Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore ... the baby was born limp and in a very criticle state. It's brain was only partially developed.

Yet you still call him a "baby." Seems you have accepted its humanity simply by merit of its presence outside the womb.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ZNFYRH CoffeeSaint, If these questions are rhetorical, don't bother... just make your point. Otherwise, a human baby is conceived when a sperm enters and egg and the cell splits for the first time.

You claim that the moment of sentience is an arbitrarily chosen moment to define life beginning. Yet the "moment of conception" is only a bright line if we refer to our poor time sense. If the process of conception is slowed down, separated into small enough increments of time, it becomes just as arbitrary: is the zygote conceived at the moment the particular sperm moves through the cell wall? When the egg begins to thicken its cell wall to keep out other sperm? When the sperm releases its DNA? When the DNA strands begin to uncoil and link? When they are 51% linked? 100% linked? When the cell actually divides, showing that it has begun to carry out the functions of a human cell? (Please note: my understanding of the specifics of biology is shaky, at best.)

Which one is the magic moment? I don't see how any particular moment you choose can be anything other than an arbitrary choice -- especially since ANY of these moments can be further broken down into smaller and smaller time increments, until it all becomes meaningless. We all have to choose an arbitrary moment to decide that something is a human being, which means nothing makes anyone's choice better than any other's. We each make the choice that makes the most sense to us, and fits in with the rest of our beliefs. Because of that, the most logical thing to do is simply make our individual, arbitrary choices, and live with the consequences of that choice -- and allow everyone else the same freedom.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Which one is the magic moment? I don't see how any particular moment you choose can be anything other than an arbitrary choice -- especially since ANY of these moments can be further broken down into smaller and smaller time increments, until it all becomes meaningless.

The popular answer to your question is that conception occurs the second the sperm enters the egg.

Scientifically I disagree with that answer. It is possible for the sperm to enter the egg and fail to initiate the process that begins the creation of a human being.

The simplest and most apt analogy is as follows:

The sperm is the key and the egg is the ignition.

You can put the key in the ignition and turn it, and the starter turns.

But the car isn't started until it kicks over the engine.

With conception, the sperm enters the egg and the combination "starts" the process. When the cell splits for the first time, that is when you have conception.

[CoffeeSaint]

So when does it become a human? When it starts splitting, or when it finishes splitting? Or when the process is 51% complete? Tell me when it turns from a potential to an actual human -- when that engine turns over, so to speak.

[ZNFYRH]

When the cell successfully splits, when you have two separate cells, that's when you have a successful conception.

[syc-sadist]

but if we can remove a child from around the time of an abortion and 'grow' it then that solves the problem anyway. as long as it isn't relying on the mother paying...and it takes about as much as an abortion to get it out......then it can go to a adoption house and yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay everyones happy...cept maybe i dunno...the child???!!!

[fushigi]

Right now that's way too risky.

But I agree, when the science/technology become possible, this would be a GREAT advance for humankind. It would save women the physical strain of carrying a baby AND childbirth. Furthermore, it would mean mothers could continue to work while the baby matured, which will mean a steady equalization of wages for men and women.

fushigi

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ZNFYRH When the cell successfully splits, when you have two separate cells, that's when you have a successful conception.

But the moment before they split -- when they are still attached by a microscopic thread of cellular material -- that is not a human being because it has not yet been conceived? Are you saying that one final strand of cell wall is all that separates human beings from non-human beings?

You know, you could simply acknowledge my point and answer the objection, and we could stop this runaround. I don't see how any moment you choose can be anything other than arbitrary. Can you explain that?

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH When the cell successfully splits, when you have two separate cells, that's when you have a successful conception.

Oh really? :rolleyes:

[5010]

I yield to embryology for the knowledge of when a human individual is formed. The process of fertilization begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte. Once the sperm impregnates the oocyte, it is called a 'fertilized ovum'. A zygote is a unicellular embryo. It is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the 1st cleavage spindle. Fertilization is completed at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote.

So embryology defines the time of the individual human organism a bit earlier from ZNFYRH's opinion.

And I agree definitions are arbitrary but I prefer using the definitions provided by and commonly used by those who study the science. Embryologists can agree on terminology without agreeing on abortion. I agree there is a gray area for identifying the classifying terminology as molecules migrate into areas during the phenomena, but that doesn't matter to any known methodology of abortion.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: 5010 I yield to embryology for the knowledge of when a human individual is formed. The process of fertilization begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte. Once the sperm impregnates the oocyte, it is called a 'fertilized ovum'. A zygote is a unicellular embryo. It is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the 1st cleavage spindle. Fertilization is completed at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. So embryology defines the time of the individual human organism a bit earlier from ZNFYRH's opinion. And I agree definitions are arbitrary but I prefer using the definitions provided by and commonly used by those who study the science. Embryologists can agree on terminology without agreeing on abortion. I agree there is a gray area for identifying the classifying terminology as molecules migrate into areas during the phenomena, but that doesn't matter to any known methodology of abortion.

