When Does Life Begin?

[Mr Skeptic]

The only way to produce a person, in any of his or her forms or at any stage of personhood, is to begin via the contact between egg and sperm. No contact, no human life, no person.

 

Not quite, though in practice that is how it is done. There's no reason it can't be done by cloning (though there are some problems with that), in the near future it will also be possible to create egg cells from adult cells (we can already make sperm from stem cells).

 

Suppose a woman who is pregnant maybe 8months 3rd trimester, walks into a bank. Bank gets held up by robbers who shoot the woman, she survives but the baby doesn't. Robber Joe get charged with man slaughter etc...

 

Same woman, pregnant 3rd trimester, goes to an abortion clinic, and Joe performs the abortion killing the child, and is paid, and goes free.

 

 

is that okay?

 

This is an interesting question, probably worthy of its own thread. There's two points to address:

1) When do we consider an entity a person?

By 8 months, the child is already conscious, it can suck its thumb and enjoy music. You'll note that this is entirely consistent with what myself and many others were saying, that personhood depends on the mind, and that there is no specific point at which you can say something becomes a person.

 

If by the time your situation happens, the child is developed enough that we consider it a person, then clearly it would be murder in both cases.

 

 

2) But what about the case where the fetus is not developed to the point where we consider it a person? In this case, the abortion would not be murder since it does not kill a person. But somehow it seems very wrong for someone to forcefully kill the fetus against the woman's consent. It would clearly be assault&battery, but would it also be murder? It would seem like it should be about as serious, yet it cannot be called murder without also making the abortion murder. Perhaps it is granted "honorary personhood" by virtue of the mother intending to carry it to term? After all, she might already have named it, bought clothes for it, even made long-term plans for it's education, etc., as well as would probably have given it a funeral if it died.

[needimprovement]

2) But what about the case where the fetus is not developed to the point where we consider it a person? In this case, the abortion would not be murder since it does not kill a person. But somehow it seems very wrong for someone to forcefully kill the fetus against the woman's consent. It would clearly be assault&battery, but would it also be murder? It would seem like it should be about as serious, yet it cannot be called murder without also making the abortion murder. Perhaps it is granted "honorary personhood" by virtue of the mother intending to carry it to term? After all, she might already have named it, bought clothes for it, even made long-term plans for it's education, etc., as well as would probably have given it a funeral if it died.

Is the fetus a person?

well, you say scientifically, no.

Is that debatebale?

your criiteria is brain activity.

Scientifically, I can argue DNA makes a person a person. And technically, I would be right.

and then we could argue back and forth "scientifically". A criteria must be agreed on.

 

So now we have from one month it's not a person and at 8 months it is, can we narrow it down some more?

Let's address this conscious brain for just a moment as it defines personhood.

 

Something a month old (born) baby lacks?

 

And does someone who is under anesthesia lose personhood during that period? They do not have a "conscious brain" at that time. Or someone who is "brain dead", survives and revives. It's happened. Do they lose personhood and then regain it?

 

You know thats not true needimprovement, clones can be made of body cells, it has been done in animals no reason it cannot be done in humans. Every cell in the human body has the potential to be a human being, just because this new cell does it easiest doesn't mean it is a person.

Since abortion was brought out, I think it is more fruitful to define abortion to people. Can you drop the crap about clones?

Edited October 20, 2010 by needimprovement

[Moontanman]

Is the fetus a person?

well, you say scientifically, no.

Is that debatebale?

your criiteria is brain activity.

Scientifically, I can argue DNA makes a person a person. And technically, I would be right.

and then we could argue back and forth "scientifically". A criteria must be agreed on.

 

 

Let's address this conscious brain for just a moment as it defines personhood.

 

Something a month old (born) baby lacks?

 

And does someone who is under anesthesia lose personhood during that period? They do not have a "conscious brain" at that time. Or someone who is "brain dead", survives and revives. It's happened. Do they lose personhood and then regain it?

 

 

We keep on debating with no definition of the words we use and the way we use them, a person under anesthesia is temporarily unconscious but he has brain activity he is not brain dead, and no one who is brain dead has ever recovered, some people who were mistakenly diagnosed as brain dead may have recovered but no truly brain dead people have ever recovered. People who drown in cold water have been revived as long as 30 minutes after they drown but not because they are being revived from the dead, the cold has kept them from really being dead.

 

Obviously at some point a unborn human becomes a person, we know it's not at one month or two or even three because we don't venerate the embryo at this stage if it dies. We do how ever consider an 8 month old child to be a person and an 8 month old who was delivered dead would probably be buried and given the same veneration as an adult person or near to it at least, i think this says it all...

 

A fetus with no higher brain development is not as yet a person, by your definition every cell in the body is a person because they contain the genetic code to be a human.

 

Since abortion was brought out, I think it is more fruitful to define abortion to people. Can you drop the crap about clones?

 

Clones are crap? Can you drop the crap that a fertilized egg is a person?

[Sisyphus]

A clone would unquestionably be a person, the way I use the word "person." That a single celled organism (zygote) could be considered a person but a fully conscious adult human could not be is a really confused philosophy, IMO.

[Mr Skeptic]

Is the fetus a person?

well, you say scientifically, no.

Is that debatebale?

your criiteria is brain activity.

Scientifically, I can argue DNA makes a person a person. And technically, I would be right.

and then we could argue back and forth "scientifically". A criteria must be agreed on.

 

Quite, words mean but what we say they mean. I think my definition is better, because it does not grant full personhood rights to individual cells in the body and grants rights to identical twins as two separate people. Also my definition is better because it acknowledges the continuum that exists, which even your definition has (at what point during the fertilization process does life start?)

