Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does human life begin?
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 16 of 327 (649458)
01-23-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Larni
01-23-2012 9:27 AM


Larni writes:
When you say 'life' what exactly do you mean? In the UK 24 weeks is concidered the cut off for abortion and this boils down to being viable.
At conception when the egg and sperm form 46 human chromosomes and the embryo comes into existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 01-23-2012 9:27 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2012 2:55 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 23 by Larni, posted 01-23-2012 4:24 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 17 of 327 (649460)
01-23-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by shadow71
01-23-2012 2:46 PM


At conception when the egg and sperm form 46 human chromosomes and the embryo comes into existence.
Do you mourn the loss of every fertilized egg that fails to implant on the uterine wall as occurs with most pregnancies? Specifically, do you mourn the loss of those "human lives" to exactly the same degree you mourn the loss of a toddler, or a newborn child? Do you suggest that un-implanted embryos deserve a proper burial and funeral rather than a flush down a toilet?
If not, that would denote a rather significant and obvious inconsistency in your moral weights.
Why do you believe moral weight is attached to chromosomes rather than minds? The skin cells I shed every day possess the same genetic code as the rest of me; their loss is a loss of "human life" in biologically the same sense as a fertilized egg that simply fails to implant. Why does one carry moral weight and the other not? What gives moral significance to a human being, in your opinion?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 2:46 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 7:54 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 327 (649461)
01-23-2012 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by shadow71
01-23-2012 2:39 PM


Re: Conceptuses
Shad writes:
I would think the time of conception is when the sperm and egg have combined to form 46 human chromosomes that are implanted in the uterus and the human embryo is formed.
So rather confusing your "moment of conception" isn't actually when conception takes place at all. What you have described is called implantation'. Implantation occurs 7-14 days after conception and like all other biological processes implantation is a gradualistic process that defies the idea of "moments".
Can I ask if you believe in the existence of a soul?
And if so when do you think the soul is formed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 2:39 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 7:57 PM Straggler has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 19 of 327 (649462)
01-23-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by shadow71
01-23-2012 2:30 PM


In the U.S. the federal and State legislatures, if drafting a law as to what constitutes the crime of murder, will consult the scientific community in re the definition of human life.
It appears to me the the scientific community has not been consulted in drafting the various state legislature bills that have been submitted in the past year or two.
Where did you obtain your idea that "I would think the time of conception is when the sperm and egg have combined to form 46 human chromosomes that are implanted in the uterus and the human embyro is formed."? From a scientific paper or from somewhere else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 2:30 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 8:14 PM JonF has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(3)
Message 20 of 327 (649467)
01-23-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by shadow71
01-23-2012 2:39 PM


Re: Conceptuses
What if it's 47 chromosomes? What if there is a major birth defect and the ensuing child will suffer every waking moment? What if this defect isn't discovered until 25 weeks? 36 weeks? Can you tell a set of parents they have to care for this child that will need round the clock care and this will involve them both quitting their jobs? Who then will help them out? Who pays for the care? What if this child that is forced into this world needs life saving surgery and the parents insurance provider says "ooh, sorry, not covered" and the ensuing bills put them in the poor house? In the unlikely event you say "well, if there are defects or problems, then abortion would be ok" where is your moral compass to say one life is worth more than another, regardless if there are defects? ALL (human) life is worth saving, right? What about a woman who falls and has a miscarriage? Should she be charged with murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide? The same goes for when the fertilized egg doesn't stick. Maybe we could contact DCFS when the fertilized egg gets implanted outside the uterus: we could charge her with a hostile living environment?
These are very much rhetorical questions that I don't particular have a solid stance on other than to say I am pro-choice. They are just there to provoke the thought of those who are anti-choice. "Life" is a grey area and those who are "pro"-life have yet to substantially define it so as to properly defend it.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 2:39 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 8:28 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 327 (649468)
01-23-2012 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by shadow71
01-23-2012 2:30 PM