You're right, it doesn't matter to abortion. But it does tend to contradict the argument that any other stage of development chosen as the bright line between humanity and non-humanity is arbitrary; the moment of conception is no less arbitrary, when taken in small enough increments. So if any stage we choose as the defining moment of humanity is an unjustifiable choice, a subjective personal preference, how can any of us presume to dictate to others how they should define humanity?

If that's the case, how can we determine a definitive date at which ALL abortions should be illegal and/or immoral? By whose authority do we choose that date?

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore Oh really? :rolleyes:

Hey, why not? You called a 3 month-old premie a "baby."

[ZNFYRH]

pikatore,

Quality response. Pointless and disruptive.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint You know, you could simply acknowledge my point and answer the objection, and we could stop this runaround. I don't see how any moment you choose can be anything other than arbitrary. Can you explain that?

You were asking my opinion of when I personally defined it. I told you. Did you want to keep pressing it?

If you want me to acknowledge, on a more objective (not my opinion) level on conception, then obviously it's arbitrary.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You were asking my opinion of when I personally defined it. I told you. Did you want to keep pressing it? If you want me to acknowledge, on a more objective (not my opinion) level on conception, then obviously it's arbitrary.

Thank you. I wasn't trying to be pushy, but this is one of those points where it's hard to determine whether an opponent is simply trying to express his or her opinion, or trying to argue that MY opinion is correct and YOUR opinion is wrong. If you're only trying to state when you feel life begins, great -- as long as you accept that objectively, you have no better claim to a correct distinction than anyone else.

That's all I had to say. Carry on.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint If you're only trying to state when you feel life begins, great -- as long as you accept that objectively, you have no better claim to a correct distinction than anyone else.

That's exactly it. You were questioning my opinion and I was answering, and you wondered what was stopping me from objective response.

My opinion and an objective response are two different things, and I completely agree that I have no better claim to a correct distinction.

[5010]

Terminology tends to expand if practical needs arise. For example, Inuit apparently have many more terms for 'snow' than available in English. This aspect of terminology is not arbitrary. Even though identifiication of 'pink' along the spectrum becomes less certain and more arbitrary as we approach red, there are still areas of the spectrum where pink is easily identified. To take that away commits the fallacy Argument of the Beard. Note I am not implying that anyone has committed such a fallacy as I have not seen it asserted, but I wanted to comment on this since we are skirting close to the topic.

But back to the question of who should have authority to determine the point at which homocide is murder. I prefer society to do that through popular referendum or representative legislation because we are more likely to have a society that follows the wishes of most of the members. I'd rather not have these questions decided by creative interpretations by unelected judges.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: 5010 But back to the question of who should have authority to determine the point at which homocide is murder. I prefer society to do that through popular referendum or representative legislation because we are more likely to have a society that follows the wishes of most of the members. I'd rather not have these questions decided by creative interpretations by unelected judges.

Hear, hear -- provided that we do not then fall victim to tyranny of the majority. I don't see that as a risk here, as this issue has been debated and examined for too long for it to become a fertile ground for demogogues, but I like to make sure we have that caveat. Not everything is appropriate for majority's rule. I am open to seeing a majority draw the line between abortion and murder, provided that line is not drawn at one extreme or the other.

[5010]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Hear, hear -- provided that we do not then fall victim to tyranny of the majority.

Good point. All things equal, I prefer tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority. Regardless, oppression is not good. I prefer if the opinion expressed by the majority is somewhat educated and doesn't blindly take on the opinion of a popular celebrity. But reproductive issues don't just apply to a small subset of society. They apply to us all, and our connection with such issues is deep enough to draw us towards understanding them to some degree.

[Dirty Name]

All this debate about when - exactly - life begins is totally irrelevant, because, quite frankly, a woman NEVER knows precisely when it happens.

The ONLY point that matters is the precise moment she realizes she is pregnant. That's a pretty obvious point during the pregnancy, and once that is a known fact, I think we can all safely assume that "life has begun."

[pikatore]

Quote by: Dirty Name I think we can all safely assume that "life has begun."

The sperm and egg were both 'alive' before they joined. If it was so easy to safely assume that, this thread wouldn't be so long.

something can be alive on different levels.