When does life begin?

[BusaDave9]

Some people believe life begins at conception. It actually begins before that. Every egg cell, sperm cell and blood cell in our bodies are alive. The much more important question in the abortion debate is when does that life become human? Science and federal law say it is a human life when the baby is viable to live outside the mother.

It is true that at conception the egg cell has a complete set of genes but it is not yet a human life. If I were to hire an architect to design a million dollar home but then someone were to destroy those plans, I could not sue for a million dollars. It is not yet a home although the plans show just what the final house would look like.

[Ophiolite]

The key arguments relating to abortion are based upon our sense of self, our perception of individuality, our ethical touchstones, our religous background. Logical argument, rightly or wrongly, is largely misplaced in the discussion. Consequently your observations will resonate with only a sub-set of humanity.

[Ringer]

This question really depends on how you define life.

[EdEarl]

This question really depends on how you define life.

Agree

 

The key arguments relating to abortion are based upon our sense of self, our perception of individuality, our ethical touchstones, our religous background. Logical argument, rightly or wrongly, is largely misplaced in the discussion. Consequently your observations will resonate with only a sub-set of humanity.

Agree

 

This question can be debated forever, because people have various positions.

[Phi for All]

The key arguments relating to abortion are based upon our sense of self, our perception of individuality, our ethical touchstones, our religous background. Logical argument, rightly or wrongly, is largely misplaced in the discussion. Consequently your observations will resonate with only a sub-set of humanity.

I agree, but I also think that biologically we can't set the beginning of life at conception. If that becomes the legal definition of life, women lose all rights to their own bodies in favor of a potential life. You'll have women being charged with manslaughter after miscarrying at the gym during their first trimester.

[Prog Snob]

This is an issue that I have speculated over for years now. Forget the moral issue at the moment, because that just obfuscates any viable answer. So let's stick to objectivity for now. There are so many unanswered questions. When does life actually begin? Is it conception? The first heartbeat? Before answering that, one would have to know what life is. What compromises a definition of life?

[ewmon]

I don't think that anyone can deny that a fertilized egg is #1 human, and #2 not the mother. If life doesn't begin at conception, then abiogenesis occurs some time afterwards. A woman who chooses abortion revokes her body's natural reaction to protect and nurture this human individual inside of her.

 

I am pro-choice but anti-abortion, and I think most people would agree. I'm all for women choosing whether or not to have a child. The fact that so many women continue to have unwanted pregnancies tells me that women continue to engage in sex at a time, place and manner *NOT* of their choosing. That is the injury that everyone should be focusing on, not the bandage applied to the injury afterwards.

 

For me, this parallels the continuing practice of a woman taking her husband's surname (even in a hyphenated form) — her identity, and thus her will, are subsumed under her husband. In Chinese culture, everyone keeps their surnames. When Mary Jones marries John Smith, why should she give up her identity as Mary Jones? Similarly, when a woman is in a relationship with a man, why should she give up her right to choose when, where and how to have sex with her man?

 

I don't want to get off-topic here — If life doesn't begin at conception, then abiogenesis occurs some time afterwards.

Edited October 11, 2013 by ewmon

[CharonY]

I would be careful to invoke the natural progression of things to this matter. The fertilized egg develops into a complete organism if thousands of things do not go wrong. Fertilized eggs can be aborted before the mother actually knows that she is pregnant. Of course that rate is not known but estimated to be around 30-50%. The reasoning behind this is that miscarriage rate with known pregnancies is still 15-30%. With a progressive drop over time.

In other words, if we talk about natural reaction, we have to figure in that it only happens slightly more than 50% of the time. Note that biology does not care about our definitions, it is a bunch of progressive, somewhat stochastic processes we are talking about. Not a straight line from A to B and there are no clear delineations.

As such the (somewhat arbitrary) definitions exclusively make sense in the context of the discussion e.g. policy, ethics or teaching. What we cannot do is to invoke biological laws to create the context for us.

