When Does Human Life Begin?

[Fidei Defensor]

Please feel free to offer your opinions![list]
[*]The metabolic view: There is no one point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.
[*]The genetic view: A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.
[*]The embryological view: In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as "pre-embryonic." This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.)
[*]The neurological view: Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) should be defined as when a human life begins. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).
[*]The ecological/technological view: This view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted.)
[*]The immunological view: This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.
[*]The integrated physiological view: This view sees human life as beginning when an individual has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.
[/list]

Edited March 4, 2008 by fidei defensor

[CatherineM]

I would defy anyone who has felt a life move inside them, heard its heart beat, to say that life only begins at birth.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've considered myself pretty conversant in teh philosophy of all this.

and yet, while i maintained it's not clear when life begins, i heard an anaolgy very recently that really shook it up.

if you look at a see that jsut starts growing, most would say that it's the plant, at least intuitively.

now, the seed itself might not be the plant. so, from that, life might not begin at conception, but actually at implantation.

but still, that analogy was pretty strong, to shake up my anaology that the early cells could be viewed as snowballs or blocks... which obviously are not snowmen and completed projects.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]i don't think it's okay. abortion. it's reasonable to be against it.

but i think it's reasonable to think it's okay early in the pregnancy. to argue that it's not a human person. of course it's human type and not a pig. but, a redblood cell is also human. also, red blood cells have DNA but are not human persons.
to the counter contention that your red blood cell doesn't grow into a person. consider this example, my snowman argument. you have a snowman. if you have a snowball that you're gonna use to get to that snowman before he exists, the snowball obviously isn't a snowman. if you have a cell, like a block, and start building, the cell isn't necessarily a human person either. true, the cell in your arm isn't going to grow into a person, but, the analogy can still exist as it's similar enough to make the point-the initial cell is like a block and not the final product.
so when does a block set become the set? it's a gray question. when does the cell become a person? it's gray, too.
simply asking the question of when it becomes a human isn't answering the question.
bottomline. on one side you have human red blood cells, on the other ameoba type organisms. the eariest human cell is similar and different than both. you can't say for sure it's one way or the other.

as to other arguments, which make it reasonable to be against abortion but that can be reasonably refuted. true, the early cell is: unique (no other DNA like this) an separate (its own entity. important cause twins have the same DNA) DNA. also, organisms can be single celled but that does not mean they are merely cells. like an ameoba is an organism. so the early cell could be an organism.
the question is whether the early cell is rightly called an organism. some text books say it is, others don't say anything.
a distinguishing feature of amoebas and cells early on is amoebas don't grow into greater beings. so, early cells in pregnancy are unique in that they do grow into greater beings. it doesn't prove they're not organisms, but it proves something unique abhout their nature.

would you consider smashing to acorn to be the same as having killed an acorn tree? or eating an egg as killing a chicken? it's reasonable if you do, but this usually, and i think rightly so, is a point/argument in favor of prochoice early on. smashing an acorn i don't think is necessarily the same as killing an acorn tree. (aside from the literal fact that you're not killing it in tree form)

the unique set of DNA stuff is an interesting biological idea that you might think since it's unque it's a person, but it's simply not necessarily the case. i'd put it more in favor of saying it's a person but not definite.

saying it's growing into a person isn't enough, cause potential life isn't necessarily human life. you have to argue all the stuff i've been arguing.


ethically, should we simply defer to human life such that not deferring would be irrational?
*i think it's reasonable to think reasonably disputed life can be valued less than the freedom to choose.* (most "choose" arguments are very lacking but i think this one is not so much) no one knows, so who should decide? should the government? why not the individual? of coruse, the government could decide a point it thinks it's a person cleary, but that's not necessarily the early organism/cell. give the person the dignity to decide themself, respect it.
*it's often the moral thing to do to defer to allowing others the freedom to do something* here's it's unclar whether it's hurting another but the principle still is here and needs weighed.

at a certain point, it clearly is a human and it's unreasonable to think otheriwse. at a certain point it's reasonbly not a human, clearly reasonably not. so we have to take the cell v. the baby, and the points of uncertainty in between should be deferred to be baby. (if we as a government will choose a point, this is how i'd do it. i guess i'd pick the moment heartbeats forms, with roof for error on the side of person, cause i think that's when the first substaintial thing happens to the embryo. whatever is the first substanital thing, if i'm mistaken.)

