2012.02.23
Hicks: A mindless fetus isn’t a person
Don’t look to Bible to define personhood
By Mike Hicks
Hicks is a Quaker, a graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University and lives in Salem.
Now that the personhood bill has passed our legislature, I imagine that we will hear a lot of complaints from the pro-choice crowd that conservatives are legislating religion and that this is somehow unconstitutional. I don’t think that it is, but the bill faces a bigger problem: It gets the religion wrong.
This was very well written and thought out. Congratulations to Mr. Hicks.
I especially liked the car being guilt analogy.
Comment by Scott M. — February 23, 2012 @ 8:21 am
But a car doesn’t self-assemble after, say, a lugnut gets screwed on a lug bolt, either.
Kind of hard to compare a biological/chemical process with a car being assembled. Even though there are are plenty of chemicals used in car building.
Comment by George Krutz, III — February 23, 2012 @ 9:37 am
“God’s image isn’t our bodies or our biology; God has neither.”
Explain.
Comment by Uptheriver — February 23, 2012 @ 9:50 am
So a person who has “lost their mind” and becomes mindless is no longer.
Look at how we bob and weave, contemplate, twist and turn on the topic of human life. In our heart and in our gut we feel it’s wrong to terminate. Our conscience’s first reaction agrees. But the mind gets put to work, looking for avenues of justification for the taking of life. The mind knows it isn’t good..but what hurdles must be cleared to make it right.
I agree with Scott…the piece is well written.
Comment by BUD — February 23, 2012 @ 10:06 am
God is not a human being #3.
BUD, “lost their mind” is another projection. They are still human beings. As is a baby, once it is born.
I will x3 that one, very well written and analyzed.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 10:45 am
I disagree Sandi. Bud raises an excellent point. The writer says a person isn’t a person until the mind develops. What if the child is mentally disabled. Whether you deem it a ‘projection’ or not, under this analysis, a severely mentally delayed or disabled person would not be a person. Would that mean it is okay to kill them?
Comment by Chuck — February 23, 2012 @ 12:27 pm
@2 Mr. Krutz, your comment makes me think of this cartoon.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2012/02/darwin_car.jpeg
Comment by Scott M. — February 23, 2012 @ 1:58 pm
@7: I like it!
Comment by George Krutz, III — February 23, 2012 @ 2:51 pm
I suppose the definition of “person” and “mind” should be explored further. I do not think he says or means “the mind” is the IQ or capacity of the brain but the development needed to live/survive outside of the womb. He does not say a fetus is never a person, he says we cannot define the moment that the fetus becomes a person, the moment they are a viable life outside the womb. And we cannot. Some miracle babies have survived being born too soon, some full term babies do not survive.
You want to take his perfectly valid, compassionate and fact filled commentary apart but you are barking up the wrong tree IMO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 3:26 pm
I was not saying BUD was “projecting” BTW. I said the term “lost their mind” was a projection. People who “lose their minds” are generally still functioning human beings on some level, even those in a vegetative state can still be alive. People who have Alzheimers and cannot recognize their spouse or children can function and do other things that give them a quality of life, but people could say they “lost their mind”. People who have a manic episode can function, make decisions (usually bad ones), eat, drive, etc but people say they have “lost their mind”. The phrase is not a medical diagnosis and does not prove loss of life or function.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 3:32 pm
I admit that this piece is well written, however it seems to support the very argument it seeks to disprove. As argued and demonstrated very well, personhood begins before birth. The arguments here as well as the law recognize this fact. We as a soceity do not contend that an unborn baby in the instant before birth (natural or c-section) is not a person. We, as the author demonstrates, understand that there is some point at which that unborn child becomes a person. That point is fuzzy and difficult, if not impossible, to define.
Because we cannot define when a life becomes a “person”, it is highly likely that we could, in that ignorace, kill a “person” while intending only to remove fetal material. This bespeaks the balancing of a person’s life against another’s convenience or even health. It may entail the life of one balanced against the life of another.
We speak of viability, the concept introduced into the lexicon in Roe v. Wade. As science advances how far back does the point of vialbility go? Where is it now almost 40 years later?
Logic and practicality then dictate that we should use a bright line test to define personhood. There are two points to choose from, when the child is removed from the mother and when it has all of its genetic material and can then begin to grow and develop, birth and conception respectively.
The author, the Bible, and the law reject defining personhood at birth as demonstrated in the first part of the article, so that point is considered conceded. That leaves only conception.
