When Does An Unborn Child Become A Human Being? [Free Republic]

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

When Does An Unborn Child Become A Human Being?

Rutherford Institute
june 1999 John W. Whitehead

When does a fetus become a human being, protected by law? Pro-life advocates assert that, morally speaking, life begins at conception. Legally speaking, however, the question of fetal personhood is widely debated and the answer equally as varied. A recent ruling by a Wisconsin appellate court-that "the term 'human being' was not intended to refer to the unborn child"-has fueled the ongoing debate as to when an unborn child can be protected by law.

The case in Wisconsin involved Deborah Zimmerman, an expectant mother in her ninth month of pregnancy who attempted to kill her unborn child by consuming vast quantities of alcohol. Having spent the day in a bar drinking heavily, Zimmerman was taken to the hospital for an emergency C-section. Zimmerman, whose blood-alcohol content was three times the legal limit, told a nurse, "I'm just going to go home and keep drinking and drink myself to death, and I'm going to kill this thing because I don't want it anyway." The child, a little girl given the name Meagan, was born alive but was severely undersized and had irregular features indicative of fetal alcohol syndrome. The baby's blood alcohol content at birth was twice the legal limit for an adult under the state's driving statutes. Three years ago, Circuit Judge Dennis Barry refused to dismiss the attempted first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless injury charges against Zimmerman. Judge Barry found that there was "no question that the young victim was born alive and qualifies as a human being under Wisconsin's homicide laws."

Then he raised an important question: "Others who endanger life by acting under the influence of alcohol or drugs are held accountable for their behavior, including parents who jeopardize the safety of their children. Why should a woman carrying a viable fetus escape responsibility for an intentional or reckless act?" The answer, according to the Wisconsin appeals court, is that an unborn child, regardless of viability, is not recognized as a "human being" under state criminal statutes. The appeals court rationalized that "the decision whether to include an unborn child in the definition of a 'human being' is a policy issue best addressed by [the] legislature."

Abortion proponents who fear that legislation extending legal protection to viable unborn children would erode abortion rights are loudly attacking it. They claim that legal protection of the fetus equates to state intervention and interference with the mother's rights.

The idea of "policing" pregnant women is somewhat reminiscent of an Orwellian, big-brother state. However, approximately 12,000 children are born each year with drug addictions and fetal alcohol syndrome. This appalling figure illustrates the need for laws that extend protection to children in utero. In spite of a person's beliefs concerning abortion, abuse of a fetus-deliberately inflicted by a mother upon her unborn but viable child-is more appalling than any potential infringement upon a woman's rights that may result from protective legislation.

The Zimmerman case prompted two new laws in Wisconsin governing fetal homicide. In June of 1998, the governor signed a law enabling a judge to keep an expectant mother in a hospital, home of a relative or community-treatment program if her drug or alcohol abuse, if left untreated, could endanger the unborn child. This law recognizes the importance of protecting the unborn child but focuses on treatment, not punishment.

Under the second law, anyone who assaults a pregnant woman, and as a result causes death or injury to the unborn child, can be sentenced to life in prison. Unfortunately, life-threatening actions by the mother against her unborn child are specifically exempt by this law. Thus, a mother who attempts to kill her newborn, seconds after the baby's birth, could be charged with attempted homicide. Yet, according to the letter of the law as interpreted by the Wisconsin appeals court, if that same mother attempts to kill the child seconds before birth, it would not constitute attempted homicide because the unborn child is "not a human being."

Obviously, it is time for uniform protection of unborn children who are suffering deadly abuse at the hands of their mothers and others. Unborn children, because they are unable to help themselves, are a silent minority in need of legal protection.

To: al baby
I would say at the moment the miracle of a growth cycle begins that will enable a life, in todays world, to live well past ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD! WOW!!! It will be very hard to stand before God and explain ripping a growing, developing future of loving potential out of the womb for convenience. When you rip a baby out of a womb-you destroy a someones beginnings.

