When does human life begin?

[Phi for All]

Okay. My argument is:

 

People should make the definition of the start of human life as soon as fertilization occurs.

 

This means every miscarriage needs to be investigated by the police to determine if the mother is guilty of murder. Who pays for this?

[Ten oz]

The Biological angles to discuss this from seemed to have dried up quickly. Perhaps this topic is better suited for the religion or politics? Far as biology is concerned life exists before and after conception. Human DNA is present before and after conception. The question as asked by the OP seems to seek a point of value which is more philisophical than biological.

Philisophically I vote that human life begins at birth. All humans contain multiple living things inside of us. Every cell is alive. Yet is is all boardly considered part of one being. Until birth a fetus is part of its mother.

[Phi for All]

The Biological angles to discuss this from seemed to have dried up quickly. Perhaps this topic is better suited for the religion or politics?

 

Are we harmed at all by basing this arbitrary definition of when human life begins on biological considerations rather than religious or political ones?

[Ten oz]

Are we harmed at all by basing this arbitrary definition of when human life begins on biological considerations rather than religious or political ones?

Of course not. The comment was not meant to be a complaint that I believed required action.

[Phi for All]

Of course not. The comment was not meant to be a complaint that I believed required action.

 

My comment wasn't a criticism, really. I think it's harmful to our society to choose conception or fertilization as the moment we consider life to begin in humans, because it would mean our laws would be applied much earlier than I think is feasible. If all choices are somewhat arbitrary, shouldn't we choose a more biological standard for determining life?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A reminder: if your post is going to include "court" or "police" or anything of that ilk, leave it out. This thread was posted in Biology. Such posts belong in a thread in politics.

[Vexen]

 

This means every miscarriage needs to be investigated by the police to determine if the mother is guilty of murder. Who pays for this?

A natural death should not be investigated as a crime.

 

The basis for my argument is that a fertilized egg (totipotent cell) is the cell that gives rise to all humans

. An egg or a sperm will not spontaneously develop. Thus, the start of human life occurs at fertilization.

 

To me it seems like at that point is when the process of life begins.

 

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

[Moontanman]

In biblical times a baby was not considered alive until it was infused with the spirit, at that time spirit meant breath, so until the baby drew breath it was not considered alive.

[Phi for All]

If the biological angle requires a point where life has begun, I would have to agree with those who say birth is the logical starting point. It's the point where the new human is separated from the host, and since all the elements involved were already considered alive, any time before this would be arbitrary and inaccurate. Life never "started" because everything about it was already living, but the human part starts at birth, it seems to me.

 

I can understand the argument that children under 2 years aren't fully human, but I think this adds more arbitrariness.

[Vexen]

it's like people saying that the start of the universe is a continuum. It doesn't really start at the big bang. The start of inflation could have been the start of the universe. Or when the average temperature reached 1000 degree Celsius. This is seems absurd.

[Delta1212]

it's like people saying that the start of the universe is a continuum. It doesn't really start at the big bang. The start of inflation could have been the start of the universe. Or when the average temperature reached 1000 degree Celsius. This is seems absurd.

I know you meant that as a rhetorical analogy, but there's a pretty decent debate to be had about what the Bug bang actually represents as far as the start of the universe goes. In actuality, it's not really a model of the creation of the universe. It's a model of the evolution of he universe from a hot dense state to a less hot, less dense state. Where the hot dense universe came from, or what if anything came before it, isn't really covered.

 

So maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

[Phi for All]

it's like people saying that the start of the universe is a continuum. It doesn't really start at the big bang. The start of inflation could have been the start of the universe. Or when the average temperature reached 1000 degree Celsius. This is seems absurd.

 

Except the math works when trying to figure out what happened before a human birth, which would seem to erase any absurdity in assigning birth as the starting point for human life.

[Vexen]

Except the math works when trying to figure out what happened before a human birth, which would seem to erase any absurdity in assigning birth as the starting point for human life.

You know what I mean. I'm using an analogy.

 

Let's just agree that fertilization is the start of human development.

[Phi for All]

Let's just agree that fertilization is the start of human development.

 

Absolutely not.

[Vexen]

Absolutely not.

 

Dude?

 

Okay.

 

What about: the start of cellular development of a human being?