i'm not by saying all this saying that we can kill people on life support. they're not reasonably diputued to be human life. could there be a point when it's unclear, like when machines start taking over a body? i think so, because machines can make a person function when they are clearly dead (this creeps out family of the dead if they see it; they do it for saving organs etc sometimes), and if you start using machines one by one on a person, their heart and brainwaives (the things that make them clinically alive or not) can be usurped by machines and later they're vital signs would be working again. would it be wrong to kill them when not working?
i guess you could argue that it wouldn't be, that life was not in them then, but how are you sure? it's a gray area. like this is a gray area, shouldn't whether the early cell is human be gray too? yes it should. reasonable to think either way. and if all the person is is machines and a beating heart, are theyu alive? it's uncelar.
and in a way the machine argument goes beyond the idea that the early cells are in questionable form, and shows that the mother cuold be like a machine on a lifeless body.

how do i define person? that's a loaded question. and the fact that it's a loaded question is my point.
i'd set as definition, as science tries to do. then, things at the frays of the definition would make our definition seem suspect. then scientists would disagree with how to define a person. they'd agree as far as generalities go, for sure. but when things get complicated, they'd disagree.


also some biological functions of the early cells. early cells split. i'd use that as an argument that it's not a human person. of course, a person could split, but. it just does not seem like something God would do. yes, i'm using a faith standard here. it could go either way, but just saying.
in that vein, i'd also point out that. most cells do not get implanted after conception and they die. it doesn't seem like a person would die in this regard, even though it is a natural phenomenon and not the same as abortion. granted, it could just be something God would do to naturally weed out bad cells. but still, just doesn't seem like something God would allow.
not to get into soul arguments, which are separate from these observations. briefly though, as ot the soul argument..... the fact that the cell splits, and the cell dies often... are actually more forcefully against the cell being a person for the reassons i stated above.

now, i don't think it's unreasonable to simply insist we defer to life, and by that to say i'm wrong and that it's not reasonable to think it's okay. but, i simply disagree and think it's a reasonable position to have

--------------------------

If you believe it's not a baby early early on, then sure that's a rational view. But, I would still outlaw it.

If you're for killing a baby five seconds before it gets out of the mother but not when it's out, what's the difference? will you admit you're willing to allow killing to suit the mother's not want of a bother?
why can't someone go on and kill anyone who is a bother to them? they can't, because that infringes another's life.

the mother chose to have sex, she has to pay the consequences. she didn't choose to get pregnant, but she assumed the risk. how do you say she doesn't assume the risk? if i caused a car accident, and the other person was suddenly attahed to my body until it could be surgically removed a few months later, any reasonable person would say the person who caused the crash has no right to termineate the other person.
often i say it's reasonable to have differing beliefs, but here I do not believe it'd be reasonable to say otherwise. it's analogous fully to the baby, in my opinion, and not reasonable to say otherwise.

with that said, you have an argument if you don't think it's a person. we'd probably quibble about when it's reasonable to say it is or isn't a person. but, you have a right to say when you think it is or is not just as much as I do. and you'd have a rational argument if it's based on the personness of the baby, up to a point of course. wihtout that argument, you have no basis to say abortion should be legal.

-------------------------

agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment. the court has implied it... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair.

You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned?

so, i assume you think it's good policy that it be that way. i say it's a policy argument, because there's competing legal theories. one is privacy, the other is protecting human life. surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit. and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? get real if that's the case.
there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on? are you giong to be a technicalist and say the burden should be on the framers because they didn't clarify later babies are included too? it seems natural they'd include the baby at later points at least. it's at least a reasonable person standarnd to read into it given that the baby is clearly a person later on.

now, i suppose given that it's a policy argument, the states could decide like the first one or two semesters since it's arbitrary anyway. we can't avoid arbitrariness afterall, because the standards roe made are themselves arbitrary. this all simply illustrates are laws are man made, and the practical consequences of them bore full face when implmenting and interpreting them. so, policy is a sound way to proceed.

anyway, ultimately, if you disagree, you're drawing an arbitrary line at the birth canal, just as much as i'm being arbitrary saying a point the baby is at least a person at the second or third trimester etc.

if not anything else, the issue should be given to the states. the states have dealt with it up until the 1900s. some had abortion laws, others didn't. the tenth amendment relegates stuff not in the constitution to the states.

i say, don't be a techinalist with the presumption for death[/quote]

[mortify]

Life begins at conception.

