Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

In one sense, once you start arguing about "when does life begin" you need to take the argument to it's logical conclusion -- the very first single living cell, some 3.5 billion years ago or so. There has been a continuing transfer of living material from that point in time to every living thing in existence today. THAT is when {life} began.

In another sense, the material that makes up every living thing is in a constant state of being replaced. People have an entirely new skin every 2 months or so. Other parts take longer to be replaced, but every part that forms a living adult human being today was not a part of that {being} when they were a child. The molecular and cellular material that makes up a living {being} today was not what made a living {being} in the measurable past. If all life is in a constant state of flux then how can one say where it "begins" (or ends)?

Thus to state that life "begins" when an egg is fertilized or at some other point in the cycles of cell division and growth is just as arbitrary as saying it is when a child is born, or even, say, reaches the age of ten.

It used to be a fairly common practice to leave babies unnamed until they had survived for a year, as high infant mortality was so common

Infanticide was also a common way to deal with unwanted children in the past. In some places this is still so, but medical improvements have made this uncommon in the more developed cultures.

What is important to consider is when does a life start or stop being a person? What is the quality that we as humans consider important for determining when and if a person exists, when it starts or ceases to exist?

If a fetus does not meet the criteria to pass this "uniform life" test then it legally could be declared non-living (medically dead), and abortion would no longer be an issue. In my opinion this sets a latest possible limit on the question of abortion to the point where legal life cannot be ruled out, and anything after that cannot be justified from a legal or moral standpoint.

There are fundamental differences between a fetus and a baby,

There are also limits to how early a fetus can be removed from the womb and be kept alive by medical technology. This limit lowers steadily as technology and knowledge improve, but there appears to be a limit at which the result is less than desirable to many people.

There are also limits to how early a fetus can be removed from the womb and be kept alive by medical technology. This limit lowers steadily as technology and knowledge improve, but there appears to be a limit at which the result is less than desirable to many people.

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.

Do I think there are other justifications for abortion? Yes, certainly to save the life of the mother (right up to the moment of birth). And also where the condition of the fetus indicates a severe enough medical problem that it becomes an ethical question for the family on whether or not they want to continue life support. Families normally do not choose to "pull the plug" on comatose patients that are otherwise healthy and mentally complete and possibly able to gain full life functioning at a later time, whether old or young.

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.

Those of is in reality, however, have to make policy based on the fact that plenty of people have intercourse without particularly wanting to.

That was a nice rant, riVeRraT, and full of emotion, but also full of strawman arguments that show them up for what they are: your opinion.

One in three women will be a victim of sexual assault in her lifetime. I'd say that's plenty.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of the argument,

No, it is because it is based on the legal definition of death used for organ transplants while there is still life in the body organs, but the part that makes us human is definitely dead and beyond the help of medical science to revive.

So get off the computer and do something about it.

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.

