[WikiEN-l] Re: Is "fetus" = "human life" POV?

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
>
> Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
> life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
> "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?

I think there certainly is a point of view involved here, in the  
sense that there is a continuous spectrum of things ranging from  
things that few would consider to be "human life" and things that  
most would consider to be "human life," and anywhere you draw the  
line represents some kind of point of view.

I'm going to list some points in that spectrum. I ask you, _not_  
where you draw the line, but whether it is _possible_ to draw that  
line anywhere without expressing a point of view.

1) Since a mouse shares about 90% of its genome with humans, wouldn't  
a Martian consider that for all intents and purposes a mouse is  
practically "human" life?

2) At this point, it has been established that rats dream. Over the  
past couple of decades, ethologists have increasingly adopted the,  
well, point of view that the concept of "consciousness" has  
scientific validity... and that mammals in fact are conscious.  
Probably most people, scientists or not, would agree that mammals are  
capable of feeling physical pain, and that many of them are capable  
of feeling emotions such as grief or joy. By virtue of sharing the  
mental characteristics that constitute human personhood, are they  
essentially "human" life and entitled to "personhood?"

3) Are the red blood cells in the last blood donation I made, alive?  
(They metabolize and do many things but cannot reproduce). If they  
are alive, they are certainly human. Are they "human life?"

4) How about cells scraped from the inside of my cheeks, which are a  
classic high-school material for studying chromosomes?

5) How about my white blood cells, which have nuclei and contain my  
genome and can reproduce themselves, but cannot with present  
technology reproduce another human being?

6) How about a human kidney, removed from a car accident victim who  
is carrying an organ donor card? That is, there is no reasonable  
doubt that the person involved is "dead," yet the kidney is "still  
alive," and is certainly "human?"

7) How about my sperm cells, which are certainly alive and certainly  
human and can reproduce another human being when combined with  
genetic material from an ovum, but cannot with present technology  
reproduce another human being _by themselves?_

8) How about a sperm and an ovum, considered together, during the  
time period when the sperm has entered the ovum fertilization  
membrane has lifted, so that it is all but certain that a) no other  
sperm can fertilize that ovum and b) that particular sperm will in  
fact fertilize the ovum... but the nuclei have not yet merged? At  
this point in time, the probability that a human being will develop  
is almost the same as it is just after fertilization, and in both  
cases we know exactly "who" it will be (in the sense of knowing the  
genetic complement).

9) You use the word "fetus," so I assume you accept the ordinary  
distinction between a "fetus" and "embryo" (less than 8 weeks old).  
IS an embryo human life? Just like the separate egg-and-sperm just  
prior to fertilization, the embryo is pretty much predestined to  
_become_ human life, but it doesn't look like a human being and it  
doesn't look different from a nonhuman embryo. Is it "human life?"

10) first-trimeter fetuses

11) second-trimester fetuses

12) third-trimester fetuses

13) Newborn infants

14) Toddlers




--
Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in  
August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at http:// 
www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417