When does "life" begin?

[miketurner]

Opinions?

[soko]

Millions of years ago

[Bigdaddydvo]

Conception. End of thread.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Millions of years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

hehe, everyone's a smart ass. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

When DOES life begin, not when did life begin.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Conception. End of thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think everyone will agree with that?

[soko]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conception. End of thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think everyone will agree with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, some people will argue that it begins when memory development begins, or when the fetus/child is able to feel pain.

In my opinion, "When does life become valueable?" would be a much more complicated and interesting question.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
Conception. End of thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the sperm and ovum are live cells even before conception.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, "When does life become valueable?" would be a much more complicated and interesting question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to start a thread asking that question. Why have you not answered my question since it is so “simple”?

[tolbiny]

Define "life", and then you have already answered your own question.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Define "life", and then you have already answered your own question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is the problem isn't it? You have to define it for yourself. That's kinda part of the question.

[tolbiny]

The problem is your question is vauge and assumes a distinction between "life" and "nonlife" that is measurable and quantifiable. The definition you come up with would simply be used to support whatever point you wanted to make, its the blessing and curse of language. Is a virus "alive"?
If your intention is to ask when Human life begins, that is an altogether different question.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
If your intention is to ask when Human life begins, that is an altogether different question.

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad... when does human life begin?

[tolbiny]

i agree with soko to an extent about human life. When the brain is formed enough to feel pain/porcess information/make rudiemntary memories. The beginnings of things that differentiate us from other species.

[madnak]

A cluster of cells becomes a human organism, I'd say, when the various physical systems become functional. I'm sure there is a specific biological definition. The quesiton here isn't "when does a human become alive" but "when does life become human." So it's deceptive. Each sperm cell and egg cell is alive. A fertilized egg is alive. Two cells resulting in the division of that egg are alive.

But none of this bears on the question of value.

[Bork]

Once it is more intelligent than the smartest animal.
So if you had a dog as smart as einstein it would be living a human life, and if you had a [censored] sapien as smart as a typical dog then it isn't living a human life.

[tolbiny]

dolphins and chimps?

[ZeeJustin]

What tolbiny said is correct.

The question itself will yeild arbitrary answers since it's just a question of semantics.

Another answer is that life begins as soon as the sperm is created. It's a living group of cells at that point in time, that may or may not become an individual organism later on.

[soon2bepro]

If the question is about human life, as soon as the spermatozoid and the ovum jointly create a single lifeform.

I still think abortion is a good thing for society; seeing that this is what you're trying to draw out of this (i'm pretty sure it is).

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
Once it is more intelligent than the smartest animal.
So if you had a dog as smart as einstein it would be living a human life, and if you had a [censored] sapien as smart as a typical dog then it isn't living a human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with this but there are a few problems with the ethical implications. Should we use the mentally handicapped for medical research?

[Wes Mantooth]

[ QUOTE ]

I still think abortion is a good thing for society...

[/ QUOTE ]

In a "perfect" society would abortion still be a good thing? would abortion even happen in such a society?

[madnak]

Why wouldn't it?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I still think abortion is a good thing for society...

[/ QUOTE ]

In a "perfect" society would abortion still be a good thing? would abortion even happen in such a society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely... There still will be those god induced abortions called miscarriages. Hey, even god is ok with it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[soon2bepro]

it's hard to think in absolute terms... at some point they become self-contradictory. So instead of thinking of a "perfect" society i'll think of a very good one, say one we can aspire to become in 50 years or so. I think it should still be an option, but it'd be much less used.

If we were technologically advanced enough, maybe a woman could simply have an operation where they'd remove the fetus without killing it, and allow it to grow up in a fabricated enviroment.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think abortion is a good thing for society; seeing that this is what you're trying to draw out of this (i'm pretty sure it is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... yes & no. While I had/have no intention of this being an “abortion” thread, an abortion bill is what first got me thinking about it. I did not start this thread to “preach.” I kinda have mixed feelings about it. I, personally, would never want my child to be aborted... but I’m not going to blow up any clinics either. Here is a link to a story about the bill. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS02/601270530

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once it is more intelligent than the smartest animal.
So if you had a dog as smart as einstein it would be living a human life, and if you had a [censored] sapien as smart as a typical dog then it isn't living a human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with this but there are a few problems with the ethical implications. Should we use the mentally handicapped for medical research?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be consistent we either must say its not morally permissable for smart animals and extremely stupid people OR it is ok in both cases. I tend to think it would morally be fine in both cases. (as long as the research is valid) If we have a creature with human DNA which has as much cognitive ability as a mouse why should we think the human has more rights. The differences are morally superficial unless you rely on some arbitrary religious dogma to find a distinction. (souls) The reason people recoil at the thought of killing the disabled human and not the mouse are purely instinctual and/or dogmatic. We value humans creatures with mouse like brains more than mouse creatures (with mouse brains) because it is a evolutionary useful trait to have.

