Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does human life begin?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 211 of 327 (650296)
01-29-2012 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by shadow71
01-29-2012 7:27 PM


Still the same answer...
What about the 9 month fetus who is about to be born?
No idea; sorry but still insufficient information to say.
No I imagine you can make up stuff like that example all day, but the answer is still the same; I don't have enough information to make such a decision or really have any standing to even speculate.
The question is one that must be answered on each individual case and answered by those closest to the issue and that have as much data as is available, namely the woman, her doctor and perhaps her family.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:27 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 212 of 327 (650298)
01-29-2012 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by shadow71
01-28-2012 5:08 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
Hi again shadow71, thanks.
I appreciate your post but it does not answer the question of this OP namely when does human life begin. Your are discussing quality of life not the beginning of life.
Actually it addresses minimal elements that are necessary to qualify as human life.
It addresses when a distinct human life ceases to be a distinct human life, and then it applies the very same criteria to see when a distinct human life begins to be a distinct human life.
There are two questions here: when life began, and when that life becomes human.
Life began some 3.5 billion years ago, and has continued to this day, in an unbroken chain of living cells and cell matter. Likewise the DNA is not created anew with any new offspring but inherited from parents. Life forms a continuous thread from start to now, with many branches - some human and some not human.
When it comes to defining human life, however, there are criteria that are used that are distinct from the issue of life: what makes us human.
According to the universal definition of (human) death one ceases to be human when there is a cessation of brain and respiratory function (there are other elements that qualify the person as human that are not included here, and come under the category of "personhood").
Logically, then, at a minimum, one cannot become human until the brain and respiratory functions begin.
Certainly there are fundamental objective differences between a fetus and a baby, not least of which is that the baby breathes and the fetus does not. Another is a change in the heart where an opening is closed so that the baby can pump blood on its own. These are some of the reasons that premature births are kept in the intensive care units on life support systems until the fetal development is complete and the transition into an autonomous baby is made. Even with all the advances in medical knowledge there appears to be a limit (about 24 weeks iirc) to how early a premature birth can occur without extensive developmental abnormalities or incomplete brain development.
We can also compare a human fetus to a chimpanzee fetus and ask what the difference is. We can also look at the ability of some chimpanzees to surpass the abilities of some humans in cognitive skills. At what point does a human child have characteristics that would qualify it as human vs non-human (ie that a chimpanzee does not have)?
One argument I have seen is that a human offspring is not able to function on its own until approximately 9 years of age, and will die without assistance.
Another argument is that a human offspring is not able to reproduce until about 13 years of age, and another argument I have seen is that a human offspring is not fully cognizant for making behavioral decisions until about 21 years of age, and that the brain is not fully developed until that stage is reached.
Should we make an argument that you need to be fully developed to qualify as a human being, then these arguments are as valid as any others I have seen, and more than some because they are based on actual empirical evidence.
This takes us into the question of personhood - and the distinct objective characteristics of the individual that qualify as a particular human being: what makes you you and me me. One can lose the elements characteristic of their individuality by loss of some brain function, and still be a breathing heart pumping individual with just enough brain function to maintain respiratory and circulatory function. Are they a human individual or just the mechanical shell of one?
An answer to the OP I just found can be found at this the link below, by Maureen L. Condic a Prof. of neurobiology and Anatomy.
We don't debate here by posting bare links. We debate by posting the salient points and citing the link as a reference to check the accuracy of the points made.
I do note that the end of your link it says:
quote:
The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person is a research institute conducting interdisciplinary, natural law analysis of complex, contemporary moral issues as yet unresolved among Judeo-Christian scholars.
Anchored in the classic perennial and Catholic view of the human person, our moral inquiries are first and foremost of a scholarly nature. However, we pursue answers to disputed questions with an eye toward enriching the quality of contemporary moral discourse and fostering sound prudential judgment in cultural and political matters.
This is a religious and ethics publication, not science. Scientists are free to have personal opinions on ethics and religion.
This formation of the zygote initiates a sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions that are required for the continued embryonic delevopment.
And yet some 55% (or more) of zygotes die in the dark damp wilderness of waste disposal systems unheralded and most often unknown.
Of those that actually do implant on the uterus wall, some are not necessarily destined to become a human being either: many spontaneous abortions occur due to malformed organs and vital systems, and many babies are born with birth defects that medical practice is currently not able to repair. Even babies that get past this barrier are subject to sudden infant death syndrome.
One frequent cause of many spontaneous abortions are due to empty sac development - the zygote implants on the uterus wall, the blastula develops and the embryonic sac is formed, but nothing else. There is no rational argument that I can see that an empty embryonic sac is a human being.
The formation of a zygote (B) does not mean the formation of a human being (A), because there are too many ways a zygote can fail to become a human being. B does not predict A.
Edited by Zen Deist, : 24 weeks
Edited by Zen Deist, : 55%