 

Let's address this conscious brain for just a moment as it defines personhood.

 

Something a month old (born) baby lacks?

 

And does someone who is under anesthesia lose personhood during that period? They do not have a "conscious brain" at that time. Or someone who is "brain dead", survives and revives. It's happened. Do they lose personhood and then regain it?

 

Yes, you're right that it is a more nebulous concept than yours. However, a month-old (born) baby does have a brain and consciousness. And while people can be temporarily unconscious this can be verified by checking for damage to their brain. A brain-dead person cannot revive since they are no longer a person, the information and the intelligence is gone. Certainly mistakes can happen, like they have in the past.

 

Since abortion was brought out, I think it is more fruitful to define abortion to people. Can you drop the crap about clones?

 

I'd consider a clone as much a person as anyone else, as would the rest of us that use the brain-based definition. Yet it seems you wouldn't, for some reason. Do you not like to challenge your own ideas, to check them for consistency?

[needimprovement]

Not quite, though in practice that is how it is done. There's no reason it can't be done by cloning (though there are some problems with that), in the near future it will also be possible to create egg cells from adult cells (we can already make sperm from stem cells).

Not quite? Do you have a scientifically supported alternative explanation? What a dichotomy! While science is bemoaning the "unsustainable" birth rate on earth, it is also rushing headlong into cloning. For what purpose? Superior humans? A master race? If you ever pray, pray that this does not occur, as both you and I will be eliminated from their world as "deficient".

 

This is an interesting question, probably worthy of its own thread. There's two points to address:

1) When do we consider an entity a person?

By 8 months, the child is already conscious, it can suck its thumb and enjoy music. You'll note that this is entirely consistent with what myself and many others were saying, that personhood depends on the mind, and that there is no specific point at which you can say something becomes a person.

 

If by the time your situation happens, the child is developed enough that we consider it a person, then clearly it would be murder in both cases.

 

 

2) But what about the case where the fetus is not developed to the point where we consider it a person? In this case, the abortion would not be murder since it does not kill a person. But somehow it seems very wrong for someone to forcefully kill the fetus against the woman's consent. It would clearly be assault&battery, but would it also be murder? It would seem like it should be about as serious, yet it cannot be called murder without also making the abortion murder. Perhaps it is granted "honorary personhood" by virtue of the mother intending to carry it to term? After all, she might already have named it, bought clothes for it, even made long-term plans for it's education, etc., as well as would probably have given it a funeral if it died.

This is worthy of some refinement:

 

1)

When do we consider an entity a person?

This question is intimately involved with the issue of differentiating Consciousness per se, and awareness and its distinct stages as outlined in the previous post. Regarding that, and knowing that "irritation" in its biological science meaning, is a property of any life form, how significant is it that there is physiomotor activity? is that a reaction or a response?

 

2)

... In this case, the abortion would not be murder since it does not kill a person. But somehow it seems very wrong for someone to forcefully kill the fetus against the woman's consent.

Factors that might bear on this might be intent and responsibility. Those can happen at three levels: the woman, her immediate circumstances, and society in general. So what is the woman;s intent? Is she wanting, willing, able and competent to be a parent? These days we seem to broadly assume that biological ability already includes parental competence.Does it? should it? If not, what constitutes competence? Ability? Knowing someone who is in child development, without thinking aobut it much it is pretty clear to me that I was, ans most people are, woefully ignorant of pre-natal, post partum, infant, and early childfood development factors from chemistry of bonding to developmental factors including diet and environment, not to mention psychoemotional state of parent(s).

 

Regarding infants, a society in some rare circumstances may not be able to sustain an individual that is clearly unable to contribute and will be in some ways a liability. Our culture has that luxury, though it is yet carried our in a somewhat uncivilized way from the dimension of government.

 

3) And the idea of "honorary personhood" is fascinating. Good one! But legally, might it not come down to a matter of rights, concerns, or endangerment by virtue of physical symbiosis, or less likely, appurtenant property?

[zapatos]

While science is bemoaning the "unsustainable" birth rate on earth, it is also rushing headlong into cloning. For what purpose? Superior humans? A master race? If you ever pray, pray that this does not occur, as both you and I will be eliminated from their world as "deficient".

I never understand the great fear associated with cloning of humans. Why do people assume the worst?

 

Let's say my wife and I have tried unsuccessfully for years to have a child. Turns out it's my problem. My boys won't swim. So we go to the doctor who gives us an option; we can either take my wife's egg and add some stranger's sperm to it to have a child, or we can use cloning and have a child that comes from my wife's cells only. That would be an easy choice for me. All we are really doing is getting cells to do what they are capable of doing anyway. It's not playing God. It's not creating Frankenstein. It's not creating a master race. To me these are just scare tactics. Same kinds of things we heard before Louise Brown was born

[Mr Skeptic]

Not quite? Do you have a scientifically supported alternative explanation? What a dichotomy! While science is bemoaning the "unsustainable" birth rate on earth, it is also rushing headlong into cloning. For what purpose? Superior humans? A master race? If you ever pray, pray that this does not occur, as both you and I will be eliminated from their world as "deficient".

 

Well for what purpose is not really relevant. What we're saying is we would consider clones people too, and it is good to see you acknowledge that fact. But clones are not made via fertilization of an egg, so then fertilization is not equivalent to person.

 

This is worthy of some refinement:

 

1)

 

This question is intimately involved with the issue of differentiating Consciousness per se, and awareness and its distinct stages as outlined in the previous post. Regarding that, and knowing that "irritation" in its biological science meaning, is a property of any life form, how significant is it that there is physiomotor activity? is that a reaction or a response?

