stole this analogy from Ellen DeGeneres.)

Back on topic: I agree with the probably far-fetched idea that it takes two to tango, or to make a baby. Yes, the woman is the one carrying it out, and I can imagine that it is not easy. But I do think that the man not only has to take responsibility but also (and maybe therefore) should also participate in the decision-making.

My decision (so far) has been not to make a baby, but what if it happens? Why would I not be allowed to have a say in the decision?

my point being that conception as a definition of the beginning of life of a human being is iffy at best; at that point it is simply a collection of cells. Same as everything else and if someone is going to take it to that extreme for human life maybe they need to reconsider how they look at all life.

When does a human develop a soul? no idea, but I also believe that animals have souls too so am not sure why we don't include them in the conversation too. Humans are hardly as unique and fantastic as we think we are.

Anyway, in an ideal world I believe men should have a say but then I also believe they should share 50% of all the responsibility too regardless of how things turn out with the mother.

my point being that conception as a definition of the beginning of life of a human being is iffy at best; at that point it is simply a collection of cells. Same as everything else and if someone is going to take it to that extreme for human life maybe they need to reconsider how they look at all life.

When does a human develop a soul? no idea, but I also believe that animals have souls too so am not sure why we don't include them in the conversation too. Humans are hardly as unique and fantastic as we think we are.

Anyway, in an ideal world I believe men should have a say but then I also believe they should share 50% of all the responsibility too regardless of how things turn out with the mother.

In which way should men have a say? Say the right to terminate or refuse termination based on the length or their relationship or inability to provide adequately for their child?

Difficult question that in a 50/50 situation.

Edit: To add...Its like a regime saying to the opposition they must consider carefully what to do with their 49% of the vote before making a decision. Men need to make the decision BEFORE conception occurs. Only then do we have a 50/50 choice in reality.

Sadly many of these decisions are being taken by boys rather than men.

Also there are many men who made what was for them the correct decision in choosing to participate fully in raising their children and been subsequently denied the right to be proper fathers. Either out of malice or mistrust or a whole host of other reasons women may have, grievances or not. These fathers and children are all losing out as a result.

Its not a one way street by a long margin.

Believe i used the word "some" rather extensively in my first post. I agree, kids do need their dads but they need engaged dads who behave like real fathers should, Having a real father myself I know what that entails and alot of my friends whose parents got divorced as teens dad's fell far short of that mark, even though there were no visitation issues whatsoever.

Anyway, back to the original idea of conception and life. I still stand by my belief that a collection of cells cannot be determined as being "a human being" but that is my personal opinion and I don't feel it my place to dictate to others what they should or should not believe. Just as I also feel it is nobody else's place to do that either.

Non sequitur *HUG* for Sbk.

IB: I think my solution is simple, true, but simple enough to work. If the woman wants the man involved, fine. If not, fine. If she wants to carry the baby to term, fine. If she doesn't, fine.

Maybe one flip side of this, though, should be made- is that I would argue that if she chooses to carry the baby to term and wants to raise the child, the man is not inherently obligated to pay unless he was given the power (by the woman) to reject involvement himself (and did not exercise it). That makes it clear that all the parties are involved of their own free will(s). Presumably if the man is granted a role by the woman, the act of conception itself was mutually agreed (or an accidental birth control foul during consensual sex).

If all men and women were rational, unselfish, and fully aware of their situation, this might work.

My partner and I have three 'adopted' sons whose natural parents discarded them for one reason or another.

Frankly, I have no idea what the answer to the problem of irresponsible parents is. But I am sure freely available abortion is not the way to go.

If it's not, your only remaining choices are adoption, forced adoption, orphanages,. or forcing the parents to give up the children.

Even adoption involves a use of force because you are forcing the women to have the children, when perhaps they'd rather not do the whole 9 month thing.

That's why abortion HAS to be freely available despite the religious scruples of others.

That said, for those who believe life begins at conception, I do hope you are all strict vegetarians and consider all life sacred and don't eat meat.