 

The only straight biological answer we can provide is that every freaking cell is alive. And that is quite silly to base policies on. And even that is not quite clear as there is no clear-cut definition for life, either. There are entities that have certain functions and we decide, based on one property or another that a group is alive and a other is not (e.g. viruses vs cells). Yet nature does not do these distinctions.

Edited October 11, 2013 by CharonY

[BusaDave9]

From a scientific point of view, sounds like everyone is in agreement, the building of a human is gradual process. There is no sudden event that the embryo becomes a human.

For the religious, the gradual building of a human doesn't make any sense. They need a miraculous event that God says "let there be life". Conception makes sense. That's the time they believe that God infuses the fetus with a soul (whatever that is)

[iNow]

Every egg cell, sperm cell and blood cell in our bodies are alive. The much more important question in the abortion debate is when does that life become human?

I disagree. The question is not one about humanity versus nonhumanity. I think the key question is, "When is it most appropriate to prioritize that one version of every changing/developing life over the choices of the already developed person carrying it? When do we make the personal choices of the host secondary to the protection of the developing group of cells within that host, and is that decision best made by a legislative body or by the individual?"

 

 

The only straight biological answer we can provide is that every freaking cell is alive. And that is quite silly to base policies on.

Precisely.

 

 

In my mind, it's a question of freedom versus the imposition of one subset of values on to others. I suspect that the vast majority of people do not wish to support or condone the idea of abortion. That's fairly clear. Let's prevent unwanted pregnecancies whenever possible, but let's also recognize the difficult nature of such choices, understand that it is emotionally traumatic for the woman making it and there are probably multiple reasons they've decided to follow such a path, and also stipulate that this is not an issue where "one size fits all" and recall that we fail to protect life in many ways every single day... Death penalty, gun culture, food stamp program defunding, lack of investment in education, etc.

Edited October 12, 2013 by iNow

[BusaDave9]

The only straight biological answer we can provide is that every freaking cell is alive. And that is quite silly to base policies on. And even that is not quite clear as there is no clear-cut definition for life, either.

 

But we MUST create policies and laws on when a fetus becomes a human.

People say abortion is murder. We all agree murder is wrong. So when is abortion murder? Anytime after conception? When the fetus is viable? Is abortion always murder? ... never murder?

[iNow]

Why isn't it murder when a guy masturbates in the shower and lets all those little sperm down the drain? The discussion is entirely silly. We must strive to protect life, but recognize there are important instances where that cannot (and even should not) happen. I feel the same way about elder care decisions and euthanasia. At some point we need to stop being so rigid about these ideas and have a more mature nuanced discussion... something that seems rather difficult with those who are ideological or religious about their position.

Edited October 12, 2013 by iNow

[BusaDave9]

No one is saying masturbation is murder. Out of the people that have replied to this thread, no one is even saying any abortion after conception is murder. What you, iNow, seem to be saying is that defining life is too hard and we shouldn't even have this discussion. Lawmakers look to science to determine laws about abortion. If scientist won't even address the issue of when a fetus is a human life then our laws will be chaotic.

 

I agree that laws about euthanasia and assisted suicide should not be decided by people that don't even have a voice in the matter. If someones life is dragging on in agony the only ones that should be involved in any decision on assisted suicide should be the immediate family. Not Washington lawmakers. I don't know if we should take the same stance on abortion. Abortion into the 9th month as long as the mother and rest of the family agrees?

Edited October 12, 2013 by BusaDave9

[iNow]

No one is saying masturbation is murder.

But that's the point. Why not? Why isn't it "murder" each time a woman menstruates and discards an egg? If you follow the pro-life argument logic, these other questions naturally arise.

 

What you, iNow, seem to be saying is that defining life is too hard and we shouldn't even have this discussion.

No, not at all. What I'm saying is that "when is it life" is the wrong question to be asking. This issue is far more nuanced than that. Life is everywhere. The correct question here IMO is (as I already shared above):

 

When do we make the personal choices of the host secondary to the protection of the developing group of cells within that host, and is that decision best made by a legislative body or by the individual?