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACTDrafted by theNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM STATE LAWSand by itAPPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT
IN ALL THE STATESat itsANNUAL CONFERENCE
MEETING IN ITS EIGHTY-NINTH YEAR
ON KAUAI, HAWAII
JULY 26 AUGUST 1, 1980WITH PREFATORY NOTEApproved by the American Medical Association
October 19, 1980Approved by the American Bar Association
February 10, 1981 UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACTThe Committee which acted for the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws in preparing the Uniform Determination of Death Act was
as follows:GEORGE C. KEELY, 1600 Colorado National Building, 950 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, CO 80202, Chairman
ANNE McGILL GORSUCH, 243 South Fairfax, Denver, CO 80222
JOHN M. McCABE, Room 510, 645 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611,
Legal Counsel
WILLIAM H. WOOD, 208 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108
JOHN C. DEACON, P.O. Box 1245 Jonesboro, AR 72401, President, Ex Officio
M. KING HILL, JR., 6th Floor, 100 Light Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, Chairman,
Executive Committee, Ex Officio
WILLIAM J. PIERCE, University of Michigan, School of Law, Ann Arbor, MI 48109,
Executive Director, Ex Officio
PETER F. LANGROCK, P.O. Drawer 351, Middlebury, VT 05753, Chairman,
Division E, Ex OfficioCopies of all Uniform and Model Acts and other printed matter issued by the Conference may be
obtained from:NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
645 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 510
Chicago, Illinois 60611 UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACTPREFATORY NOTEThis Act provides comprehensive bases for determining death in all
situations. It is based on a ten-year evolution of statutory language on this subject.
The first statute passed in Kansas in 1970. In 1972, Professor Alexander Capron
and Dr. Leon Kass refined the concept further in "A Statutory Definition of the
Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L.
Rev. 87. In 1975, the Law and Medicine Committee of the American Bar
Association (ABA) drafted a Model Definition of Death Act. In 1978, the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) completed the
Uniform Brain Death Act. It was based on the prior work of the ABA. In 1979, the
American Medical Association (AMA) created its own Model Determination of
Death statute. In the meantime, some twenty-five state legislatures adopted statutes
based on one or another of the existing models.The interest in these statutes arises from modern advances in lifesaving
technology. A person may be artificially supported for respiration and circulation
after all brain functions cease irreversibly. The medical profession, also, has
developed techniques for determining loss of brain functions while
cardiorespiratory support is administered. At the same time, the common law
definition of death cannot assure recognition of these techniques. The common law
standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally
demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions."
There is, then, a potential disparity between current and accepted biomedical
practice and the common law.The proliferation of model acts and uniform acts, while indicating a
legislative need, also may be confusing. All existing acts have the same principal
goal extension of the common law to include the new techniques for
determination of death. With no essential disagreement on policy, the associations
which have drafted statutes met to find common language. This Act contains that
common language, and is the result of agreement between the ABA, AMA, and
NCCUSL.Part (1) codifies the existing common law basis for determining death
total failure of the cardiorespiratory system. Part (2) extends the common law to
include the new procedures for determination of death based upon irreversible loss
of all brain functions. The overwhelming majority of cases will continue to be
determined according to part (1). When artificial means of support preclude a
determination under part (1), the Act recognizes that death can be determined by
the alternative procedures.Under part (2), the entire brain must cease to function, irreversibly. The
"entire brain" includes the brain stem, as well as the neocortex. The concept of
"entire brain" distinguishes determination of death under this Act from "neocortical
death" or "persistent vegetative state." These are not deemed valid medical or legal
bases for determining death. This Act is silent on acceptable diagnostic tests and medical procedures. It
sets the general legal standard for determining death, but not the medical criteria for
doing so. The medical profession remains free to formulate acceptable medical
practices and to utilize new biomedical knowledge, diagnostic tests, and equipment.It is unnecessary for the Act to address specifically the liability of persons
who make determinations. No person authorized by law to determine death, who
makes such a determination in accordance with the Act, should, or will be, liable
for damages in any civil action or subject to prosecution in any criminal proceeding
for his acts or the acts of others based on that determination. No person who acts in
good faith, in reliance on a determination of death, should, or will be, liable for
damages in any civil action or subject to prosecution in any criminal proceeding for
his acts. There is no need to deal with these issues in the text of this Act.Time of death, also, is not specifically addressed. In those instances in
which time of death affects legal rights, this Act states the bases for determining
death. Time of death is a fact to be determined with all others in each individual
case, and may be resolved, when in doubt, upon expert testimony before the
appropriate court.Finally, since this Act should apply to all situations, it should not be joined
with the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act so that its application is limited to cases of
organ donation.
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACTSection
1 . Determination of Death.
2. Uniformity of Construction and Application.
3. Short Title.Be it enacted . . . 1. [Determination of Death]. An individual who has sustained either (1)
irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible
cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A
determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical
standards. 2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application]. This Act shall be
applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law
with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it. 3. [Short Title]. This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of
Death Act.

clearly without a doubt removing something without a brain or lungs is not a problem

I never said it was. What I said was that the {basis\criteria} needs to be the same at each end to be morally consistent.

Even if you concede that late term abortion is valid for very unhealthy fetuses that still begs the question of what criteria is used for making that decision, criteria that is consistent and logical.

Yes, if I know that something was forgotten in the batter and that they will not turn out to be edible, I'll take them out and put in another batch that is properly made.