shadow71 writes:
I am asking as to whether there is a scienctific definition of when human life begins.
In the U.S. the federal and State legislatures, if drafting a law as to what constitutes the crime of murder, will consult the scientific community in re the definition of human life.
And the scientific community would respond, "When human life begins is a matter of definitions, not science."
But science isn't left entirely out of the equation. If we take as an example your definition that human life begins "when the sperm and egg combine to form 46 human chromosomes that are implanted in the uterus and the human embro is formed," then science can provide a great deal of information about when these things happen.
But science can't give you a definition for when human life begins. Someone else has to do that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 2:30 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Evlreala
Member (Idle past 3075 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 22 of 327 (649470)
01-23-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by shadow71
01-23-2012 2:30 PM


I am asking as to whether there is a scienctific definition of when human life begins.
Forgive me for the semantics, but doesn't your question heavily depend on what you consider to be 'human'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 2:30 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 23 of 327 (649472)
01-23-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by shadow71
01-23-2012 2:46 PM


How is that any more alive than one sperm and egg cell, two centimetres apart?
What about Down's or Edward's syndrome babies?
By your definition they are not alive.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 2:46 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(4)
Message 24 of 327 (649473)
01-23-2012 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by shadow71
01-23-2012 2:39 PM


Re: Conceptuses
I would think the time of conception is when the sperm and egg have combined to form 46 human chromosomes that are implanted in the uterus and the human embro is formed.
In this thread, you're really asking more than one question. "Human life" is sort of a vague term, but I could agree that a unique human life is formed at the point where the sperm and egg combine and create a new genetic code.
The real question you're getting to, however, is at what point we can be justified in terminating this "life." Morals are even more vague, but it would seem the major reason we dislike the ending of "human life" is that we are a social creature with a seeming universal idea of the golden rule - you don't want to be killed, therefore the killing of others like you is repulsive - combined with the evolutionary predisposition to care greatly for a baby, especially one with which you are related.
So, if we can further delve into what it means to be "like us" there is definitely more at play than mere genetics. There is the similar shape and appearance aspect. This is why there are racists and others for whom killing other races or treating them as less than human is alright; they don't look enough like you to count as "like us." I think we can all agree that a blastocyst looks nothing like us. Though the looks criteria is one that is frowned upon, it definitely holds sway over parts of our subconsciousness.
The real aspect that we consider when thinking about who is "like us," is consciousness. That's why some kids feel bad when something happens to a doll, and why humans have a tendency to feel bad about animals being hurt. Anthropomorphization allows us to see ourselves in other creatures, and agin, the golden rule comes into play.
All that combined leads us to the division over abortion. For many people, we recognize that a human embryo has the potential to become a human, with consciousness, but that it doesn't currently have it, wheras the mother does. Others tend to anthropomorphize, envisioning a little human-looking baby, complete with feelings and thoughts, growing inside the mother's womb, and then feel empathy for the little "baby" that is being "killed."
The law, however, shouldn't deal with potentiality. If it did, you'd never be able to go shopping, because everyone who enters a store is a "potential" thief. You'd never be able to drink alcohol, or drive, because either one of those actions makes you a "potential" drunk-driver.
The only actual, conscious person is the mother, up until the time the fetus' brain develops. Up until then, abortion shouldn't be an issue.
Beyond that, you have two human beings, two persons, but even then, abortion shouldn't be just balnket prohibited. At that point, you have competing rights; the rights of the mother and the rights of the baby. The rights of the baby do not automatically trump the rights of the mother, and just as we are allowed to kill in self-defense, in cases where the mother's life is threatened by carrying the baby to term, she is justified in choosing to abort. In other cases, the line gets grayer, but never is it so cut-and-dried as the pro-life cadre would make it out to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 2:39 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 25 of 327 (649479)
01-23-2012 5:18 PM