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by shadow71, posted 01-28-2012 5:08 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 213 of 327 (650299)
01-29-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by shadow71
01-29-2012 5:04 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
Hi again shadow71,
Straggler writes:
Do you accept that about 60% of all conceptuses end up flushed down the toilet without anyone even realising that any conception had taken place? The majority of conceptuses never implant in the uterus.
Can you link me to information supporting those statements?
If you would read through the Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion thread you would have most of your answers.
quote:
Message 45:
Notice that technically "fetus" refers to the last 6-7 months of development, preceded by the zygote to embryo stages (Human Development Chart), and that this is about where the life\death line is crossed as well. The chart also says (bold mine for emphasis):
day 7 - 9: Blastocyst implants in wall of uterus (55% of Zygotes never reach this stage.)
{and further down:} 15 % of pregnancies miscarry during weeks 4-12

There is a gap in the mortality information between day 9 and week 4, where logically we can assume spontaneous abortions occur, meaning that the numbers of successful pregnancies are even less. At least 55% + 15%x45% = 62% of the number of zygotes formed end in failure to develop into a human.
Many other posters on this forum have already read that thread.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 5:04 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 214 of 327 (650302)
01-29-2012 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by shadow71
01-29-2012 7:08 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
shadow71 writes:
You didn't answer the question. Are you a qualified biologist with the biological knowledge to refute her scientific statements? Do you refute her qualifications? By the way you can google her and review her CV.
I've pointed out to you that the view she expresses in the paper is not scientific. It doesn't require a biologist to know that an acorn is not an oak tree and that a zygote is not a human being.
If you don't understand the paper, why did you bring it up?
shadow71 writes:
I did not see in her paper anything about the solar system, caterpillars or european colonies.
By her "logic", caterpillars are butterflies, and a pre-solar nebula is a solar system.
shadow71 writes:
She wrote a paper on the biolgical scientific evidence of when human life begins.
She wrote an opinion piece for a non-scientific publication in which she claims, quite literally, that a zygote is a human being. Read the article. There is nothing scientific in it that actually supports her view.
A zygote is not a human being by definition, just as an acorn is not an oak tree by definition.
She is far from being the only religious person with scientific qualifications who claims that her religious views are scientific. Even the young earth Christians have a number of folks with genuine PhDs. Did it occur to you to wonder why she hadn't written that piece for peer review by human embryologists in a scientific journal? That's what she does when dealing with her own field (neurology).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:08 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by shadow71, posted 02-01-2012 12:29 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 215 of 327 (650312)
01-30-2012 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by shadow71
01-29-2012 7:24 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
So when does it become a "person"? That in my opinion is a pretty important issue.
There is no boundary. Even if there were, it would vary between individuals.
I guess I can't adopt the compromise postion that even though it is a "human life", it might be convenient to dispose of it based upon the needs of society.
That's up to you, but playing semantic games isn't going to help anyone.
We had some bloke in the 1930sand40s who had some pretty scary ideas about human life and who qualifed.
That's what this whole thread was about isn't it? You define an embryo as a "human life" and then you accuse pro-choicers of being Nazis. Sad.
Anyway, Godwin's Law applies. You mentioned Hitler, thus you lose.
Some decisions must be made based upon morality.
What exactly makes you think that mine aren't?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:24 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by shadow71, posted 02-01-2012 12:07 PM Granny Magda has replied

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


Message 216 of 327 (650323)
01-30-2012 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by shadow71
01-29-2012 5:04 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
Here is an easily accessible link where a study is cited:
quote:
One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the woman. Link
Here is a link to the study being cited Link
Here is a link to a wiki article:
quote:
Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (after the woman's Last Menstrual Period). As a result, even without the use of birth control, between 50% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth. Wiki Link:
Here is a link to the paper being cited in that wiki article Link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 5:04 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by shadow71, posted 01-30-2012 9:00 AM Straggler has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 217 of 327 (650330)
01-30-2012 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by shadow71
01-29-2012 7:31 PM