I really think partial birth abortion advocates should raise the stakes to AT LEAST TWO yr old status. I mean-if you can kill a little fully developed in terms of independent functioning little one SECONDS before actual birth by sucking out the brains and collapsing the head (is this death to make birth easier too-on the mom? not to mention not having to hassle with a newly born baby? geeeeeeeeeez) the WHY not up the ante to a TWO YEAR OLD? Then the mommy can REALLY know if she likes the kid or not. She will have a chance to note normal or not so normal development, behavior patterns, and since most two year olds find their tempers and first stabs at serious defiance, this could be a REAL BOON for liberal moms everywhere. Doctors that would suck the brains out of a fully formed almost born baby would have no trouble injecting a two yr old with something horrid -maybe the same stuff that dogs and cats are put down with.....Hows come the liberals only want to kill a baby just ready to be separate? Why not go the whole nine yards? Hey-maybe they could make infanticide legal up to even THREE yrs of age??? That would REALLY be a convenience. Just in case, ya know, the kid is just NOT exactly what the parents really wanted.
From: republic (clintonSoldOurSecurity@CampaignCash.DNC)
5 06/15/1999 16:34:29 PDT

To: Mercuria
...it is time for uniform protection of unborn children
This phrase reeks of a Federal edict. The Federal Government has no business in regulating abortion, but they could decide that a fetus deserves constitutional recognition as a citizen. That would not rule out abortion, but it would sure change the propositions of the argument.
From: arcane
7 06/15/1999 16:36:05 PDT

To: republic
What the hey, little children are disposable, why not the other end of the age spectrum? The disabled. This is where it leads. Abortion, infantacide, euthanasia, etc. "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. Koop warned about this progression back in 1979 or 1980. The resulting cheapening of human life leads to more reasons for end individual's lives because they are "inconvenient". Kind of the thinking of 1920's- 1930's German "liberal" elites.
From: Fred Hayek
8 06/15/1999 17:03:54 PDT

To: republic
What the hey, little children are disposable, why not the other end of the age spectrum? The disabled. This is where it leads. Abortion, infantacide, euthanasia, etc. "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. Koop warned about this progression back in 1979 or 1980. The resulting cheapening of human life leads to more reasons for end individual's lives because they are "inconvenient". Kind of the thinking of 1920's- 1930's German "liberal" elites.
From: Fred Hayek
9 06/15/1999 17:04:07 PDT

To: republic
What the hey, little children are disposable, why not the other end of the age spectrum? The disabled. This is where it leads. Abortion, infantacide, euthanasia, etc. "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. Koop warned about this progression back in 1979 or 1980. The resulting cheapening of human life leads to more reasons for end individual's lives because they are "inconvenient". Kind of the thinking of 1920's- 1930's German "liberal" elites.
From: Fred Hayek
10 06/15/1999 17:04:30 PDT

To: republic
What the hey, little children are disposable, why not the other end of the age spectrum? The disabled. This is where it leads. Abortion, infantacide, euthanasia, etc. "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. Koop warned about this progression back in 1979 or 1980. The resulting cheapening of human life leads to more reasons for end individual's lives because they are "inconvenient". Kind of the thinking of 1920's- 1930's German "liberal" elites.
From: Fred Hayek
11 06/15/1999 17:05:00 PDT

To: republic
What the hey, little children are disposable, why not the other end of the age spectrum? The disabled. This is where it leads. Abortion, infantacide, euthanasia, etc. "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. Koop warned about this progression back in 1979 or 1980. The resulting cheapening of human life leads to more reasons for end individual's lives because they are "inconvenient". Kind of the thinking of 1920's- 1930's German "liberal" elites.
From: Fred Hayek
12 06/15/1999 17:05:30 PDT

To: arcane
It can be argued that there is no such thing as an unborn child...
Prior to cutting the cord it is mother. After the cord is cut it is born and becomes child. There is no intermediate step of unborn child.
From: bert
13 06/15/1999 17:12:05 PDT

To: Fred Hayek
Hey-ya know--just like little ones growing in mommy cannot be called babies (you know-out of site out of mind) or maybe it is just the gay vs homosexual kind of thingie, you know what I mean, since words carry power. But--perhaps the socialists (you know-democrats) could call one tow and three yr old little ones "POST FETUSES" that way, when putting them down (killing them), it would not be like really killing children. Just like ripping a fetus out of its nest is not like really killing a baby!!!! (even tho they both are growing)
From: republic (clintonSoldOurSecurity@CampaignCash.DNC)
14 06/15/1999 17:18:38 PDT

To: arcane
When Does An Unborn Child Become A Human Being?
Or rather, what is an unborn child before it becomes a human being? Is it a fish or a turtle or a tree? Aren't all forms of life, no matter the condition, genetically identifiable? (Ooops, I just stated the obvious.)
Is there a difference between the human species and fetal human species? Gee, so many questions - NOT!
From: Thinkin' Gal (By their flames ye shall know them.)
15 06/15/1999 17:22:23 PDT