 

Please do realize that we're all in agreement that a fertilized egg is alive, and furthermore most of us would say the same thing of the egg and sperm before that. Not everyone agrees about when it becomes a person. Lots of things are alive and not treated as a person, so the fact that something is alive isn't really too significant.

 

2)

 

Factors that might bear on this might be intent and responsibility. Those can happen at three levels: the woman, her immediate circumstances, and society in general. So what is the woman;s intent? Is she wanting, willing, able and competent to be a parent? These days we seem to broadly assume that biological ability already includes parental competence.Does it? should it? If not, what constitutes competence? Ability? Knowing someone who is in child development, without thinking aobut it much it is pretty clear to me that I was, ans most people are, woefully ignorant of pre-natal, post partum, infant, and early childfood development factors from chemistry of bonding to developmental factors including diet and environment, not to mention psychoemotional state of parent(s).

 

Regarding infants, a society in some rare circumstances may not be able to sustain an individual that is clearly unable to contribute and will be in some ways a liability. Our culture has that luxury, though it is yet carried our in a somewhat uncivilized way from the dimension of government.

 

Well, I don't think parenting ability is a prerequisite to have a child, neither legally nor in practice. Definitely something to be encouraged though.

 

3) And the idea of "honorary personhood" is fascinating. Good one! But legally, might it not come down to a matter of rights, concerns, or endangerment by virtue of physical symbiosis, or less likely, appurtenant property?

 

I'm not sure. I just thought it up on the spot. An analogy might be pets. Some people treat their pet as a person, and some even ask that others do too. Pets can be companions, for example. And if someone kills someone's pet, people get really upset, even when they wouldn't normally get similarly upset when someone kills an animal, destroys property, or even kills a non-pet animal owned by someone. These pets are granted a privileged status due to the bond their owner has with them, but I'm not certain of the mechanism for this. In the same way, people get more upset when someone kills a primate than a lizard.

 

We don't like people killing people, and we don't like people killing even things that are slightly similar to people. (And for good reason). But while the other examples I mentioned can't be granted "honorary person" status due to the impracticality of it, a fetus that the mother intends to carry to term certainly could. After all, quite a few people consider them people already.

[Sayonara]

I guess this is a topic that many people have differing views about: All of them valid in one way or another. As for me, I am content to feel that I, as a unique human being, came into existence at the moment of conception. Given nourishment and protection throughout my developing years all that I had the possibility of becoming was decided (almost entirely by chance) at that time. If I had been born with a brain limited in ability such that it could keep my body alive but nothing more I would still be a live human being.

If you are going to state that you came into existence "unique" but also that you developed over a number of years with your possibilities being decided almost by chance, then I have to wonder how you would go about deciding what accounts for any differences in the outcomes? I mean, had you not "come into existence unique" would you be different now because of that one distant attribute, or because of the accumulated effects of chance-based development over time?

 

Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes out of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it still a recipe on a piece of paper?

That's an interesting analogy, but the difference is that the cake does not gain additional non-recipe attributes after it is baked. Say for example there is a family emergency and you have to leave immediately for the weekend; you won't think twice about switching the oven off and chucking the half-baked cake in the bin. The argument against abortion is that at some point that 'cake' will be a person.

 

What is happening in this thread (rather disappointingly) is that certain people are conflating the point at which "life begins" with the point where potential person-hood emerges. The very fact that these two things are different is exactly why abortion can be allowed anywhere in Western civilisations despite the existence of legislation that prohibits unlawful killing.

 

Because of this, it is important in these discussions to keep in mind that "human" and "person" and "life" are not interchangeable terms.

 

When the egg and sperm meet, it makes a zygote, not a recipe. "All the information" is not a collection of ideas, but a collection of genes - actual physical things. When you and your wife go into the dark room and sweat and moan and make up a cake recipe, you exchange ideas. When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?

It might be that he is not being intentionally vague with the phrase "beginning of life".

 

Take the concept of regression. A "born" baby is human, right? Everyone can agree on that. One hour earlier, is that baby human? How about an hour before that? And so on and so on. It is clear that you can go back second by second all the way back to when Mr Sperm and Miss Egg meet, and the moment before then, and only at that moment and previously can we definitively say that there a unique individual has not been yet been created.

 

Go forward a moment......we have a new life.

 

Eggs by themselves will never form a new life. However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life. The moment that new life starts is the moment it becomes human.

Some yes, some no. You are equivocating different things.

 

"Human" is the condition of belonging by genetic identity alone to the species Homo sapiens.

"Life" is the condition of operation of the cellular machinery of an organism.

For a practical and easily-understood example of how these things are neither synonymous nor mutually interdependent, consider the nature of dead babies.

 

Then of course there is "being a person" which is a completely different kettle of fish.

 

Supposing this could be done. The skin cell is alive, as is the culture, and the resulting cells. I don't see how this has helped the question of when life begins. How is this relevant?

It is relevant because although the title of the thread gives its putative subject, needimprovement has already given the game away by posting a certain link.

 

Skeptic; Not understanding the connection, Animal Laws are usually "local" or fall under some endangered species program, BUT no animals are not people, different species.

Could an alien life form equivalent in intelligence to humans not also be an animal of a "different species"?

I'd consider carefully whether or not to call its race "people" or we might well end up being the ones who require endangered species laws.

 

No, your thinking Corporations have some equal rights to persons, but Corporations are entities, made up of people. An empty factory has no defined right for anything, as if "it" could perform those rights to begin with...