Re: Disagreement
You don't think they will admit that do you?
Ah, the old secret agenda trick. You referred to them as an organization that supported your claim. They don't support your claim, whether or not they have a secret agenda. I.e. your claim that they intend to destroy human life is your unfounded opininion.
Do they abort viable fetuses in the womb knowing that if they are not destroyed they will be born as babies?
Isn't that eliminating a human life?
Not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of many others, and not in the rulings of our legal system.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:31 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 218 of 327 (650333)
01-30-2012 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Straggler
01-30-2012 7:35 AM


Re: Previous thread/s
Thanks Straggler.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 7:35 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 219 of 327 (650345)
01-30-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Just being real
01-28-2012 10:55 PM


Re: Personhood
Seriously though, we humans place the higher value on our own species and would 99% of the time try and save a human over any other species. My suspicion is that this would also be the case (after all the shock and "new" wore off) if we exchanged the dog with ET in this analogy.
This is true for two reasons.
1) Humans are self-conscious and aware. We're not entirely sure about a dog, though there seems to be variation depending on breed.
2) Humans, like all evolved species, work toward the propagation of those who are genetically closest to us. i.e. Immediate family over extended family over unrelated humans over mammals over other animals over plants.
I'm seriously unsure as to whether I would save an old woman over an alien with the ability to show self-awareness and higher thinking. Whichever choice I made, I'm sure I'd feel guilt over my inability to save the other.
At life's end a doctor determines brain death. It is not just the absence of brain activity that declares they are no longer a person, but rather it is the absence of brain activity with the prognosis that there will never again be any brain activity.
The legal definition of death doesn't say anything about possibility of future brian activity. It says merely the cessation of brain activity. It seems pretty clear that brain activity = personhood at the end of life. It is possible, though extremely rare, for a person to be declared dead, then somehow recover. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the fact that for a little bit, they were dead and thus were not a person. They recovered personhood, but again, that's neither here nor there.
The "cases" I was referring to are the many people who were actually declared clinically dead but did come back.
But do you consider them ot be a person during the time they were dead, or did they regain their personhood when they "came back to life?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Just being real, posted 01-28-2012 10:55 PM Just being real has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 220 of 327 (650387)
01-30-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Straggler
01-29-2012 3:15 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
Straggler writes:
Do you honestly believe that all conceptuses are human lives imbued with souls?
Yes.
Straggler writes:
Do you accept that about 60% of all conceptuses end up flushed down the toilet without anyone even realising that any conception had taken place? The majority of conceptuses never implant in the uterus
I have read your links so that is part of the natural process.
Straggler writes:
Do you agree that if the church really wants to save human lives and genuinely believes that human life starts at the "point" of conception they should focus on research into this majority of conceptuses rather than get too riled up about the comparatively tiny amount that get intentionally aborted?
I don't think the church is involved in the science itself. But I am sure the church, if it was possible, would love to change those numbers. But again it appears to be a natual process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Straggler, posted 01-29-2012 3:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 6:25 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 222 by Kairyu, posted 01-30-2012 6:35 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 221 of 327 (650407)
01-30-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by shadow71
01-30-2012 4:20 PM


"Human Life"
Shad writes:
But again it appears to be a natural process.
Plagues are a "natural process". As is pestilence, drought, tsunamis etc. Are you suggesting that natural processes should be left to do their work without human interference?
If you define "human life" as that of the conceptus do you accept that about 60% of "human life" has never even lived to any meaningful physical extent?
Do you accept that natural abortions are the biggest killer of "human life" known to man?
If so - What do you suggest we do about his tragic majority? Anything at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by shadow71, posted 01-30-2012 4:20 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by shadow71, posted 02-01-2012 12:36 PM Straggler has replied

  
Kairyu
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 162
From: netherlands
Joined: 06-23-2010


Message 222 of 327 (650410)
01-30-2012 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by shadow71
01-30-2012 4:20 PM