So I ask what is the moral distinction between a mouse and a human body with a mouse like brain?

[Demiparadigm]

I personally don't see how anyone can argue that life begins at conception.
Unless this thing can survive outside the mother's body, I can not see it as much more than a parasite.
An embryo is not human. It possesses none of the things that we as a society would define as human. It deserves none of the rights that we give to humans.
If you believe that it is wrong to abort a fetus, I accept your views. I cannot however agree that abortion can in any way be compared to infanticide or murder.
To not see the difference seems ignorant and stubborn to me. To see the difference and continue to argue that they are the same is completely irrational behavior.
Again, if you are against abortion, fine.
Just don't tell me there is no difference between an embryo, fetus and baby.

P.S. lol @ " [censored] sapien"

[tolbiny]

a newborn baby has 0 chance of surviving outside its mother's body without being constantly fed and sheltered. Just because its born doesn't make it independant or less of a "parasite".

[Demiparadigm]

It can make it a whole lot longer though.
Maybe no one is human 'til they move away from home?

Really, while a baby cannot survive without someone caring for it, it can survive away from its mother.

[tolbiny]

a fetus can survive outside of the mother with enough medical care. where do you draw the line? A fetus is no more a "parasite" than a new born infant.

[Demiparadigm]

[ QUOTE ]
a fetus can survive outside of the mother with enough medical care. where do you draw the line? A fetus is no more a "parasite" than a new born infant.

[/ QUOTE ]
A fetus is a developing mammal after the embryonic stage and before birth. In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed), until birth. When speaking in the most literal of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.
-wikipedia

Seems to me that the obvious place to draw the line for when "life" begins is when the baby is born.

I am not sure what you mean by "a fetus can survive outside the mother..." Typically once a fetus is outside the mother it is a baby and no longer a fetus. IF we didn't need the mother for the process you would think the concept of "surrogate mothers" would be pretty pointless.

Again this is completely seperate from arguments of whether abortion is wrong or not. I am not arguing that it is acceptable to terminate a fetus, just that a fetus is not the same thing as a "baby" and therefore does not deserve the same considerations.
If one truly believes that a fetus is "life" then fine, but it is not life in the same sense that a baby is life.
I cannot understand the argument that an embryo is "life."

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
a fetus can survive outside of the mother with enough medical care. where do you draw the line? A fetus is no more a "parasite" than a new born infant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great reply. Couldn't agree more. I like it, too.

[Demiparadigm]

Well you deleted the post that I was replying to which I thought was good... strange.

I can accept a fetus as a lifeform, just not as a human.
just as I can accept a tapeworm or algae as a type of lifeform.

A fetus is vastly different from humans especially in cases like the circulatory system. Oxygen and nutrients are obtained through the placenta and umbilical cord. This changes suddenly and drastically with the first breath after birth.

An embryo is far different:
In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has all the DNA of two parents. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The term embryo refers to the early stages of this development, after the zygote has divided at least once, but before the process has completed to produce a new individual.
The embryo of vertebrates is defined as the organism between the first division of the zygote (a fertilized ovum) until it becomes a fetus.

Simply, an embryo is not even an individual, but a collection of dividing cells.
I don't see how anyone can argue that this somehow equates to a human life.

[MidGe]

The question is, of course asked incorrectly. It should be when does "human" life begins. I would say that during the first trimester the amalgam of cells has no human characteristics.

I also note that naturally occuring abortions do occur often. They are called miscarriages. It seems that the great intelligent designer itself is showing the way here. There is abviously nothing wrog with first trimester abortion. I wish people were more observant, took notice and be guided by what they keep on calling intelligent design. The answers are there right in front of your eyes for all to see.

[tolbiny]

"Seems to me that the obvious place to draw the line for when "life" begins is when the baby is born."

A fetus in the womb eats, breaths, sleeps, and moves just as much as a child outside the womb. It is a very arbitrary to choose "birth" as the cutoff line. Is a fetus that is born premature at 6 months and kept alive in an incubator "more" human than one who has been gestating for nearly 9 months and is likely to be born tomorrow? The full term "fetus" isphysically and mentally more developed and has a better chance of survival to adulthood. Yet you want "birth" to be the defining line between humand life and non human life (for a fetus is clearly "alive"). Julius ceaser, not a natural birth, heck even Mcduff was "untimely ripped from mother's womb" (i think i'm paraphrasing there). Just because the english language chooses to differnetiate between a fetus and a baby doesn't mean there is any real meaningful difference.
I personally use pain recognition as the basis, why? becuase i don't think we should be stabbing things to death with a hook when they can process pain. But that's an emotional appeal, not a rational one.

[soon2bepro]

demiparadigm:

[ QUOTE ]
Well you deleted the post that I was replying to which I thought was good... strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was bad, I got carried away and asked something I didn't really care to discuss, as I knew what the answer would be and I agree with it. It seems like I was trying to prove a point I don't even believe in /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I was editing it, trying to make something reasonable out of it, when I realized my mistake.