An empty factory is not considered a person because it is not a corporation. That's like saying that we wouldn't consider a living body to be a person for the same reason we won't consider a detached foot to be a person.

 

In legal circles a business is treated as a person. That's the problem with these discussions - you can't very well align all your definitions along one axis. We have to use legal and biological definitions, which often offends the "compare like for like" sensibility of rational thought.

 

Actually not true IMO. You genetics are preset by your donors and if not adaptable to the environment, you will suffer, not genetically change. Now if your thinking the immune system or other influence such as medical, these can protect that structure, only.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

No, I consider humans a species, that probably evolved from other primates. By definition then we are primates, the species "Homo Sapian", and humans and people.

I think what Azure is getting at is that we differ on what we call a "person" in the sense that you are regarding the set of organisms which you have observed to express person-hood, and concluding that organisms within that set are by necessity "people" and all "people" fall into that set.

 

I believe that Azure and myself, and doubtless others, take the view that a person is defined by their expression of personality, which is a composite trait comprising a number of faculties emerging from certain activity patterns. While it is true that these expressions are essentially always observed in human beings it is entirely possible that they are also expressed in organisms which we cannot observe (for example, sentient alien life), or in artificial organisms which we have not yet observed (artificial intelligence), or "elsewhere".

 

By definition a person is a human, I really have no place else to go with this and to quantify beyond that simple point would lead nowhere....

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=person

Please see my signature.

I would not accept an argument by dictionary definition even from the Oxford English Dictionary, so you can imagine how I reacted to seeing a definition plucked from "wordweb online", a database that does not even credit any dictionary source.

 

However if you insist on arguing by dictionary definition, then the definition your chosen source gives for "person" states (1) a human being.

If you check you will see that they define "human being" as "any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage", which creates some not inconsiderable difficulties for all 'sides' in this discussion.

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=person

Not sure who you were replying to with that second one (since you have cropped the names from all the quotes), but the definition quoted seems much fitter for purpose. The definition you are citing seems like a facile failure in understanding (which is obviously not your fault).

 

Yeah, it's clear to me.

Clarity is not an indicator of veracity.

 

Your cake anaology is flawed because it deals with an inanimate object. Apples and oranges.

That's why we call it an analogy and not a direct description.

 

The purpose of an analogy is to highlight the mechanisms of consequence, not to duplicate attributes.

 

Is it necessary that life begins with an egg and a sperm, or is it not? At this point in time, yes. If science figures out how to manipulate ova or DNA or whatever to create a new life, then we will have to reexamine how we define new life.

Why? Arriving at the same thing by trivially different (albeit frighteningly expensively) means doesn't require a new definition at all.

 

It might affect how you label things from a social point of view (e.g. "natural human" vs "synthuman"), but a secondary definition would be pretty much redundant for something that is mechanically and functionally identical to something already defined.

 

'Course if it turns out that synthetically conceived humans can fly and live to be a million years old but sometimes explode for no adequately explained reason, then I'll retract that comment.

 

But just for discussion, let's say that science can join the DNA of one egg into another, forming an embryo which grows into an adult human being. At some point, that organism becomes a unique individual, different from either one of it's "parent" eggs. As Catholics, I would believe that when that happened, a new human life was formed, and as such at that moment it became a human person.

And it's there, right there, that you are having your most significant problem. The condition of being a living organism is not the same thing as the condition of being a reasoning, self-aware being. What the church has to say on this point should be considered in the knowledge that the church is not in fact well-versed in matters of neurology, physiology, cognitive psychology, biochemistry, genetics, and so on, whereas it is well-versed in pointlessly propagating ideas that have no basis in reality.

 

Since human parthenogenesis has not been demonstrated, we are free to believe whether or not it is possible.

Belief does not influence reality.

Well, you know... unless you believe in something so strongly you then act on it. Like assassinating someone over a political ideal. But inasmuch as belief can influence reality, you can't really 'believe' parthenogenesis into existence or non-existence.

 

In reference to Christ, it is a matter of faith that he was incarnated by the action of the Holy Spirit, not by some parthenogenic event. We will never be able to explain this action scientifically, and accept it as a mystery of our faith.

Which of these options do you think is the most likely explanation?

1) Divine intervention, parthenogenetic or otherwise;

2) Purely biological parthenogenesis;

3) The entire account is fictional;

4) Mary told a lie.

 

I'll give you a clue. Things that have no weight tend to be more buoyant than things that are well-grounded.

 

 

BTW, since you do not have a particular milestone for when a human embryo becomes a human person, why not consider it to be the moment of conception?

Because it isn't a person at the moment of conception.

 

Philosophically speaking, it's as valid a notion as any other time.

But it's not a matter of philosophy. The problem is not that everyone has some great difficulty in deciding when the milestone is, the problem is because there isn't a milestone one can point to. The development of sentience, intelligence, awareness etc arises from a number of processes which occur over a period of time.

[cypress]

 

What is happening in this thread (rather disappointingly) is that certain people are conflating the point at which "life begins" with the point where potential person-hood emerges. The very fact that these two things are different is exactly why abortion can be allowed anywhere in Western civilisations despite the existence of legislation that prohibits unlawful killing.

 

Because of this, it is important in these discussions to keep in mind that "human" and "person" and "life" are not interchangeable terms.

 

It is actually becoming clear that the distinction between the three (when "life" is preceded by the adjective "human" to identify a particular species) is arbitrary and not scientifically derived. They seem to be terms of convenience constructed allow people to rationalize behaviors that would otherwise raise questions differing of ethics. It is a fact that some people choose to define them differently, to rationalize killing while others choose to define them as the equals to support a different viewpoint.