[MigL]

The OP is putting the cart before the horse.

 

Start a new topic to try to reach a common definition of alive ( life, human or otherwise ).

Only then can you explicitly define the beginning of that state.

[imatfaal]

The OP is putting the cart before the horse.

 

Start a new topic to try to reach a common definition of alive ( life, human or otherwise ).

Only then can you explicitly define the beginning of that state.

 

Or one could define by fiat the beginning of life as birth/parturition (or whatever one's choice is) and thus let the definition of life flow from that; I must admit I would prefer to do it as you suggest above, but you can set either as your foundation. We are not going to be able to reach an accord that does not rest on arbitrary decisions.

[BusaDave9]

Yes, defining life is the difficult task. Scientist can’t ignore the topic. They need to define life and when it begins. There is a big push for “Personhood” laws. Religious groups are saying that human life begins at conception and therefore should be protected the same as a child’s life. They say science dictates that life begins at conception. I say it’s not so easy to define.

If I were to give the definition of a human life as when the fetus has all the genes necessary. Then the thread would end with someone saying “by that definition life begins at conception”. The problem is these laws such as abortion, Personhood, miscarriages due to the beating of a pregnant woman MUST start with science tackling the difficult issue of defining human life. It’s not easy and in my opinion, science would NEVER end up with life starting at an instantaneous (or even well defined) time. It’s a gradual process. But when religious groups say “science tells us that human life starts at conception and the laws need to match accordingly”, I think scientist need to jump up and say that’s not true.

We could start a new thread but science needs to define when life begins.

[Delta1212]

Yes, defining life is the difficult task. Scientist cant ignore the topic. They need to define life and when it begins. There is a big push for Personhood laws. Religious groups are saying that human life begins at conception and therefore should be protected the same as a childs life. They say science dictates that life begins at conception. I say its not so easy to define.

 

If I were to give the definition of a human life as when the fetus has all the genes necessary. Then the thread would end with someone saying by that definition life begins at conception. The problem is these laws such as abortion, Personhood, miscarriages due to the beating of a pregnant woman MUST start with science tackling the difficult issue of defining human life. Its not easy and in my opinion, science would NEVER end up with life starting at an instantaneous (or even well defined) time. Its a gradual process. But when religious groups say science tells us that human life starts at conception and the laws need to match accordingly, I think scientist need to jump up and say thats not true.

 

We could start a new thread but science needs to define when life begins.

You're asking science to scientifically define something that has been scientifically determined not to have an objectively defined existence.

 

Taxonomy isn't an empirical science. It can use empirical evidence in defining its categories, but ultimately it is the business of drawing up categories that do not exist in nature. "Life" is one of those categories and cannot, therefore, be defined in a way that is not heavily dependent upon culture rather than empiricism.

[CharonY]

Considering that this is an artificial distinction, science certainly has no need to define or categorize it. It could be useful, but if it does not reflect nature, why should we impose our views on it? This is way many have pointed out that it is a rather useless exercise. It is laws that require actionable cut-offs but it would be foolish to think that nature would be so convenient as to provide us with these.

Also, as others have mentioned, fertilization does in no way guarantee an independent life (estimates of unsuccessful pregnancies after fertilization are in the 50% range, if memory serves),

[MonDie]

I could make a case for life being a proces, namely, the multifaceted process by which organisms reproduce and evolve. The process is cyclical, so it makes no sense to give this circle a beginning, except maybe 3.5 billion years ago when the pencil lead first touched the paper and began its succession of rounds.

[Wolfhnd]

Science is relevant to this topic for a few reasons.

 

Science defines viability as medical expertise allows earlier and earlier postpartum survival. It's not viability per se that defines viability as a moral distinction but it is in reference to the mother and fetus being inseperable.

 

If you make fertilization the point at which human life begins then any unprotected sexual intercourse become a potential abortion. Morality would then dictate that only artificial fertilization was moral when it is available.

 

Science may not be defined by philosophy but philosophy must be restrained by science. What you know and your intent is part of ethics.

 

If the courts call on science to rationalize a decision it is not ok for scientist to say I don't know when in fact they have relevant information. Let the courts decide what the questions are and answer them honestly.