MidGe:

[ QUOTE ]
The question is, of course asked incorrectly. It should be when does "human" life begins. I would say that during the first trimester the amalgam of cells has no human characteristics.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all very relative, really. It all comes down to what the masses are prepared to accept into their moral code.


[ QUOTE ]
It seems that the great intelligent designer itself is showing the way here. There is abviously nothing wrog with first trimester abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very bad argument. Lots of "bad" things happen (like deaths), that doesn't mean that under the same terms it is alright to provoke them (in this case, by committing murder).

[soon2bepro]

good point tolbiny (except the part where you talk about full grown people and ask if their being born through unnatural means makes them any less of a person)

In my opinion, it doesn't matter where you draw the line as to what is human and what isn't. The reason why I'm in favor of abortion is this: The fetus is inside the mother's body, it's technically living off her (yes, like a parasite /images/graemlins/smile.gif). If she wishes so, she can decide to terminate this bond. If the only way to do it is by killing the fetus, then there is really no other option and this must be done. But when it is possible for both lifeforms to survive (without forcing the mother to carry the fetus any longer), it can be argued that even if she wants to have an abortion; if a surgery without heavy risk for her that would likely save the baby is doable, then yes she can be forced into this instead of killing it/him/her.

(edit to add):
An argument I can present against this opinion of mine, is: what if the same were true for joint twins? (say, one of them living off the other's heart or any other organ(s)).

And that is a very good counter-argument /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I really can't say much against it. I guess I need to do more thinking in the subject and re-evaluate my whole opinion.

[tolbiny]

meh. the only reason i support abortion in most cases is that the only way to prevent it is to make sure that the government is privy to all medical procedures done on pregnant women. since i don't want to live in a state where the gov has that kind of power i apparently am willing to sacrifice the rights of the unborn for the already born.
otherwise i am ready to say "take some responsibility for yourself" to those who get pregnant, and those who get others pregnant.
Rape causes problems for this position though as well.

[soon2bepro]

(As I already said in this other thread) I think men shouldn't have any saying nor responsibility as far as babies go, unless there is some arrangement between the couple.

here's the thread, just in case: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post4534432 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4534432&an=0&page=0#Post 4534432)


Your other point is good, but it doesn't justify the point morally, only legally.

[hmkpoker]

Personally, I believe that life/sentience/awareness is kind of a composite thing; I don't believe that it's one of those "either you are or you're not" things, but rather something that builds in shades of gray.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't see how anyone can argue that life begins at conception.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
An embryo is not human.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
To not see the difference seems ignorant and stubborn to me.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
To see the difference and continue to argue that they are the same is completely irrational behavior.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
Just don't tell me there is no difference between an embryo, fetus and baby.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
Seems to me that the obvious place to draw the line for when "life" begins is when the baby is born.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
I cannot understand the argument that an embryo is "life."

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
I don't see how anyone can argue that this somehow equates to a human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s so good to know that you are at least opened minded about things. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Seriously, how are you ever going to learn anything if you know everything already?

[sirio11]

I found this article by Carl Sagan (http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml) ; very interesting about this subject. This single article made me change my position about abortion.

[sdunsmb]

I think the real question is, "If you were a sheep would you f**k a sheep?".

[tomdemaine]

40?

[soon2bepro]

Great article sirio11, in every sense.

However, you should be prepared to accept that if you only consider the ability to think as the prerequisite for being human, otherwise seemingly human beings without enough of a thinking ability, should not be considered humans (some animals have been proven to be able to think aswell, only their ability is much smaller).

I do accept this fact. I think a person that can't think (as humans) is a burden for society and doesn't "deserve" our charity. In fact I think that as long as you agree to animal research, you should also agree to these kind of individuals being used for medical research. Of course I also realize that very few (if any) of the regular posters of this forum will agree with this.

Where to draw the line as to what is labelled human thinking capacity and what is not would be hard indeed, so there's another problem there. Maybe another one of these articles would help /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I found this article by Carl Sagan (http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml) ; very interesting about this subject. This single article made me change my position about abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked the article. It didn’t change my views on abortion though, which are basically... “I sure am glad I don’t have to make decisions on abortion outside of my own family.”

[ctj]

A zygote or fetus is certainly 'alive' and certainly 'human' (based on its genome). The question is, at what point does it become a 'person'.

Regards,

C.T. Jackson

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
A zygote or fetus is certainly 'alive' and certainly 'human' (based on its genome). The question is, at what point does it become a 'person'.

Regards,

C.T. Jackson

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said, and pointing at the crux of the "issue".

[Juxtaposer]

To answer the original question: there is no absolute starting point to human life. We are all made up of human cells that are "alive". So are sperm, eggs, embryos, fetuses, etc... Human life is one continuing cycle.
Knowing this doesn't make abortion debates any easier.