 

Many people claim science is dispassionate and is capable of providing objective distinctions as to what something is or is not, unencumbered by metaphysical viewpoint. It seems this is not as straightforward as some would like to believe. From this thread it appears that science can generally identify when the life of an organism begins, but it seems impotent at defining human or person-hood with any objective clarity once these terms are given definitions different from the organism.

[Sayonara]

I think you're partway there.

Perhaps if you were to take some to consider this matter from a purely philosophical angle, that might be helpful.

Does that mean you interpreted his "I'm just not sure" to indicate that there's a god-shaped hole in his logic armour? Oh come on.

 

We have to be careful not to become quasi-utilitarian as Catholic Christians, in terms of who's "needs" are more important. That opens up a whole new can of worms.

By that, could you perhaps mean "that would involve confronting a reality that contradicts doctrine"?

 

Look, you started this. We have an expression in the UK: "in for a penny, in for a pound". If you aren't committed to the topic, don't open the thread.

 

 

for the guy who keeps talking about killing living things such as cheek cells and things. you need to understand what being pro-life means. pro-life means that we do not intentionally kill living human beings. the cells in your mouth are not in themselves human beings. obviously we kill all kinds of living things and most pro-lifers probably enjoy a good steak now and then. however the cow is not human beings and either the cells in your mouth.

IOW, the name "Pro-life" is just as misleading as the arguments one becomes depressingly accustomed to seeing pro-life advocates trot out.

 

There ARE some passable arguments. They are not at all emotion-wrenching, I admit, but they are also not festering logic abortions.

Use those. For the love of the god you say you believe in, use those.

 

 

point of order: the question is when does life begin? Not "When does consciousness’ begin?".

Life begins at conception.

OK, well the laws regarding unlawful killing are abundantly clear on this point, so what has this thread actually got to do with abortion?

 

I believe it is, Some believe it isn't. Who is right?

No, the consensus view is that life begins at conception. That is, the functioning of the cellular machinery of a genetic individual.

There is no debate on that point because there is no disagreement.

 

The disagreement arises when pro-life advocates misrepresent "life" as being the condition of person-hood, the unlawful killing of which is prohibited by law. As I have repeatedly stated, they are not synonymous conditions and no argument has EVER shown that they should be considered as such.

 

 

Scientists apply conditions that would also make people in comas worthless.

More misrepresentation. The difference between a zygote and a person in a coma is that the zygote is a cell, whereas the coma patient is a person (in the developed, information-rich sense of the entity) who is academically, financially, emotionally, and culturally invested in his society, and likewise invested in by his society. He has a contract with his medical insurer and the hospital have ethical and legal obligations toward him and his estate. The inter-relationship of these obligations and contracts are complex however even if we ignored them entirely, there is a big difference between intervening in the possible development of a cell and considering "**** it, let him die" as a viable course of medical treatment.

 

Some secularists apply principles that would make people with mental defects or physical ailments not really "living".

Again, you conflate "living" with the condition of being a person. You fail.

 

Furthermore, the tactics you are using here are entirely predictable. You cannot hope to "downgrade" a definition to something as vague and malleable as you would like simply by launching banal attacks against tangentially significant behaviours occurring within certain social groups.

 

Now, Moontanman, when does fetus acquire consciousness? when is fetus a person?

It isn't a person. It's a foetus.

 

 

The only way to produce a person, in any of his or her forms or at any stage of person-hood, is to begin via the contact between egg and sperm. No contact, no human life, no person.

Suppose a woman who is pregnant maybe 8months 3rd trimester, walks into a bank. Bank gets held up by robbers who shoot the woman, she survives but the baby doesn't. Robber Joe get charged with man slaughter etc...

Same woman, pregnant 3rd trimester, goes to an abortion clinic, and Joe performs the abortion killing the child, and is paid, and goes free.

is that okay?

It's not really okay at all. But for reasons that are different to the ones you might think. Primarily because at 34+ weeks the abortion would in fact be illegal in virtually any territory you could wish to name.

 

But let's assume it was legal, just for the sake of discussion... it's still "not okay". It's "not okay" because the two adults are treated very differently for causing the same ultimate consequence, not because the baby dies. The baby is no more or less dead in either scenario.

 

The law is replete with such apparent contradictions, purely because of the way that case law is tried and established. The scenario therefore doesn't really say anything about the moral position of abortion on any particular social scale.

 

 

Is the fetus a person?

...

your criiteria is brain activity.

That is not the case. Person-hood is an emergent property which only begins with consciousness.

 

Scientifically, I can argue DNA makes a person a person. And technically, I would be right. and then we could argue back and forth "scientifically". A criteria must be agreed on.

No, I really don't think that you would 'be right' just because you made a facile and demonstrably wrong argument. Don't make yourself out to be on an equal footing with the people who actually know what they are talking about if you clearly aren't.

 

 

Something a month old (born) baby lacks?

And does someone who is under anesthesia lose personhood during that period? They do not have a "conscious brain" at that time. Or someone who is "brain dead", survives and revives. It's happened. Do they lose personhood and then regain it?

These are matters of significant debate. There is not a definitive answer for you at this time.

 

However, this does not mean that until the matter is settled we either have to take person-hood away from everyone, or award it to the zygotes. We do not know exactly when self-identity and recognition of own thoughts begin in an infant. But we are certain that undifferentiated balls of cells are not people, just as we are certain that someone undergoing anaesthesia is a person who is being temporarily relieved of their faculties. They are unequivocally not ceasing to be a person.

