Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Gorgo Self-protection involves injuring an attacker. Is the baby seen as an attacker here? No. Then what we have is doing what causes the least amount of damage or risk. That's what abortion is.

Really? I couldn't tell you, however I am more than willing to read the legal definition of self protection should you care to make a reference to it. If not we are stuck an impasse where a conclusion is left to mere opinion.

[Starboy]

Quote by: dirishb When a Cell divides........."There is LIFE"......Folks, it does not get any simpler than that. Yours Truly, dirishb

The cells in the food you eat are or were alive. Does this make you a murderer? It does not get any simpler than that?

Starboy

[denton]

I voted 'other.' My specification: I don't know.

Better question: when is the earliest that a human life could begin?

For that, I would select brain birth at about 22 weeks. Before there is a functioning brain, there cannot be a human life. After brain birth? I don't know what's going on in that brain. It might be aware of something, it might be self aware, or such concepts may be meaningless to what is in that brain.

What should that mean for abortion? Well, first of all, it should mean that there should be a free right to choose abortion before brain birth. After brain birth, does a fetus have rights that should be respected? I would say that the benefit of the doubt could be given that it does. However, note that the mother is an undoubted human being with rights, and that an unborn fetus is inhabiting the mother's body, so there must be some balancing of rights, which I interpret as giving the greater benefit of the doubt to the mother. For example, if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy, the mother should have the choice to either end the pregnancy or accept the danger. Likewise, if the mother's health is in danger. And guess what: Roe v Wade fits fairly well to the precepts I have discussed: states can impose greater restrictions on abortion in the third trimester (a little after 22 weeks gestational), but they must allow for exceptions where the mother's life or health is at risk.

Now as to the definition of life's beginning at 'conception,' I need to ask further: what do you mean by 'conception'? Is it fertilization of a human egg, or is it implantation of that egg? What could be the argument if favor of at fertilization? What I have heard is the argument that it is at that point that a unique human genome is formed, so a unique human being. The problem with that argument is that it is wrong: much can happen after fertilization. One thing is that the zygote divides into two or more zygotes, producing identical twins or multuplets. Another is that an accident in replication of the genetic structure can result in the creation of two different genomes that result in two different types of cells: a mosaic, as happens in about one in fifty cases of Down’s Syndrome. More commonly in Down’s Syndrome, the accident in replication is replicated in all of the developing cells. A much-less-common occurrence is that two or more zygotes can merge, creating a chimera, a being with two populations of cells derived from two different zygotes. In sum, it is not true that a person’s genetic makeup is created at fertilization.

Further, as with the Down’s Syndrome case, there is more to what fetus develops than what is in the original genome. Most occurrences in development do not change the genome (as with a mosaic), but many nevertheless have profound effects on the fetus. This is why pregnant women are warned to be careful of their diets. Thus, the fetus is more than the product of its genome, it is also the product of its development.

Finally, however, the real question is whether we as humans are more than the sum of our biology. I argue that having a functioning brain, and what happens in that brain, has much to do with who we are as human persons.

[denton]

Quote by: RickSp Who was it that said "the conservatives believe that rights begin at conception and end at birth"? I have no issue with the assertion that life begins at conception. That is not at all the same thing as suggesting that individual rights as a sentient human being begin at conception. Exactly when a fetus is sufficiently developed to be given consideration as an independent being is not clear cut. I generally agree with traditional Catholic teaching as articulated by St Augustine who suggested that abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being formed." Abortion was allowed until the "quickening" at roughly 116 days, which happens to be roughly the first trimester, the period defined as allowable in Roe vs Wade. This was church policy for over 1500 years until the late 19th century. At least in this case I side with tradition. Beyond the first trimester the issue becomes more difficult. After that point the life and health of the mother should certainly be given as much or more consideration than the fetus who is still entirely dependent on her.

And now we know more than we did in Augustine's day. For example, we now know about brain birth, before which the fetus could not know sensation as an organism, although parts could react to stimuli. This puts the dividing line much closer to the third trimester. But although we now know more than in Augustine's day, many religious people, and their churches, seem to know less.

[Gorgo]

I think we are stuck at a point at which I was just babbling.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Really? I couldn't tell you, however I am more than willing to read the legal definition of self protection should you care to make a reference to it. If not we are stuck an impasse where a conclusion is left to mere opinion.

[fushigi]

Quote by: dotcoma My point was that we know that the clump of cells is a baby. It is not sperm or a tumor lol. You can understand what it is. You are being way too technical IMO.

Wrong. We don't know that it "is a baby." That's the whole reason for the debate. We know it has the potential to become a baby. That potential runs between 1%-70%.