Conception is the point at which a seperate entity forms and begins to develop. Yes, it is dependent on the mother, at least until science advances further. But it is a seperate entity with different DNA, different qualities and characteristics, and evenutally a totally separate set of organs and mind.
Some would argue that we consider a fetus a person when the heart begins to beat, but that can vary and is subject to measurement limitations. What about brain activity? Same set of limitations. The only bright line left is conception. Note: I leave all arguments of contraception out of this discussion of personhood, but note that all contraception prevents personhood in any case after conception. (allowing conception, but prevenitng implantation is the issues there)
BUD raises a valid and telling issue on self awareness and cognative ability. If a child is born vegitative, but “alive” is it more or less of a person than a child with normal brain activity in the moments before birth? We are back to the fuzzy line again.
The law recognizes a person in utero in the area of Wills as well. The Rule Against Perpetuties voids any gift that vests later than 21 years after the death of a “life in being” plus 9 months. This means grandpa can can know that his heir is pregnant and plan his estate accordingly and the unborn child is considered in that estate.
Finally, the second half of the argument seems to indicate that unborn children were property in the times of Genesis. So were women who were treated as also such until not too recently. Even in our own country entire populations were considered property. We as a soceity have recognized that this was wrong and have corrected it, just as we recognize that treating an unborn child as a non-person is wrong. The problem is that we have only recognized it to the fuzzy undefinable point.
It is not merely a matter of quoting a verse to define the poitn of personhood. Even if you could quote such a verse, it would not end the argument. But consider the the only bright lines and all of the undefindable fuzz in the middle. Based soley on that the default has to be conception.
Comment by Eric Andrew — February 23, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
Maybe that makes some kind of sense to you Eric Andrews but if I understand what you are trying to say, I disagree that we only have “bright line” choices and that there are only two. If indeed you want to limit the choice for describing “personhood” legally, it would have to be viability as determined by current science, or birth. You like the changes society and science are making, why deny them consideration? The writer was merely addressing those who insist on a religious “leg to stand on” regarding life beginning at conception. It was not considered so then, and it is not considered so now.
Too many natural, unknown or outside activities can affect what happens between conception and viability (even if abortion is out of the picture) for any sane, rational being to determine the fetus is a person at those stages. At best, it is potential life but it cannot be sustained outside the womb and it might not survive regardless of being welcomed, planned and wanted. That is simply a fact. People are arguing their morality not the facts IMO.
The idea that life or “personhood”, begins at conception is every ounce as “fuzzy” as any other arbitrary time you want to pick out of the air and often very hard to pinpoint as well. That is not even a line, much less a “bright” one. That popular morality lags behind science has been a hard decision for man since before Biblical times.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 23, 2012 @ 6:22 pm
The notion of viability is relative; each child is different and is viable at nearly the same time, but not at the exact same time. Viability itself is difficult to define. The fact that a doctor can state an opinion on viability sill only means that it is opinion. There are concrete events that occur: conception, implantation, etc., there are temporal benchmarks, and there are developmental benchmarks, but the opinion that a fetus can survive outside the womb is only a subjective opinion.
Temporal benchmarks are arbitrary. Developmental benchmarks vary and therefore are difficult to legislate due to that variance. That leaves the defining bright lines.
Your statement “Too many natural, unknown or outside activities can affect what happens between conception and viability (even if abortion is out of the picture) for any sane, rational being to determine the fetus is a person at those stages. At best, it is potential life but it cannot be sustained outside the womb and it might not survive regardless of being welcomed, planned and wanted”, does not speak to personhood. These same unfortunate events can happen after the second after viability, does that make them more traumatic or more impactful. Does a clump of cells suddenly become a “person”? Conception, implantation are bright lines because either the sperm has fertilized the egg or not, the embryo has implanted in the uterus or not, the baby has been born or not. Viability involves opinions of lung development, heart strength, and other factors. The National institute of Health concedes “Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors. It is only in virtue of both factors that a viable fetus can exist ex utero and thus later achieve independent moral status.” It goes on, “In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age.” Note that it says approximately, a very fuzzy word.
I fully understand that this argument undermines any rationale for allowing abortions, and possibly even some forms of contraception. Note that I’m not spouting any morality or Biblical authority, but arguing that when we are talking about whether a life is a life, we need to know what the definition of a life, or a person, is and that definition should not include approximations or opinions but concrete, definite terms.
Comment by Eric Andrew — February 23, 2012 @ 10:58 pm