 

So again, let's try not to equivocate, hmmm?

 

Since abortion was brought out, I think it is more fruitful to define abortion to people. Can you drop the crap about clones?

The issue of clones was raised because you stated something which it directly contradicts. You have to either counter the argument, or withdraw your assertion and all conclusions that rely on it. If you want to discuss this subject at this level then that is how you need to do it, otherwise you fail by default.

 

 

Not quite? Do you have a scientifically supported alternative explanation? What a dichotomy! While science is bemoaning the "unsustainable" birth rate on earth, it is also rushing headlong into cloning. For what purpose? Superior humans? A master race? If you ever pray, pray that this does not occur, as both you and I will be eliminated from their world as "deficient".

Your speculation on the purpose of human cloning isn't really relevant to the discussion. With regard to the birth rate, I don't think anyone in here really proposes that human cloning will or should become a means of 'padding out' future generations - it was brought up merely because you stated that life can only come from the fusion of gametes. The fact that cloning is possible is sufficient to rebut that assertion; cloning doesn't need to actually happen.

 

This question is intimately involved with the issue of differentiating Consciousness per se, and awareness and its distinct stages as outlined in the previous post. Regarding that, and knowing that "irritation" in its biological science meaning, is a property of any life form, how significant is it that there is physiomotor activity? is that a reaction or a response?

Selecting a particular trait that can evoke an emotional response from the audience (oh look, the child is trying to get away from the threat!) is not sufficient as you are arguing by cosmetic similarity.

 

I can transplant your argument directly and state that because the leaves of the plant Mimosa pudica curl in response to touch stimuli, the plant should therefore be considered a person and protected from being unlawfully killed. Or at least, that we should feel so emotionally blackmailed by such a notion that we ought at least to consider it, preferably while we happen to be in congress or the supreme court.

 

Factors that might bear on this might be intent and responsibility. Those can happen at three levels: the woman, her immediate circumstances, and society in general. So what is the woman;s intent? Is she wanting, willing, able and competent to be a parent? These days we seem to broadly assume that biological ability already includes parental competence.Does it? should it? If not, what constitutes competence? Ability? Knowing someone who is in child development, without thinking aobut it much it is pretty clear to me that I was, ans most people are, woefully ignorant of pre-natal, post partum, infant, and early childfood development factors from chemistry of bonding to developmental factors including diet and environment, not to mention psychoemotional state of parent(s).

You realise of course that all of the above are usually considerations and concerns of the abortion process as a whole.

 

3) And the idea of "honorary personhood" is fascinating. Good one! But legally, might it not come down to a matter of rights, concerns, or endangerment by virtue of physical symbiosis, or less likely, appurtenant property?

It is a fascinating idea and I think one that we ought to pursue vigorously in another thread.

 

----

 

 

Damn you Cypress, I was about to test a small change to the auto-merge settings! Never mind

 

It is actually becoming clear that the distinction between the three (when "life" is preceded by the adjective "human" to identify a particular species) is arbitrary and not scientifically derived. They seem to be terms of convenience constructed allow people to rationalize behaviors that would otherwise raise questions differing of ethics. It is a fact that some people choose to define them differently, to rationalize killing while others choose to define them as the equals to support a different viewpoint.

 

Many people claim science is dispassionate and is capable of providing objective distinctions as to what something is or is not, unencumbered by metaphysical viewpoint. It seems this is not as straightforward as some would like to believe. From this thread it appears that science can generally identify when the life of an organism begins, but it seems impotent at defining human or person-hood with any objective clarity once these terms are given definitions different from the organism.

 

Yes, I agree with basically all of that. But still, while we can't necessarily strictly define all of the terms it is important - especially in this thread - to remember that they should still not be used interchangeably. We might not be able to box them off neatly but we can still be certain that they are not the same things.

 

(Also bear in mind I read this whole thread from the beginning and responded as I went. Had I read it through from the start before replying en masse I would have seen that comment was hardly necessary for the most part, and that only one participant needs constant reminders.)

[needimprovement]

What is happening in this thread (rather disappointingly) is that certain people are conflating the point at which "life begins" with the point where potential person-hood emerges. The very fact that these two things are different is exactly why abortion can be allowed anywhere in Western civilisations despite the existence of legislation that prohibits unlawful killing.

 

Because of this, it is important in these discussions to keep in mind that "human" and "person" and "life" are not interchangeable terms.

It is actually becoming clear that the distinction between the three (when "life" is preceded by the adjective "human" to identify a particular species) is arbitrary and not scientifically derived. They seem to be terms of convenience constructed allow people to rationalize behaviors that would otherwise raise questions differing of ethics. It is a fact that some people choose to define them differently, to rationalize killing while others choose to define them as the equals to support a different viewpoint.

 

Many people claim science is dispassionate and is capable of providing objective distinctions as to what something is or is not, unencumbered by metaphysical viewpoint. It seems this is not as straightforward as some would like to believe. From this thread it appears that science can generally identify when the life of an organism begins, but it seems impotent at defining human or person-hood with any objective clarity once these terms are given definitions different from the organism.

There *is* a distinction, at least in part. All human persons are alive; if life is gone, so is the human person. But not all life is human, or "personal." Cows are alive, but not human, so it is perfectly moral to eat cheeseburgers. Cancer cells are alive, and have human DNA; but they are not "persons", and can be destroyed to save a "human person" from death. To have a moral baseline at all, we need the distinction of "human life."