I suppose there's 3 logical places that you could pin a definition for political/religious reasons that also have some form of pseudo scientific basis.
1 Sometime in the first week or so when a fertilized egg has been implanted and can feasibly go on to form a baby. You can make a claim for before implantation if you like but in either case, it's within the first few days after The Gross Immoral Act.
2. At the point where medical science can keep a faetus alive outside the womb - this will move nearer to the point of conception as science improves.
3. At the moment of birth.
I don't see how it matters to Catholics though as they regard wearing a condom to be a mortal sin which carries the same penalty as murder in their eyes. For them murder starts even before conception, so wtf do they care when science calls it?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Perdition, posted 01-23-2012 5:24 PM Tangle has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 26 of 327 (649481)
01-23-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
01-23-2012 8:41 AM


The Catholic chrurch's postion is that life begins at conception.
Nope the Catholics church's position is that life begins the moment the sperm leaves the penis (condoms are evil, spilling ones seed is sin .... )
The BIBLE on the other hand says life begins 8 days after birth when the child gets a name ....
In reality life begins when the sperm and the egg form the cell that may one day become a human being.
Thing is when is it a human being? The single cell is definitively not a human being its a cell like the cells that make up your body you loose millions of skin cells every day should we consider them human also have a mourning period each day for the cells we lost??
And then there are other questions like:
What if the mother was raped?
What if the child will die in monts after birth or have a miserable life do to genetic disorders?
What if the pregnancy endangers the mothers life?
and millions more scenarios where the clear cut morality of dont kill cells that may one day become human is in question.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2012 8:41 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 27 of 327 (649482)
01-23-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tangle
01-23-2012 5:18 PM


How about when brain waves approximating thoughts/dreams begin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 01-23-2012 5:18 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 28 of 327 (649484)
01-23-2012 5:31 PM


Hello everyone. This issue is very intriguing to me. I have to agree with nwr and Percy here. The question of "when" does human life begin is a matter of semantics. Obviously "life" never begins. It started at some point in the past and has been going ever since. This is yet another case of the problem not being well defined and therefore the solution being very broad and all over the board. Most fellow Christians I know do not even know how to frame the question before they start trying to impose what they feel is the solution. Firstly I want to point out that as Christians we are not called of God to impose our morals on the non-Christian communities of people we are supposed to be trying to reach rather than repel.
Secondly I wish to point out that the real issue here is not when does it become "human life," but rather when does it become a person. This is important, because most Christians have no problem with someone having their tonsils removed. Someone can argue that those tonsils are very much "alive" and they are very much "human." Therefore it is not just "human life" that is the issue, but rather "human person-hood."
Therefore in this current society we live in, we Christians can not expect to appeal to this issue on the basis of our own religious and moral beliefs or preferences. There are a lot of secular people out there who share none of our Christian values. And that's got to be okay... after all that is supposed to be one of the corner stones to a free America. We must divorce our selves from bringing our religion into the issue or else we will lose on the grounds of "religious legislation" every time. But on the other hand we can't just sit idly by and watch what we believe to be millions of murders take place each year in the name of convenience.
So what the whole issue can be boiled down to, is when does a fertilized egg become a "person?" That is to say, when does it become a person that should have the same rights as any other person? If we look to the Bible, we can not with any honesty point to a single verse that makes this distinction. In the Psalms, David describes himself as having been "knit together" by the Lord in his mothers womb. It doesn't tell us the exact point to which this process was completed.
Likewise we can not look to science and make any real definitive evaluation of when this process is. Obviously a person does not become a person at the moment of breathing. My daughter was born 3 months premature, and for her first month after birth she was on a ventilator that breathed for her. But she was legally classed as a person. Why should exiting the body be a good way to determine person hood? This is an argument that appeals to location. Obviously location is not a logical way to determine person hood. Some have suggested that when brain activity reaches a certain stage then it should be considered a person. However there are plenty of "people" who still had "person" status while in comas. Size also should not be a criteria, because then we open the door to discriminate against small people. The same goes for level of development. We would never sanction the idea of retarded children being non-persons.
In the end we can not look to either science or the Bible to decide this issue. I don't believe we ever will be able to. Personally as a Christian, I think God does not intend for us to be able to answer this question. God clearly wants us to value people and does not want us to murder them. But I don't think there is a single person on either side of the issue he believes murder is okay. So this is not just a religious issue or a "Christian moral" issue. It is a question of person hood. The answer to this question should be decided the same way that we as a society decide other situations that involve the person hood of others. We must look to other similar situations and see how we have decided them.
For example I once heard a story of a police officer who had chased an armed assailant into a construction area. The assailant was shooting at the officer who hid behind a truck. The assailant hid behind a portapotty. The question was, did the officer have the right to shoot through the plastic structure and kill the armed assailant. Upon closer examination of the incident, it was determined that it would have been reckless for the officer to do so. He did not know if there was an innocent "person" inside that structure or not. Therefore in this situation where it was unsure, society deemed it necessary for the officer to error on the side of safety and not take that shot.
Likewise in a situation such as this issue where "person hood" is unknown, shouldn't we also CHOOSE to error on the side of safety?