To: arcane
In my medical dictionary, a fetus is an unborn child. A child is a human being! Of course it depends on what "is" is.
clintoon can make black white. So what is a definition anyway.
From: mscasey
16 06/15/1999 17:40:19 PDT

To: republic
Sorry about the triple post, the computer locked up
The "word games" (socialist palying fast and loose with the truth) is exactly what can send things down the slippery slope. There have been liberals who have indeed made statements about a child not being really human until the age of two - now can it be stretched further? There is a professor in a major position at Princeton University who things the disabled (blind, etc.) have no right to live. Numerous "population control" types advocating witholding medical care from those over, say, 65 years of age. Since they are no longer "contributors" (now let's get these culture of death types to define that one), they are no longer really human. Once established, make the age lower. Then there is the grandmother of eugenics, Margerite Sanger, who starts Planned Parenthood with racial supremacist motives (I would dare say she's out-done the Klan). It snowballs.
This is the direction that the de-valuing of human life leads.
From: Fred Hayek
17 06/15/1999 17:43:23 PDT

To: Fred Hayek

Italics off
From: Fred Hayek
18 06/15/1999 17:45:18 PDT

To: Fred Hayek
Fred has done his share to keep this article in view. Guess I'll chip in another bump.
From: arcane
19 06/15/1999 19:28:22 PDT

To: Thinkin' Gal
When Does An Unborn Child Become A Human Being? At birth.
From: Yeah_Right
20 06/15/1999 19:31:28 PDT

To: Yeah_Right
That oughta take care of it for a while.
From: arcane
21 06/15/1999 19:36:13 PDT

To: Jzoback
BTW, the mother should be put in jail for a very long time
Wow! Good for you! Why is it that prolifers are so afraid of saying that the mother (i.e. murderer) should be treated as such if abortion becomes illegal? I have never understood that.
Let's hope I fixed the italics here.
From: cantfindagoodscreenname
22 06/15/1999 20:35:00 PDT

To: republic
Interesting that you should mention this about killing children after birth. Here is a post from a thread a year ago or so:

A newborn is merely an organism with a potential for human qualities, no more significant than at second, fourth, or sixth months of pregnancy."
-- Dr. Milton Heifitz, Chief of Neurosurgery, LA Medical Center, testimony before Congress, March 23, 1976.

"Infanticide has a logical continuity with abortion, and even with contraception."
-- Edward Pohlman of Planned Parenthood. . Schenkman Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967. Page 221.

"If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering."
-- Nobel Prize winner Dr. James D. Watson. Magazine, May 28, 1973, page 104. Also see "Children From the Laboratory." , May 1973, page 13.

"No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to live."
-- Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick. , January 1978.

"The fetus has not been shown to be nearer to the human being than is the unborn ape. Even the full-term infant must undergo many changes before attaining full status of humanity. Only near the end of the first year of age does a child demonstrate intellectual development, speaking ability, and other attributes that differentiate him significantly from other species."
-- Dr. Robert H. Williams, Washington State Medical School. "Our Role in the Generation, Modification, and Termination of Life." JAMA, August 11, 1969, pages 914 to 917.

"There is little evidence that termination of an infant's life in the first few months following extraction from the womb could be looked upon as murder ... It would seem to be more 'inhumane' to kill an adult chimpanzee than a newborn baby, since the chimpanzee has greater mental awareness. Murder cannot logically apply to a life form with less mental awareness than a primate."
-- Winston L. Duke. "The New Biology." , August 1972.

"It is reasonable to describe infanticide as post-natal abortion ... Infanticide is actually a very humane thing when you are dealing with misbegotten infants. We might have to encourage it under certain conditionalities of excess population, especially when you're dealing with defective children."
-- Joseph Fletcher. "Infanticide and the Ethics of Loving Concern." . Prometheus Books, 1978. Quoted by C. Everett Koop, M.D. "The Slide to Auschwitz." , Summer 1982, page 36.

From: Vince Ferrer () * 11/17/98 18:21:02 PST
From: Syncro (SuddenDestruction@PeaceSafety)
28 06/15/1999 21:36:36 PDT

To: jayhawk
I second your AMEN! The so called abortion �debate� focused on this very issue years ago, and it has yet to be settled by the legislatures or the courts. Back then, the pro-death-ers drew out the debate hoping that advancing medical technology would provide scientific evidence to support their assertion that child is not a child until birth or even near birth (late term.) But, to their dismay, the evidence strongly suggests personhood very early in gestation.