Re: Previous thread/s
It's a natural process, sure. But regarding those zygotes being full-fledged humans because there have a soul, and such a high death rate being natural... In order to defend the point even a zygote is a person , you also also mean you accept the point that either the majority of humans never had a human life on earth. This creates some theological problems, to say to to the least. Just being real only could answer this by moving the creation of the soul to a later date and making the zygotes that die early soulless, which also seems a bit weird to me, for reasons you did bring up yourself.
I'm not really trying to derail the tread into this subject, but my point is that defining even a single cell as human does carry some implications if you try to justify it with a soul, in spite off the natural processes science has determined seem uncaring about making a zygote survive at all. Yet ending a pregnancy manually is seen as a huge injustice.
I'm a bit uneasy on abortion myself, but even then the contrast between the pro-life picture of God loathing abortion, and the uncaring processes of nature are a bit glaring. Even aside from the topic of abortion the zygote death rate is a huge difficulty in determining life as ''it has a soul, so it's life'' terms in the Christian context. How do you harmonize all of this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by shadow71, posted 01-30-2012 4:20 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by shadow71, posted 02-01-2012 12:02 PM Kairyu has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(1)
Message 223 of 327 (650535)
01-31-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by shadow71
01-29-2012 2:43 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
bluegenes writes:
Her conclusion doesn't follow from her technical description.
That is your opinion and she obviously disagrees with you. I don't know your qualifications, but do know she is a qualified biologist. If you are also qualfied to give that opinion then there is disagreement.
Well look at how she describes an organism down on page 6 of the document. She takes a perfectly reasonable dictionary definition as (1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being. However she then tries to argue that the DNA, RNA, organelles et al. we see in a fertilised egg are the equivalent of organs we see in a developed human body when they clearly are not. There is very little to differentiate between the structures in a fertilised egg and that of a skin cell, for example. The only difference is in the way the genes in those cells are expressed, but here again she tries to equivocate by suggesting that the cells in the developing embryo are working towards some grand plan to produce a mature human body. But what is really happening is as the cells multiply they interact with their neighbours, causing variation in their gene expression and altering the trajectory of their daughter cells into gradually more specific tissue types. It just so happens that these local interactions lead to an adult human.
But despite the spin the basic science is fairly sound and reminds you that a human life is greater than the sum of it's parts i.e. a collection of cells which happen to carry human DNA. It's when those collections of cells develop to the point where distinct tissues form, allowing the developing foetus to react to external stimuli, with the potential to learn and feel, and internally by maintaining some degree of homeostasis, that we can start to consider it an individual human life.
Finally I'll leave you with this scenario to consider. A woman is pregnant with a child when she is diagnosed with cancer. Due to the nature of chemotherapeutic drugs it is most likely that the foetus will die, but carrying it to term will be too late for the cancer to be effectively treated. In your view who is more important in this scenario, who makes the decisions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 2:43 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by bluegenes, posted 02-01-2012 9:36 AM Meddle has replied
 Message 234 by shadow71, posted 02-01-2012 12:43 PM Meddle has replied
 Message 279 by shadow71, posted 02-03-2012 3:51 PM Meddle has not replied

  
Evlreala
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 224 of 327 (650554)
01-31-2012 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by shadow71
01-29-2012 7:27 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
shadow71 writes:
What about the 9 month fetus who is about to be born?
To be fair, at 9 months if it's still a fetus and is about to be born the question of abortion has long sense not been an issue...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by shadow71, posted 01-29-2012 7:27 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by shadow71, posted 02-01-2012 11:53 AM Evlreala has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 225 of 327 (650583)
02-01-2012 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Meddle
01-31-2012 6:17 PM


Re: So what was the point of this thread?
Malcolm writes:
But despite the spin the basic science is fairly sound....
So I thought. It shows that with a bit of spin and equivocation that you can end up with a philosophical viewpoint and make it sound scientific. The subtitle "a scientific view" is highly dubious, and my point to shadow was that her technical description does not lead to her conclusion.
Did you notice that the article asks the question "when does human life begin"? Human life, human organism, and human being end up being treated as one and the same, and (from memory) at one point she says "human organism i.e. human being" before she's even made her argument. Although any organism can certainly be a "being" in some senses of the word, so can anything that exists (including human eggs and sperm). But when the phrase "human being" is used, it's usually understood to mean a person. Religious "pro-life" groups are remarkably fond of phrasing the question "when does an individual human person begin" as "when does human life begin"? Why?
To say fair, she does mention the point that the continuum of life has led many to conclude that the beginning of a human being is a point impossible to define. At that point, I think she should have stated clearly that there is no scientific consensus on exactly when an individual human being starts to exist, in order not to mislead people like shadow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Meddle, posted 01-31-2012 6:17 PM Meddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Meddle, posted 02-02-2012 9:07 PM bluegenes 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