4 ms·

> * When does the gamete/zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/whatever go from being not-human to being human? Per the US constitution, they are considered a person (an

> * When does the gamete/zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/whatever go from being not-human to being human? Per the US constitution, they are considered a person (an individual with human rights) after being born. Per the Jewish faith (ditto Buddhist, Unitarian), upon their first breath.

throw0101d 3y ago
> Per the US constitution, they are considered a person (an individual with human rights) after being born. I'm not (that) familiar with the US constitution, so is there a specific reference? Philosophizing here: One fetus could come come out at 8.5 months gestation and have rights, and another at 9.5 and gain rights. But the one that came out at 9.5 would have no rights at 8.5 because it just happens to still be in the uterus. What property of the fetus/whatever changes post-birth versus pre-birth that makes it have rights? Another legal jurisdiction could have it defined in another fashion, so that would mean that they are both considered both a person and not a person, completely depending on an accidental characteristic (the location). Is there an 'objective' property to them/it that would lead to a classification regardless of location (uterus/not-uterus)? Slightly sci-fi-y: what happens when artificial wombs are developed? I wonder what will being "born" be classified as in those (currently imaginary) situations.
- frompom 3y ago
  Ultimately we need to pick some point. Someone doesn't undergo some transformation upon becoming the age of a legal adult on midnight when becoming of age. Nor does age of consent suddenly confer reasoning capabilities that didn't exist the day prior. Legal definitions don't do well with nuance, we end up having to define thresholds that up close seem ridiculous. Whether it's a certain number of weeks, or upon birth, up close it would always look ridiculous like any other threshold. In your example 8.5 months vs 9.5 months they may have actually have been conceived quite close to each other as well since gestation time is not actually based on date of conception but date of the last menstruation. So this, as well, is a relatively arbitrary measurement. It's the reality of having to have universal absolute measures and terms in a world of edge cases and grey areas. Being a thinking/aware person wouldn't happen suddenly, it would be gradual. Gradual rights would be damn near impossible to codify, so like everything else we have to pick some point that feels reasonable and yet will feel silly and arbitrary at the same time.

throw0101d 3y ago

> Per the US constitution, they are considered a person (an individual with human rights) after being born. I'm not (that) familiar with the US constitution, so is there a specific reference? Philosophizing here: One fetus could come come out at 8.5 months gestation and have rights, and another at 9.5 and gain rights. But the one that came out at 9.5 would have no rights at 8.5 because it just happens to still be in the uterus. What property of the fetus/whatever changes post-birth versus pre-birth that makes it have rights? Another legal jurisdiction could have it defined in another fashion, so that would mean that they are both considered both a person and not a person, completely depending on an accidental characteristic (the location). Is there an 'objective' property to them/it that would lead to a classification regardless of location (uterus/not-uterus)? Slightly sci-fi-y: what happens when artificial wombs are developed? I wonder what will being "born" be classified as in those (currently imaginary) situations.

frompom 3y ago
Ultimately we need to pick some point. Someone doesn't undergo some transformation upon becoming the age of a legal adult on midnight when becoming of age. Nor does age of consent suddenly confer reasoning capabilities that didn't exist the day prior. Legal definitions don't do well with nuance, we end up having to define thresholds that up close seem ridiculous. Whether it's a certain number of weeks, or upon birth, up close it would always look ridiculous like any other threshold. In your example 8.5 months vs 9.5 months they may have actually have been conceived quite close to each other as well since gestation time is not actually based on date of conception but date of the last menstruation. So this, as well, is a relatively arbitrary measurement. It's the reality of having to have universal absolute measures and terms in a world of edge cases and grey areas. Being a thinking/aware person wouldn't happen suddenly, it would be gradual. Gradual rights would be damn near impossible to codify, so like everything else we have to pick some point that feels reasonable and yet will feel silly and arbitrary at the same time.