Subsequently, with much assistance from the mainstream propaganda machine, the debate focused on the mother�s �right to choose.� So, that�s the extent of the �debate� thus far. The delaying tactic serves the liberals well, and it is only plausible with inexpensive, voluntary cooperation from the �free� press. {I guess �free� here means: no charge to those pushing liberal causes!}
From: caprock
37 06/15/1999 22:04:22 PDT

To: Syncro
I know you understand this (as do most of the posters herein), but I think it needs to be repeated again and again until it begins to sink in.

Three basic questions dominate the abortion debate. "When is it life?"; "Is it human life?"; and "When is it viable?"

When is it life?: It can be argued from simple logic based on biological fact that life is present before conception and from conception on. Consider: For conception to occur a sperm must meet with and join an ovuum. Each must be alive for any conception to take place. Once conception has occurred - and at that precise instant - a new life form has begun, without any break in the "life" of its components. Ergo, "when is it life?", is answered, "from the beginning." (no pun intended) As further proof, were it not alive, no pregnancy would occur and no abortion would be "necessary".

Is it human life?: Until someone can demonstrate a conception, pregnancy, gestation and birth between one human and one of some other species, it can only be human.

When is it viable?: From the moment of its conception the fetus is perfectly viable within its intended environment. Saying that a three-week old fetus cannot live outside the womb is like saying that I cannot live under water for more than three minutes without mechanical assistance; both are true but both come under the heading of "so what?". I am not intended to live under water, and the fetus is not intended to live outside the womb before the "fullness of time" comes to pass.

And, just to throw a little monkey wrench into the discussion, I will point out that under most jurisdictions murder is defined as the taking of another human life with malice aforethought. Malice may be defined as no more than a vague intent to end the life of another, and forethought may take place in an instant, all by legal definition.

To uphold abortion the Supreme Court had to manufacture an unheard of previously "penumbra of privacy"; otherwise, every statute against murder in the land would have had to be re-written.

To think that the pro-abortion crowd does not "understand" these points is our weakness, as we keep trying to reason with them. They understand, all right; they're the ones who changed the definitions and the parameters of the conversation.

Hope you understand that I'm not picking on you. I do believe this cannot be stated too often.
From: logos
41 06/15/1999 22:12:29 PDT

To: arcane

Unfortunately it is not a question of whether or not the fetus is a human person, but whether or not the fetus is a LEGAL person.

Corporations, for example, are legal persons that are generally granted more rights than fetuses.

It seems like a major oversite now, but maybe the Constitution should have contained a glossary clearly defining the terms used in the document. In such a glossary they could have clearly included unborn fetuses, which I believe was the Founding Father's intent.

However, the Founding Father's intent was somewhat undercut when they failed to extend the rights granted to white males to the rest of the population.

The good news is that by fighting this fight on "legal personhood" as opposed to biological humanity, it becomes equivalent to the fight against slavery.

Blacks were denied rights because they were considered to NOT be legal persons, even though most thinking persons at the time would have included them in the human race.

Fetuses are denied basic rights by the same fiat: deny their legal personhood and they have no rights!

Of course the Pro-Death crowd doesn't like it when we point out the similarities between Slavery and Abortion, but so be it.

It seems that the Animal Rights Movement is trying to get us to grant more and more rights to animals. Will they one day succeed in declaring some animals "legal persons"? Will we one day be able to buy cans of "legal-person-free tuna"?

This of course would be silly, but then it would point up the hypocrisy of the No-Choice movement when it comes to defining legal personhood.
From: who_would_fardels_bear
43 06/15/1999 22:17:31 PDT

To: logos
That is why it is quite possible for md's to be charged with manslaughter etc. However, how do you deal with the view of caring just as much after birth vis a vis the life of children,-or for that matter adults?

Some say that conservatives are passionate about abortion but view the working class as a source of grunts for the military.Cannon fodder to be blunt. Here is where the right gets itself in a spot ,do you force these women to have these babies then wait till they grow a bit and be willing to kiss off their lives. I'm wondering where the compassion and ethics goes on the abused adults,-there's plenty of them around.

What this woman did is criminal imo,-but where is all the concern when abuse is going on right under our noses?
From: Grateful Medd
48 06/15/1999 22:47:56 PDT

To: hinckley buzzard
These are political, not scientific opinions rendered by the henchmen of the paleoNazi Singer, just nominated as the head of Bioethics(or some such) at Princeton.

A Messenger of Death at Princeton, published in the Washington Times.

Princeton's ties with this go way, way, back. The founder of their Population Office, Major General Frederick Osborn, was a prominent eugenicist. He also used his propaganda experience from World War II to push pro-abortion arguments suspiciously similar to those of Planned Parenthood and the United Nations Population [control] Fund.