I offer this explanation. From conception, there is life. But here's where it gets tricky. It's not a baby's life, it's the life of a zygote. Then it's the life of a blastula - a clump of cells. Then it's the life of an embryo, and so forth. It's not "a baby" in my estimation. You're ending the life of a zygote, a blastula, an embryo, etc. We should call things by their proper names, not by the name they will one day be.

And yes, these names do matter. If we don't make distinctions between clumps of cells and living people, we get idiotic lawsuits like this one.

[MerlinsByte]

It seems to me that this debate is solved?

We don't know at what time a fertilized egg(cell) becomes aware or self aware or conscious or has a soul inserted like a hard drive.


I wouldn't destroy anything human after fertilization. After meiosis has occurred abortion should be a crime. No one knows when the cell becomes "human."

For the deity based religious types out there (yes I am devoutly religious) When is the soul installed?
Allow me to express myself thustly ....If I were perfect I wouldn't mastur...er ...spill my seed unless it was for procreation. I've not reached that level of divine faith yet. I think that all sperm and egg has a mathematical probability of becoming someone.

I believe in a deterministic universe (or one that is destined and so are all events in the future). So birth control, "fun sex" (recreational lovin'),AND masturbation is wrong! BAD boy! (or girl) that's in my religious word, so? I will just ask for forgiveness. Many times....heh.


mb

[MerlinsByte]

Wait! if a woman masturbates she doesn't spill any seed, so that may be OK? But dammed unfair if you ask me....

[fushigi]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Allow me to express myself thustly ....If I were perfect I wouldn't mastur...er ...spill my seed unless it was for procreation. I've not reached that level of divine faith yet. I think that all sperm and egg has a mathematical probability of becoming someone.

Can you give me one biblical justification for why masturbation is wrong?

[Starboy]

Apparently god doesn't mind abortion. At least 30% of all conceptions are naturally aborted.

Starboy

[pbaylis]

From a theist viewpoint, I believe at some point a soul is placed into the foetus. I am obvioiusly not sure at what point. It could be at the moment of conception. The point you make that a woman should have a right to do with her own body what she wishes is not valid in the least. A child then, is essentially captive by the woman until birth, just as a prisoner is captive in a cell. Just as the prisoner should not be subject to the whims and fancies of the jailer, so a child should not likewise be subject to any external pressures, and there are hundreds...pressure from the woman's boyfriend, shame, fear of telling parents, fear of a hundred other things, selfishness, ineptness....so many possible things that a woman may feel to cause her to terminate the child's life. NOT FAIR! NOT JUST!

Quote by: bishop your analogy of killing someone in your basement is a stretch.. the zygote is a part of the woman's body. it belongs to her body. does she not have the right to choose whether/not this entity stays within her and grows until birth? the crux of the issue as i see it is whether/not the woman has the rights to control her own body. how do you define life? i think that question supercedes the one you've asked in this thread. is life defined by a clump of cells, or by something that thinks, has a conscience, etc? the classic characterization of when life begins was at the quickening, when the fetus would kick around in the mother's womb. that sort of event is undeniably human. what about a zygote? even further, a sperm and an egg could also be termed alive, by the same notion as a clump of cells could. i completely oppose late term abortions, but i support early term abortions. my definition of life (regarding this topic) must differ from yours.

[pbaylis]

If God is indeed part of this and cares about the state of the woman, then this is possibly God's way of agreeing that the pregnancy should not carry on for this individual at this particular time, for whatever reason.

You might say, then why does God allow deformed babies to be born...who knows...if we're going to include God's will in this..then what do you think....a number of possibilities....including that one or both of the parents needs to learn unconditional love.

Quote by: Starboy Apparently god doesn't mind abortion. At least 30% of all conceptions are naturally aborted. Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: pbaylis If God is indeed part of this and cares about the state of the woman, then this is possibly God's way of agreeing that the pregnancy should not carry on for this individual at this particular time, for whatever reason.

Funny thing about that, god apparently uses biochemistry to figure that out. It would be one thing if people were born and lived normal lives and their genes were completely screwed up. Hell if their genes were non-existent. But it ain't so. It all works just like a machine. When a fetus aborts it is because something has screwed up the works. It is all natural all the time.

You might say, then why does God allow deformed babies to be born...who knows...if we're going to include God's will in this..then what do you think....a number of possibilities....including that one or both of the parents needs to learn unconditional love.

With that kind of argument we should not be doing anything to cure or detect disease. After all it is god's will.

And since when was unconditional love required to have a child. There are so many couples that have such love and no children. And then there are so many couples that do not want children but have perfectly healthy kids all the same. But wait don't tell me..... it must be because, 'god wanted it that way.'

Do you have any idea just how medieval your thinking is. For everything this civilization has learned and accomplished you might as well be living in a first century hovel. That is where your mind is.