 

Science has made birth control widely and cheaply available. Birth control should always be considered preferable to abortion. Complication arise when birth control is abortive and scientific effort should be focus on avoiding abortive birth control.

 

Scientist are morally obligated to speak out when religious leaders imply false or misleading conclusion about scientific issues related to abortion.

 

Science advances faster than social mores and science is by nature is empirical. Moral philosophy on the other hand is about absolutes not accessible by the scientific method. Scientist are not free to act outside the bounds of moral standards and therefor have to partake in political matters as citizens not experts.

 

The social sciences will be called on to answer some of the questions about social values, psychological impacts and other related issues. They should take as much care not to insert bias into the political issues as they take with their studies.

 

Moral issues concerning non human animals arise if perception and thought alone is the standard for valuing life. Scientist should take a stand against religious leaders who argue that humans are unique by kind when the overwhelming evidence suggest it is by degree.

 

Scientist must not dismiss moral issues as being irrelevant to their work. Everyone has moral obligation in everything they do. This is especially important to how scientist present themselves and the impact it may have on public perception.

 

I could go on but all these things are philosophical questions not science.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Yet another reminder that we should NOT be discussing anything to do with morals, or courts, or social mores. This thread is posted in science, not ethics, religion, politics or philosophy. If you want to discuss issues in those areas, start a thread in the appropriate section of the forum.

 

edit: No more reminders. If your post doesn't follow this reminder, it will simply be removed.

[mothythewso]

I think most people would consider an anencephalic baby not to be human, something that will never achieve "personhood". So in that particular case I would say that life never began in the human sense.

I have a nephew that is profoundly retarded; I think of him as a "it", I almost never refer to it by name. It looks human, it's certainly viable with support because it's 40 years old; it has a heart that beats, lungs that take in oxygen and remove CO2, kidneys, a liver, and even something that resembles a brain taking up space in its cranium. But, even tho it can react to its name, recognize its parents, etc., it can't look up at the universe and ponder its place in the grand scheme of things, because as far as I am concerned, it has no place. Its mother loves it, its brother and sister treat it well and have arguably become better persons because of their experience. But is it human? I would say "No". I wouldn't even consider the moral, ethical questions. I suppose if somebody harmed it, legal views would prevail. But when you ask "When does life begin?", in the human sense, would the dispassionate scientific, biological view be that in this case it never began?

[Wolfhnd]

The question here has become whether or not science can define what human life is?

 

It's a three part question. Can science define what life is? Can science define what a human is? Is human life sufficiently abstract an idea that empirical data alone cannot define it?

 

Despite considerable debate on whether viruses are alive or not science has done a fairly good job at uncovering the principles by which life has evolved and is sustained. So to the first question I think that with certain minor reservations the answer would be yes. Science can define life.

 

The second question is more difficult. There are scientific definitions for what the word "human" means. For example you can start with applying more precise terminology such as "anatomically modern Homo sapiens". You can trace roughly the evolutionary history and pick an arbitrary point at which hominids became human. It's possible with considerable accuracy to define the physiological characteristics of being human. At some point you will however be forced to turn to what is known as the "soft" sciences psychology, anthropology, ethology, etc. It's not enough that you describe the physiological structures that separate human from non human animals and will need to address function as well as physiology. Since our phenotype involves observable behavior assessing abstract properties such as intelligence becomes necessary. Considerable advancements have been made in understanding human behavior and despite the nature verses nurture debate it can be said we understand human behavior. The next step in defining what makes us human is to understand the environment that is inseparable from being human or human culture, tool use etc. Each one of these steps become less precise as the subject matter becomes more abstract. Science has done a remarkable job at using empirical data to quantify each of these aspects of being human more or less precisely. So the answer to the second question is yes. Science can define what a human is.

 

It's with the third question that science begins to fail us. Abstract ideas by definition do not have real world counterparts. Take math for example. Math is an abstract language that while having considerable utility at unraveling the mysteries of reality it is fundamentally built on absolutes. Science is a probabilistic enterprise resistant to absolutes. The tools of science may be abstract and absolute but the answers are always an approximation of reality. The third question I have no answer for because it isn't clear if the question itself is valid. It's only a valid question in relationship to other questions that are inseparable from the motives of the person asking the question.