I'm currently compiling an index to threads and newspaper articles like this one; I'll get around to posting it eventually. There's something about these ideas, that keeps attracting the likes of Singer. My index increases much more than I'd like it to.
From: Dumb_Ox (joneskj@colorado.edu)
50 06/15/1999 22:55:09 PDT

To: Grateful Medd
The question you pose is a difficult one, but I'm not sure it is directly connected to the abortion issue. Sort of the "two wrongs don't make a right" kind of situation. If we wait to correct the ills of the world until we can get them all at once, we'll never correct even one.

As to what conservatives think, I guess that depends on which conservative you're talking to on that subject. For example I consider myself pretty much a conservative, on fiscal as well as social issues. I am pro-life and anti-death penalty. The reasons for my being against the death penalty are faith based and would be out of place in this particular thread. But I offer my position to make the point that "conservative thought" is hardly monolithic.

On your particular point about there being less care evinced for those who have already been born, I find in my experience that this opinion is based more on some kind of wishful thinking from the pro-abortion crowd than on demonstrated fact. Certainly not every child lives what we would consider a "good life", but I am aware of more than a few faith-based organizations which provide precisely the kind of care you mention. However, you won't find them prominently mentioned in very many newspapers.

But that goes to my other point, that we will continue to lose as long as we allow the opposition to define the issues, draw the parameters of the discussion, and flat-out lie about what and who we are.
From: logos
53 06/15/1999 22:59:47 PDT

To: logos
No where in #41 did you mention "legal person." Remember for some time Blacks were defined first as NOT legal person (just a slaveowner's chattel) and then as 3/5th of a person (sorta) for counting purposes only.

So even though everyone (but the most vicious racist) would agree that Blacks were viable human beings, they were still treated unjustly.

I believe that when you talk about the penumbras being needed to counteract hundreds of years of previous law, you may be referring to the occasionally mention in Common Law of the need to protect the future heirs of primogeniture. I believe that harming a woman in order to cause her to miscarry a child that was an heir was found to be a crime, even if the woman herself was not permanently injured. But this was more a protection of the tradition of primogeniture and reflected more on the rights of the father to pass down his inheritance, than a concern for the life or humanity of the child.

I believe we stand on firmer ground when we demand that fetuses be defined as "legal persons" rather than dicker around with definitions of viability. After all, in the current client, can anyone be said to be truly viable?
From: who_would_fardels_bear
57 06/15/1999 23:06:02 PDT

To: who_would_fardels_bear
I hope this doesn't turn out to be a "double post", but the answer I posted to you seems to have disappeared. I'll try again.

It's true that I didn't make any mention of a "legal" person in my previous post. However, I was using "penumbra of privacy" in a different way than you read it. Apologies for being unclear.

Justice Blackmun used "penumbra of privacy" (one without legal precedent, by the way) in his tortuous logic supporting a woman's "right to choose." IMO, that was what he had to do (or something like it) in order to get around the presumption at the time that a fetus enjoyed legal status as a person. Otherwise, all those pesky homicide statutes would have come into play. In other words, it is my opinion that the legal status of a fetus was not questioned until Roe v. Wade muddied the waters.

I should also say that I am not a lawyer, so my opinions on this matter should be suspect, at best. However, I was involved in two successful prosecutions of criminal harm to a fetus prior to Roe v. Wade, in which it was apparently a given that the fetus was a person, both legally and factually. At least the issue was not raised in court.
From: logos
59 06/15/1999 23:32:05 PDT

To: Grateful Medd
I think my best answer to your question would be for you to bring up those dithf threads and read my comments on them. I don't think I left any doubt as to my opinion at the time.

I don't know if those threads are even available any more, but I can say it has always been my position that the truth is better than any other possibility. And any time I have felt the truth needed airing, I have done my share of "ferreting", some of it on this very forum.

Our Lord admonished those of us who call His name to suffer in His sake; he did not say that we were to stand idly by while some innocent or defenseless person was suffering abuse. And, in fact, there is ample record that Christ came to the aid of those in distress or abusive situations.

And in answer to your rather indirect question, I would point out to you that it seems to be rather difficult for ex-cops to be truly "ex" (at least all the time).
From: logos
62 06/15/1999 23:47:15 PDT

To: Mercuria

in order to determine the exact point in the unborn's development where we can legally kill them.

bttt

63 Posted on 10/24/2001 11:02:24 PDT by Askel5
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]