Starboy

[Electric Hermit]

Life is a process. not a discrete occurrence. It has no beginning and no end that we can truly comprehend. What is actually at issue here is the point at which, for the narrow purposes of human society, we elect to deem an individual's life to have begun. As this point is largely arbitrary, there is no right or wrong answer to the question, "When does life begin?" There is only the answer we can live with.

[Detritus]

Electric Hermit:

Right on.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: bishop the zygote is a part of the woman's body. it belongs to her body. does she not have the right to choose whether/not this entity stays within her and grows until birth? the crux of the issue as i see it is whether/not the woman has the rights to control her own body.

Quite untrue bishop...any cell of the woman's body (even cancerous cells) can be identified by any 2nd year laboratory student as part of her body by DNA testing..the cells of the unborn however do not test as part of her body...the unborn is a separate individual...

True, it is dependent upon her, but I defy you to offer up any legal precedent that states that dependence is a valid reason to kill...

And the woman has the right to choose whether to engage in the activity that allows the unborn into her body in the first place...once she has chosen and the unborn is growing, she has made her choice...for example...If I were holding a gun to your head, I would have to decide whether you were going to live or die BEFORE I pulled the trigger...after I have set the bullet into motion, the time when I have a choice is past..

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Electric Hermit Life is a process. not a discrete occurrence. It has no beginning and no end that we can truly comprehend. What is actually at issue here is the point at which, for the narrow purposes of human society, we elect to deem an individual's life to have begun. As this point is largely arbitrary, there is no right or wrong answer to the question, "When does life begin?" There is only the answer we can live with.

To one who has a grasp of basic developmental biology there is most certainly a beginning...when sperm and egg join, both sperm and egg cease to exist...a new DNA fingerprint is formed, mitosis begins and a new life is started...the definition of life is quite clear...it is the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Quite clearly an unborn is alive....its DNA identifies it as a member of species homo sapiens...ergo it is a living human being.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy The cells in the food you eat are or were alive. Does this make you a murderer? It does not get any simpler than that? Starboy

I don't know what country you are from, but in the US, our founding documents state that we are all created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights...we are endowed with those rights by virtue of our humanity...according to them one didn't have to be of a certain race, or class, or religion in order to have them, one only had to be human..

You can not murder cows, or carrots, or peas...only a human being may be murdered...Roe is a flawed application of the law just as the laws that once said that blacks were less than human and therefore subject to being owned and at the mercy of their owner's whim...

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: fushigi Wrong. We don't know that it "is a baby." That's the whole reason for the debate. We know it has the potential to become a baby. That potential runs between 1%-70%. I offer this explanation. From conception, there is life. But here's where it gets tricky. It's not a baby's life, it's the life of a zygote. Then it's the life of a blastula - a clump of cells. Then it's the life of an embryo, and so forth. It's not "a baby" in my estimation. You're ending the life of a zygote, a blastula, an embryo, etc. We should call things by their proper names, not by the name they will one day be. And yes, these names do matter. If we don't make distinctions between clumps of cells and living people, we get idiotic lawsuits like this one.

Baby, blastula, zygote, teenager, embryo, man, woman, old geezer...it doesn't matter whether you use scientific jargon or simple nouns, the fact is that these are words used to describe human beings...to be accurate, when you use the scientific jargon you should use the word human before..to separate human embryos from cow embryos...

The fact is that from the moment of conception a unique human being is growing...you have been alive since the moment of your conception...and you have belonged to species homo sapien since that very moment as well...you have undergone many changes since that moment, but you have been part of this species all along...if you are lucky enough to live a long life you will undergo many more changes...you will never become more human or less human due to any of them...you either are human or you are not...

When you use scientific terms in an effort to dehumanize a human, you are no different from the racist who uses words like ni%&er, or coon, or spic, or hebe in an effort to dehumanize someone just enought that it becomes ok to do whatever you wish to them because they aren't as "good" as you..when you identify a blastula as a "human" blastula then your argument loses its punch because you have acknowledged that we are indeed talking about humans..

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder I don't know what country you are from, but in the US, our founding documents state that we are all created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights...we are endowed with those rights by virtue of our humanity...according to them one didn't have to be of a certain race, or class, or religion in order to have them, one only had to be human.. You can not murder cows, or carrots, or peas...only a human being may be murdered...Roe is a flawed application of the law just as the laws that once said that blacks were less than human and therefore subject to being owned and at the mercy of their owner's whim...

Hey life is life. But I agree with you. Life kills life. That is the way it is. That is the way it has always been. Not all that long ago humans were more the snackee than the snacker when it came to life killing life.

But you have not dealt with the question. I am talking about human feces that contain living human cells that are flushed down the toilet by human beings billions of times a day. Where is your outrage man! Where is your indignation of these humans killing humans!

Starboy