Edited October 22, 2010 by needimprovement

[Sayonara]

Are you going to answer any of the other criticisms and or queries?

 

I mean, if you're going to slap "-1" on the lengthy reply I gave you, in which I invested considerable time, then you really ought to say why you disapprove.

[needimprovement]

No, the consensus view is that life begins at conception. That is, the functioning of the cellular machinery of a genetic individual.

There is no debate on that point because there is no disagreement.

Yes, this is a scientific fact. Human life begins at conception.

 

The disagreement arises when pro-life advocates misrepresent "life" as being the condition of person-hood, the unlawful killing of which is prohibited by law. As I have repeatedly stated, they are not synonymous conditions and no argument has EVER shown that they should be considered as such.

No argument can ever resolve this issue since "person-hood" has no specific meaning; it is an entirely artificial construct that means whatever someone wants it to mean. It is no more a misrepresentation to claim that life and person-hood are the same thing than to claim they aren't since person-hood is quite literally a meaningless term.

 

Selecting a particular trait that can evoke an emotional response from the audience (oh look, the child is trying to get away from the threat!) is not sufficient as you are arguing by cosmetic similarity.

 

I can transplant your argument directly and state that because the leaves of the plant Mimosa pudica curl in response to touch stimuli, the plant should therefore be considered a person and protected from being unlawfully killed. Or at least, that we should feel so emotionally blackmailed by such a notion that we ought at least to consider it, preferably while we happen to be in congress or the supreme court.

I'm sorry, by my read I simply identified a factor, without arguing or evaluating.

You realise of course that all of the above are usually considerations and concerns of the abortion process as a whole.

Yes, but given the state of general ignorance people in US enjoy in their culture, US having gone from 1st to 29th amongst nations in terms of educational excellence these last 20 years, I think that that point bears repeating, along with some encouragement to change.

It is a fascinating idea and I think one that we ought to pursue vigorously in another thread.

Yes, that might be useful. I wonder how it might be phrased as a question?

 

Your speculation on the purpose of human cloning isn't really relevant to the discussion. With regard to the birth rate, I don't think anyone in here really proposes that human cloning will or should become a means of 'padding out' future generations - it was brought up merely because you stated that life can only come from the fusion of gametes. The fact that cloning is possible is sufficient to rebut that assertion; cloning doesn't need to actually happen.

Sir, no one's cloning. I will amend my post once human cloning is happening already.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, this is a scientific fact. Human life begins at conception.

 

What gives you that impression? Just for clarification, by "human life" are you including cancer cells as "human life"? Just because people use the words "human life" to mean people, doesn't mean that "people" is equivalent to "alive" + "human".

 

Sir, no one's cloning. I will amend my post once human cloning is happening already.

 

Isn't that effectively an admission that your definition is faulty, but that you will stick with it because this particular instance of the fault is uncommon?

[needimprovement]

What gives you that impression?

Does life begin at conception? Yes, it does. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Just for clarification, by "human life" are you including cancer cells as "human life"? Just because people use the words "human life" to mean people, doesn't mean that "people" is equivalent to "alive" + "human".

No. From a Christian point of view, though, Human Being = Soul + Body, Psyche + Soma; the breath has gotta be there.

 

A better question for Catholics is: "When does a fetus have a soul"?

[Sayonara]

Yes, this is a scientific fact. Human life begins at conception.

As long as by life you mean "the mechanical operation of the cellular machinery", yes.

My point is that this is a biological discussion, so if you mean to claim anything other than that, then you must demonstrate it.

 

 

No argument can ever resolve this issue since "person-hood" has no specific meaning; it is an entirely artificial construct that means whatever someone wants it to mean. It is no more a misrepresentation to claim that life and person-hood are the same thing than to claim they aren't since person-hood is quite literally a meaningless term.

Well, I call cow poo.

 

The issue can be resolved easily by declaring and justifying the definitions for the terms. This has been requested repeatedly throughout the thread by various means. What you have just attempted is to muddy the waters in the hope that people will just give up and join in on the big old equivocation. Just like you did earlier when you said "BTW, since you do not have a particular milestone for when a human embryo becomes a human person, why not consider it to be the moment of conception?"

 

I'm sorry but this is a science site. Here we argue by applying reason, not abdicating from it.

 

 

I'm sorry, by my read I simply identified a factor, without arguing or evaluating.

Are you saying that you now reject that argument, or that you didn't understand what you were saying?

 

A better question for Catholics is: "When does a fetus have a soul"?

An even better question would be "what is the precise nature of the soul, and where in the body is it stored?"

[Mr Skeptic]

Does life begin at conception? Yes, it does. http://www.princeton...ryoquotes2.html

 

It all looks like the stuff we already discussed, and fails at the very thing you failed at:

Making an equivalence between human + alive, and personhood.

 

No one cares if something is human and alive (see: cancer cells), they care if it is a person.

 

No. From a Christian point of view, though, Human Being = Soul + Body, Psyche + Soma; the breath has gotta be there.

 

Then you yourself disagree with most of what is in your own link. In fact, not a single mention of a soul.

 

Also, breathing does not start until later in the development, so are you saying that until then it is not a human being?

 

A better question for Catholics is: "When does a fetus have a soul"?

 

That's basically what we've been saying, just with "person" instead of "has a soul". I'd imagine things with no "soul" don't get any rights.

[DctrZaius]

There *is* a distinction, at least in part. All human persons are alive; if life is gone, so is the human person. But not all life is human, or "personal." Cows are alive, but not human, so it is perfectly moral to eat cheeseburgers. Cancer cells are alive, and have human DNA; but they are not "persons", and can be destroyed to save a "human person" from death. To have a moral baseline at all, we need the distinction of "human life."