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Perdition, posted 01-23-2012 5:38 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 30 by subbie, posted 01-23-2012 5:45 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 31 by hooah212002, posted 01-23-2012 6:08 PM Just being real has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 29 of 327 (649485)
01-23-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Just being real
01-23-2012 5:31 PM


Some have suggested that when brain activity reaches a certain stage then it should be considered a person. However there are plenty of "people" who still had "person" status while in comas.
A person in a coma still, generally, has brain waves similar to a person asleep, or at the very least, some brain activity. When the brain activity stops, they are suually consaidered brain dead, and "pulling the plug" becomes either a matter of course, or at worst, a choice for the family to make. Indeed, even when there is still brain activity, but no hope for recovery, family or next of kin, generally choose to "pull the plug." This seems to argue that brain activity is a very common, and obvious choice for determining "personhood."
It is a question of person hood. The answer to this question should be decided the same way that we as a society decide other situations that involve the person hood of others. We must look to other similar situations and see how we have decided them.
See above.
Likewise in a situation such as this issue where "person hood" is unknown, shouldn't we also CHOOSE to error on the side of safety?
I believe we have sufficient precedent to use brain activity as a measure of personhood. But even if we didn't, if we classified every fertilized egg, through birth, as a person, we're still left with the murky moral discussion of contrary rights, namely the rights of the mother versus the rights of the baby.
Many conservative Christians view the mother as giving up her rights at the moment she has sex. After all, sex is for procreation, and if the mother does so, she should be willing to "suffer the consequences" of that choice. In reality, that view is very outdated and morally wrong, IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Just being real, posted 01-23-2012 5:31 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Just being real, posted 01-23-2012 10:39 PM Perdition has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 30 of 327 (649486)
01-23-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Just being real
01-23-2012 5:31 PM


Likewise in a situation such as this issue where "person hood" is unknown, shouldn't we also CHOOSE to error on the side of safety?
If the question only implicated how we deal with the fetus, I would agree with your analysis. However, your analogy ignores the indisputable fact, a fact with which all intelligent people agree, that there is also another person involved; the woman carrying the fetus.
Childbirth is dangerous. According to Wiki, there are 10-30 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the U.S. This is certainly very low, but it is not an insignificant number. Anytime the law requires a woman to carry a child, the law is requiring a woman to risk her life. On top of that, during pregnancy a woman's body undergoes tremendous change, creating numerous inconveniences for her and threats to her health short of death.
It is the height of arrogance for anyone to analyze this issues solely from the perspective of the fetus.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Just being real, posted 01-23-2012 5:31 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Just being real, posted 01-23-2012 10:39 PM subbie has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024