I am going to upset some people, I know, but there is an issue here that needs to be addressed on this question.
In one sense, once you start arguing about "when does life begin" you need to take the argument to it's logical conclusion: the first cell.
{added by edit} By the first cell, I mean the very first living cell, 3.5 billion years ago. {end edit}
What is important to consider is when does the life start being human?
This distinction is important: on common moral grounds it needs to be consistent with current medical practice in determining when a life has ended, as these criteria have been developed over a significant period of time with a lot of ethical input from all sides into the specific considerations involved.
There are two levels considered. One is the concept of clinical death where doctors declare a patient to be dead. The other is the concept of brain dead, where the body can continue to breath and circulate blood as long as nutrients are supplied, but there is no conscious brain activity capability left.
On the first the standards are clear - from the
Legal Definition of Death (click):
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
That's the legal nuts and bolts of it: either failure of [heart\lung] system or total brain failure.
The first category is a little more into the grey area, as it cannot be determined definitively unless the patient is taken off life support — a rather drastic test. Typically the limit of saving premature babies depends on the level of development of the lungs - before a certain point the lungs just cannot be made to function. Likewise the heart needs a certain level of development before it is capable of sustaining circulation - on it's own - within the fetus. This point follows after the brain differentiation, and so it would be the latest legal limit for using this definition of death as a threshold for life, below which the fetus has not reached the status of being legally alive. This point would have to be determined by professionals in each case, based on the actual level of development the fetus has reached.
If a fetus does not meet the criteria to pass this life/death test then it legally could be declared dead, and abortion would no longer be an issue. In my opinion this sets a lower limit on the question of abortion to the point where legal death cannot be ruled out, and anything below that cannot be justified from a legal standpoint.
The second standard is a little more difficult to establish on a broad cultural and social basis except by taking into considerations the beliefs of the family involved and the diversity of levels acceptable to individuals. This includes the concept of personhood. From
Biology, Consciousness, and the Definition of Death (click)
(excerpts - with some loss of context: see whole paper for complete context)
Some philosophers and scientists have argued that the whole-brain standard does not go far enough. Several leading authors on the subject have advocated a higher-brain standard, according to which death is the irreversible cessation of the capacity for consciousness. This standard is often met prior to whole-brain death, which includes death of the brainstem -- that part of the brain which allows spontaneous respiration and heartbeat but is insufficient for consciousness. Thus, a patient in a permanent coma or permanent vegetative state (PVS) meets the higher-brain, but not the whole-brain, standard of death.
From the present perspective, then, the core-meaning argument does not settle the question of the nature of human death. A more promising approach, on this view, is to take seriously the fact that we are not only organisms; we are also persons. According to one prominent argument for the higher-brain standard, the capacity for consciousness is essential to persons -- essential in the strict philosophical sense of being necessary: Any being lacking this capacity is not a person. It follows that when someone permanently loses the capacity for consciousness, there is no longer a person associated with the body. The person who was, is no more -- that is to say, she is dead. Thus, the argument goes, human death is captured by the higher-brain standard.
Finally, any effort to base a standard for human death on "our" values confronts the problem of value pluralism. While liberal intellectuals, and perhaps a majority of Americans, are likely to regard a future of permanent unconsciousness as meaningless, many people -- some of them religious fundamentalists -- would disagree. For the dissenters, biological life in PVS or permanent coma is at least life and therefore valuable (perhaps infinitely so). For at least some of these people, such a state is meaningful because it is a gift from God, a gift that must not be thrown away through active killing -- or defined away with a new definition of death.
It is firmly established, both in case law and in medical ethics, that competent adult patients have the right to refuse life-supporting medical treatments, even artificial nutrition and hydration. By the same token, an appropriate surrogate can refuse life-supports on behalf of the legally incompetent if there is sufficient reason to believe the patient would have refused treatment in the present circumstances. Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.
This last paragraph is the key to my thinking. Until the fetus has achieved the status of "personhood" discussed above, the "appropriate surrogate" - in this case the family - can decide to terminate life support, and if the patient naturally expires due to failure of the {circulator and respiratory functions} to maintain life on their own, then the legal issue is settled.
Certainly in cases where continuing a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, the doctors could perform an early-term C-section, and once the {fetus\premature child} was removed the family could direct that no heroic measures be taken to see if the {fetus\premature child} survives or dies a natural death on its own — this choice is currently legal, as there are people of certain religious beliefs that they would chose to let nature take its course and have insisted on their right to their beliefs. This certainly fits with the end of the material quoted above:
Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.
I submit to all for consideration, that any method that results in the removal of a fetus from a womb, but that does not harm or endanger the {patient} in any way except for the removal of life-support
only by request of the immediate family, results in a legal death due to natural causes.
The issue of rights is such that a standard that allows all people to enjoy a right that does not inflict harm on other persons cannot be refused, but any that tries to impose a standard that restricts such behavior for some is unethical — even though people may choose to live by that higher standard themselves (if they do not harm other persons by doing so). In this regard the concept of personhood shows where the legal choices should be allowed.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-07-2004 10:02 AM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
thanks.
™ Version 4.2