No, it doesn't. Life (as in, personhood) begins at viability when the fetus is able to survive on its own.
Many "pro-lifers" will argue that, since it is genetically complete and has its own set of DNA, then it is ultimately a person. On the surface, this appears to be solid evidence of person hood...
BUT, on the other hand, so do strands of hair, blood samples, ancient fossils, etc, and last I checked, those were NOT considered "people" by ANY ethical, social or moral standards.
"Pro-lifers" will then argue that none of those things have the potential to grow into a sentient being... Notice that this is a complete change of argument: The "pro-lifer(s)" in question are no longer claiming that genetic completeness is a sign of person hood, but rather the potentiality to grow into a person denotes person hood, and that is where "pro-life" doctrine completely falls flat because, in reality, A with the potential to become B does NOT equal B. In other words, a POTENTIAL is NOT an ACTUAL! A zygote has NONE of the limbs, organs, central nervous, respiratory, or circulatory systems of a person, it is simply
So "pro-lifers" will then argue that it having a heartbeat at several weeks denotes "life", as in person hood...
...but once again, there are entities with pulses (which is essentially the same as a heat beat) which we do NOT recognize as people. Tumors, for instance, have pulses, so in retrospect, the defining principles for person hood are broader than that even.
"Pro-lifers" will then argue that it's brain and central nervous system are also in place at around the same time. They may also signify other human characteristics it may have in having a recognizably human form, and the like, yet a fact that they CONVENIENTLY omit is that these developments are first FORMED several weeks into gestation and are not actually completed until the 5th or 6th month for the brain, and the central nervous and respiratory systems are not differentiated until 7 or 8 months into pregnancy. Likewise, the fact that the fetus would ultimately die if removed from the womb prior to this point signifies, with absolute certainty, an incomplete "individual". Also lacking are the essential functions of any living person: Its ability to feel pain (it's been scientifically proven that a fetus can't feel any pain prior to 24-28 weeks, this is because the brain and central nervous system are not viable up until this point. Naturally, your brain is alerted when you feel pain and since these systems are not in place up until this time, it is then impossible to feel pain), to breath, think, and move consciously (it makes completely reflexive, unconscious movements while inside the womb), and possessing human feelings. As such, a fetus cannot, in any way, be compared to a born human being prior to viability.
It's also interesting to note that, with medical technology, the earliest point at which the fetus is able to survive has improved from 28 weeks in the 1970s to 24 weeks up until this point. "Pro-lifers" often use this to try and refute the argument that viability, not conception or a beating hart, indicates person hood. Note, however, that the naturally earliest point of fetal viability has remained within the 24-28 week parameters, around the time the central nervous and respiratory systems are complete, 24 weeks signifying possible completion and 28 weeks being absolute completion and that, even with today's medical technology, the odds of fetal survival at 24 weeks, while possible, are also slim, so there's not much difference in the way of fetal viability, as far as development is concerned, with advancements in medical technology.
Hope that answers your question for you.
Many "pro-lifers" will argue that, since it is genetically complete and has its own set of DNA, then it is ultimately a person. On the surface, this appears to be solid evidence of person hood...
BUT, on the other hand, so do strands of hair, blood samples, ancient fossils, etc, and last I checked, those were NOT considered "people" by ANY ethical, social or moral standards.
"Pro-lifers" will then argue that none of those things have the potential to grow into a sentient being... Notice that this is a complete change of argument: The "pro-lifer(s)" in question are no longer claiming that genetic completeness is a sign of person hood, but rather the potentiality to grow into a person denotes person hood, and that is where "pro-life" doctrine completely falls flat because, in reality, A with the potential to become B does NOT equal B. In other words, a POTENTIAL is NOT an ACTUAL! A zygote has NONE of the limbs, organs, central nervous, respiratory, or circulatory systems of a person, it is simply
So "pro-lifers" will then argue that it having a heartbeat at several weeks denotes "life", as in person hood...
...but once again, there are entities with pulses (which is essentially the same as a heat beat) which we do NOT recognize as people. Tumors, for instance, have pulses, so in retrospect, the defining principles for person hood are broader than that even.
"Pro-lifers" will then argue that it's brain and central nervous system are also in place at around the same time. They may also signify other human characteristics it may have in having a recognizably human form, and the like, yet a fact that they CONVENIENTLY omit is that these developments are first FORMED several weeks into gestation and are not actually completed until the 5th or 6th month for the brain, and the central nervous and respiratory systems are not differentiated until 7 or 8 months into pregnancy. Likewise, the fact that the fetus would ultimately die if removed from the womb prior to this point signifies, with absolute certainty, an incomplete "individual". Also lacking are the essential functions of any living person: Its ability to feel pain (it's been scientifically proven that a fetus can't feel any pain prior to 24-28 weeks, this is because the brain and central nervous system are not viable up until this point. Naturally, your brain is alerted when you feel pain and since these systems are not in place up until this time, it is then impossible to feel pain), to breath, think, and move consciously (it makes completely reflexive, unconscious movements while inside the womb), and possessing human feelings. As such, a fetus cannot, in any way, be compared to a born human being prior to viability.
It's also interesting to note that, with medical technology, the earliest point at which the fetus is able to survive has improved from 28 weeks in the 1970s to 24 weeks up until this point. "Pro-lifers" often use this to try and refute the argument that viability, not conception or a beating hart, indicates person hood. Note, however, that the naturally earliest point of fetal viability has remained within the 24-28 week parameters, around the time the central nervous and respiratory systems are complete, 24 weeks signifying possible completion and 28 weeks being absolute completion and that, even with today's medical technology, the odds of fetal survival at 24 weeks, while possible, are also slim, so there's not much difference in the way of fetal viability, as far as development is concerned, with advancements in medical technology.
Hope that answers your question for you.