When the sperm and egg unite a unique self multiplying zygote forms that will ultimately become one of us.

[N/A Gone]

From a genetic point of view, as I understand it. The only time an "ontological change" happens is conception. Thus, assuming the change from non-living to life is in itself an ontological change then the only moment would be conceptions.

regardless, it is sacred. A sacred mystery perhaps.

[track2004]

Legally no one is alive until they are born. Sometimes a case of murder becomes double homicide because the woman was pregnant, but I think that is gray. I don't think that anyone is alive until they are physically capable of living outside the womb. Birth is the only real test of that, so I'm saying at birth. I also just don't think it's right to keep people alive by machines so babies in really serious incubators is weird to me. But it is just IMO, so whatever, esp because I'm a bit tipsy right now....

[N/A Gone]

If people are only "people" by the ability to live without the aid of "something" then you just "off'd" a whole bunch of people.

btw, if "legally" they were only alive/human after being born then the double homicide prego case you mentioned would not be legally valid.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]When sperm meets egg.
[/size]

[N/A Gone]

^^sounds like a corny chick flick.

[mortify]

[quote name='track2004' post='1474422' date='Mar 8 2008, 10:25 PM']Legally no one is alive until they are born.[/quote]

Can you give us a reference for that?

[N/A Gone]

^^I think he provides his own defeat with the pregnant double homicide situation.

[the 13th papist]

First of all, I dont think that any argument basied on how law defines something is valid, unless it is natural law, because laws are mutable and different from country to country. So, to cite that law defines a new person at birth is not a solid argument. I think that there are 3 paths an argument can take. Scientific: a path based on the truth of the imperical world around us, acknowleing that this method is incomplete and imperfect. Philosphical: based on what man can know through the light of his reason, also acknowledging that this too is incomplete because we have a third argument. Theological: based on what has been revealed to us by God. This 3rd approach is only really useful if all parties share a common faith, because if i muslim or a jew would not find a biblical or magisterial argument persuasive. There are other clever arguements that can probably fit into one of these catagories, especially phenominological approaches (such as the baby kicking inside the womb) that would be basically philosophical.

Anywho, because this is a technicaly interreligious diologue, the third line argumentation, no matter weighty to Catholics or even Christians, should be obstained from. The scientific point of view is inconclusive if all approaches are looked at. I am inclined to believe the whole "when the sperm meets the egg" argument because of the new DNA created. Any argument based on the independance of this new organism is also shakey because what human child, let alone most animals, can survive emediatly after it is birthed without any help?

There is a rather weighty philosphical argument that states that when the sperm (male generative force) and egg (female generative force) meet, a process of self-directed development starts. Although this self directed development is aided by the nutrients from the mother (and technically influenced by the mother's hormones) this new being largely determines how it will develope, what it will become. Also, although this new zygote (i think that is the technical term at this stage) may not posses personhood and the full capacity of humanity at the moment. It most definately possesses them in potentiality. Logically, if asked the question, "what does a baby become?" one should answer an adult person. If asked what is in a mothers womb, most will answer a baby, because it is a baby in potential, it will become a baby in most normal cases, and that baby will become a human person. Based on the self directed development and natural potential of the new being, i would have to say that life begins at fertilization, and hey, if somebody wants to argue that it doesnt, well, ok, but because of the potentiality of the fetus, it still demands the respect of what it will become even if it is not that yet.+

[Deb]

A new life is created at conception. It is constantly growing and changing. It is alive. It has a soul.

[Didacus]

Aussitot qu'il y existe une chance a l'epanouissement, au bonheur soit temporel ou eternel, il y a une vie qui doit etre respecter et proteger.


As soon as there is a chance of hapiness iether temporal or eternal, there exists a life which must be respected and protected.


This life begins at conception. At conception, given the proper conditions to grow (air, food, water, shelter, etc...) the fetus has the chance for hapiness and thus has its right to move forward with its life as does everyone else.