What does vegetarianism have to do with this? Anyway, if you consider all life sacred, it will include plant life.

I'm not joking. People cut a rose off it's root to say "I love you". Why-oh-why do you have to kill an innocent plant to prove your live to me, I wonder. Why not give me a dead squirrel instead? (Actually, I stole this analogy from Ellen DeGeneres.)

Back on topic: I agree with the probably far-fetched idea that it takes two to tango, or to make a baby. Yes, the woman is the one carrying it out, and I can imagine that it is not easy. But I do think that the man not only has to take responsibility but also (and maybe therefore) should also participate in the decision-making.

My decision (so far) has been not to make a baby, but what if it happens? Why would I not be allowed to have a say in the decision?

There's the little thing about the 9 month inconvenience (not to mention a lot of expense and pain) for the mother. As far as I'm concerned, she has to do the work, so she gets to make the decision- and if she wants to give the father veto rights, then fine if that's her choice!

Basically, if you're not arguing 'religious' stuff, you're balancing the possible future existence of a baby that the mother potentially doesn't even want, against 9 months of pain, expense, and inconvenience for that same woman. FORCING her to go through with that when there is an alternative is not going to fly- and to be perfectly frank, good for you, IB, for putting your money where your values are and adopting, but not everyone is going to take that financial responsible for their stand on abortion (among other things). It's not that anyone wants more babies to die; it's the cold hard facts that you don't get a warm, fuzzy way for everyone to be completely happy in situations of this type. Do I want women to have abortions? No. Do I want to let them have them? Yes, because it's better for me than the alternative of policing and economically supporting an unwilling woman for 9 months and her child forever after in a weird, hypocritical world that frankly stops caring about the children after they're born- at least, if paying for them is an indication of caring.

a person must have control of decisions regarding their bodies so with regard to pregnancies it's always the mother's call...

with a previous partner and two abortions there were discussions and I offered my opinion and said that I would support hers whatever it happened to be...

then there was an ectopic pregnancy and life threatening with emergency surgery and other ovarian complications and it was unlikely that she could then conceive afterward...and we sat around together later and thought about it...and I loved her very much...and we never regretted our previous decisions...

later with my ex-wife we received the news from the doctor that she was pregnant...at that point we were together only for convenience and didn't like each other and our eyes were downcast when the doc said: 'isn't that wonderful news??!!'...but our son has turned out OK and has never felt unwanted...we had tried to conceive for 6 years previous...

irony and it's ridiculous implications is always supposed to happen in books or to other people...

I'm awed by your sense of responsibility, Tutsi....

I'm awed by your sense of responsibility, Tutsi....

He's hit the nail on the head regarding parenthood. Just love your kids and guide them. So simple isn't it?

There seems to be more or less a consensus that the decision rests with the woman. Fine, when the woman is well-educated, thoughtful, highly intelligent... as I'm sure SBK is! But so often the unwanted pregnancy comes to an underage girl who really can't make the decision for herself, at least not in an intelligent way... nor, probably, can her equally thick boyfriend help. There are also all those totally uneducated girls lured into prostitution (or trafficked).

I think there have to be some limitations, though I don't know where or how they should be determined.

The Christian Churches love making rules. They had to (and still have to) where they are dealing with uneducated people. In Europe in the Middle Ages, the rules were needed, for example. But we're not in the Middle Ages now, and it is difficult for the leaders of all churches, not only the Catholics, to relax the rules they once made so firmly. They have to think for all their members, uneducated or stupid as many of them may be. The Church is open to everybody, not only the clever people! I am in favour of relaxing the Church's rules on abortion (trusting in God a bit more!), but I can see that in certain places they may still need to be strict.

I don't know about Buddhism, Hinduism or a host of lesser religions (such as Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Druidism, Janaism, worship of Moloch, totems and the like) but Christianity, Judaism and Islam all condemn abortion.

As the original topic was 'when is a person a person?', then I assume all these savants consider that the person develops in the womb. The OP wanted to keep religion out of the discussion, but I cannot see how this is possible.