 

I completely disagree with this statement. It's so entrenched in religious dogma. It reeks of the old 'animals were put here for us, only humans are made in God's image' crap. Humans are just another member of the animal kingdom. Just because we're of the species Homo sapiens doesn't mean we're more valuable than other forms of life. Myself and many others think it is completely immoral to eat a cheeseburger because we do not claim this distinction you speak of. i.e. "human life". Many people would say that cows are persons; they have the capacity to grieve and feel pain just as we do. Why should such a being be of less value than say a foetus that is of the species Homo sapiens, only it is incapable of suffering, grieving and feeling pain? This attitude is exactly why the hypocrisy of being 'pro-life' exists. More like 'pro Homo sapiens life'.

 

When life begins is a biological question, not historical one. Since we both can agree you need to have an egg & a sperm, we now are tasked to answer when life begins after their joining.

 

This is scientifically incorrect. Life can be created without sperm. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is one example of how to do that.

 

 

Sir, no one's cloning. I will amend my post once human cloning is happening already.

 

Human cloning is almost definitely occurring somewhere in the world. Therapeutic cloning is legal in many countries and reproductive cloning was (and I think still is) legal in some states in the US.

 

 

Why? Arriving at the same thing by trivially different (albeit frighteningly expensively) means doesn't require a new definition at all.

 

It might affect how you label things from a social point of view (e.g. "natural human" vs "synthuman"), but a secondary definition would be pretty much redundant for something that is mechanically and functionally identical to something already defined.

 

'Course if it turns out that synthetically conceived humans can fly and live to be a million years old but sometimes explode for no adequately explained reason, then I'll retract that comment.

 

 

 

 

LOL! Haven't you seen the crazy Christian views of IVF babies?! They're not real people, they don't have souls etc. These people even came about as a result of egg and sperm and they still get viewed as sub-human! I don't know how they would view clones! It's not as if you can go out into a group of people and guess who is a result of IVF and who isn't anyway; they're still living members of our species. Seriously, these religious people are messed up in their views. The Vatican officially frowned upon the inventor of IVF getting a Nobel prize...because...it created 4 million humans? Completely logically inconsistent for people who claim to be 'pro-life'.

[needimprovement]

What gives you that impression?

Does life begin at conception? Yes, it does. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

It all looks like the stuff we already discussed, and fails at the very thing you failed at:

Making an equivalence between human + alive, and personhood.

 

No one cares if something is human and alive (see: cancer cells), they care if it is a person.

I guess you can either believe the science in this area or you can make up your own explanations.

 

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)." (Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)

 

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization..." (Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3)

 

"The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3)

 

Apparently the concept that life begins at conception is a fact so basic to the study of embryology that it is presented almost on the first page of these textbooks.

 

 

 

Just for clarification, by "human life" are you including cancer cells as "human life"? Just because people use the words "human life" to mean people, doesn't mean that "people" is equivalent to "alive" + "human".

No. From a Christian point of view, though, Human Being = Soul + Body, Psyche + Soma; the breath has gotta be there.

 

A better question for Catholics is: "When does a fetus have a soul"?

Then you yourself disagree with most of what is in your own link. In fact, not a single mention of a soul.

 

Also, breathing does not start until later in the development, so are you saying that until then it is not a human being?

I understand your position: a human life is not necessarily a human person. The former being a real entity, the latter a completely artificial construct with no real meaning whatever.

 

While putting a precise definition on "life" is difficult, we can all say "we know it when we see it."

 

Also, there are qualitatively different kinds of life, and you appear to be asserting that all life should be treated equally - when plainly that's not right. Plants are not animals, and humans are not animals or plants, bacteria are not plants or animals or humans, and neither are fungus.

 

Sperm and unfertilized eggs might be "life" but they are not human life, which requires the union of the two.

 

Once they are joined, you have an independent "life" that grows on its own and has its own life force independent of the mother (even if the mother is necessary to provide nourishment and support, it's clearly distinct). That's patently obvious.

 

So, while countless sperm die with each ejaculation, and while countless eggs die with the menses of billions of women on planet Earth, - and while these might be "life" - we should mourn them no more than we mourn the death of plants when we pick from our vegetable garden.

 

My short definition of life is any system that has a soul. Souls have different categories that are intrinsically different in quality. Human souls are immortal and are in a higher category than animal, plant, fungal, bacterial, or viral souls, and most humans are able to recognize the existence of a soul in another system, and thus are able to distinguish between mere material processes and "life."

 

As an interesting aside, there is at least one category of soul greater than humans - of course, God Himself.

Edited October 25, 2010 by needimprovement

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm not sure what you thought I didn't understand that you felt the need to repeat yourself. You have not really presented any scientific evidence in favor of your position (other than a strawman). I never questioned that putting an egg and sperm together is the start of a living human individual, so all the evidence you presented in favor of that view is a strawman (you're pretending that that is what I'm questioning when I've made it very clear it is not). What I'm saying is that these attributes are not enough to make a person (nor for that matter even necessary to make a person)

 

It's all really just a matter of definition. You think a clone can't be a person since he wasn't formed by fertilization, I do. You think a braindead human is a living person, I don't. When the aliens come you won't consider them people because they're not human, and I will. When we create a sentient AI they'll have to wipe out people like you because you won't consider them people, I will. Note that as mentioned above, some people consider animals to be people. Really it all depends on how you make your definition. I think mine is better but of course I cannot prove it; at best I can show that it is more convenient than yours.