When do you think life begins?

[JGG]

Your sarcasm detector is broke, isn't it?

Who hasn't lost a sarcasm detector, or two on here?

 

[Gracchus]

What we have here is confusion produced by imprecise or conflicting definitions. We have biological definitions based on scientific observations. Then the same words are redefined as legal terms. Then the same words are defined according to what people think will support their positions.

 

[JGG]

What we have here is confusion produced by imprecise or conflicting definitions. We have biological definitions based on scientific observations. Then the same words are redefined as legal terms. Then the same words are defined according to what people think will support their positions.

Don't forget spiritual, and religious definitions.

Basically, you're right, and thus, the controversy. There really is no single, correct, objective way to judge this. Only various points of view. To take one point of view over the others would only be arbitrary, as none of them are "right." This is why I'm pro-choice.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Life began when God created it, a long time ago. It is a continuous stream, not a collection of stops and starts.

 

[Aimee30]

My opinion:
Then you have those of us who pro-choice to a certain percentage. (You would have to have heard some of the presidential discourse to understand where this is coming from).
I do not believe partial-birth abortions are a necessity except maybe in the rare case to save someone's life, but it should be that the baby is dying and not able to be removed alive. So if we went by my rules, this would not happen very often at all.
I prefer baby and mother to be dying in other cases.
I however, have no control over the moral judgements of others. I don't like the idea of rape victims going in later, when they could have had hospital treatment immediately to stop a pregnancy from happening--even if they weren't impregnated, it should one of their first stops after the rape occurs.
http://www.mywebpal.com/partners/701/public/news320023.html
Anyway, I have no control over what others do, so at times it's hoped personal morality guides them not to have unnecessary procedures.

 

[gladiatrix]

At conception, implantation, when the heart beats, at birth.....when.....?

And why do you think that, what proof or research do you have?

There is actually another issue here as well, i.e., not only WHEN does life begin, but what the reader considers to be the DEFINITION of "life".

Actually the egg and sperm are "alive", as is every functioning cell in the body of the woman in whom a conception may occur. All cells are BIOLOGICALLY alive in that they meet the 7 criteria biologists associate with life:

1. presence of carbon-All living things contain carbon. With few exceptions, carbon is found exclusively in association with living things.
2. organization & complexity-All living things exhibit remarkable organization in their body plans and when compared to non-living things are extremely complex.
3. metabolism-All living things absorb, convert, store, use and release energy in a variety of complex chemical reactions.
4. homeostasis-Living organisms regulate metabolic processes to maintain a "steady state".
5. response to stimuli-Living things respond to a variety of stimuli (Ex. temperature, moisture, concentration of chemicals, light, scent, etc.)
6. growth-An organism continues to increase in size (even bacteria do this) til maturity is reached.
7. reproduction-Living organisms produce generations of like organisms.

This is what scientists mean when they say something is "alive", so

• Is a fertilized egg "alive"?===>Yes
• Is a zygote(3-7 day old pre-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
• Is an embryo (before 8 wks., post-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
• Is a fetus[older than 8 wks] "alive"?===>Yes

IMO the real question is not is a conception/zygote/embryo/fetus "alive" and "human'", but when is it a human being. or a "person".

Anti-choicers are always saying that "life" begins at conception??? What do they really mean by that? Most of them are theists, who really mean God implants a "soul", but most will hesitate to admit that this is what they mean. They know good and well there is no evidence for a soul nor can they prove when such an "endowment" takes place (provided one could prove that such a thing as a soul exists.

Christians just get hoist on their own petard with the soul argument. A soul is important to Christians because that is the medium through which they claim to experience eternal life. It is supposed to be our "badge" of superiority over the rest of creation. This notion that it's okay to kill, eat, and experiment on animals is supposed to be because they don't have souls. What is really funny here is that many other religions believe that not only do animals have souls, but so do "inanimate" objects like rocks, fire, or trees. Without some kind of empirical evidence, how does one decide which if, any religious viewpoint, is correct?

The question of just when a fetus gets this all-important soul arises. What many anti-choicers are ignorant of is that according to the early Church fathers, life did NOT "begin at conception". Aquinas and Augustine, following Aristotle's lead, declared that a male embryo acquired a soul at 40 days and the female embryo did so at 90 days. This is Christian example that leads to one big philosophical problem, namely the logical impossibility of precisely defining the "ensoulment line" (the "bald-hairy" distinction problem). For instance is beard not a beard after 5 days? 30 days? Or how can one precisely draw a line between day and night? The "hairy-bald" problem with the fetus, is how could one draw the line as to when the fetus gets a soul? Such a determination is impossible because the fetus is continually growing.

THE QUESTION OF "PERSONHOOD"
If the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his/her brain function ( brain-death as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical to at least agree that a "person's" life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument ("brain-birth")? Anti-choicers like to fling about the MYTH that brain-waves appear as early as 40 days. However, the most recent finding show that intermittent brain-waves, don't appear until the 24th week, (give or take a week) when they begin to activate auditory and visual systems. The brain nor the neural network connecting the brain to the rest of the body aren't complete until shortly after this time. Brain-waves resembling those of a new-born baby don't appear until the 26th WEEK.

THE DILEMMA OF THE MICROPREEMIE
Now consider this fact.. No micropreemie under 23 weeks has ever survived for more than a few hours. Many of them that small (23 weeks), even if they live (2% survival at 23 weeks), have severe neurodevelopmental defects (30% of surviving 23 week preemies) because they weren't sufficiently developed to respond well to life-support. This is primarily due to the fact that the fetal lungs are so immature. There is no technology on the horizon that can improve the prospect of survival because of this limitation. Given these developmental facts, it would seem logical to assume that a "person" is not there until after the 22nd week. (Remember that 50% of abortions occur before the 7th week and 90% have occurred by the 12th week, there is no brain to speak of at this time).

Let's go back in time before the 23rd week, back to the beginning. The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy. (NOTE: A pregnancy is defined as the successful implantation of a zygote in the endometrium or uterine lining---it takes 3 to 7 days after fertilization for the dividing egg to reach the uterus). They are simply washed out as part of the endometrial detritus when a woman has her period (many women have conceived, but the zygote never manages to establish itself in the endometrium).

If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED (70% show gross chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life). The bottom-line is that +65% of all conceptions fail (a conception does not a successful pregnancy make!)

Anti-choicers often quote Psalm 139:"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. Remember that conception takes place in the Fallopian tube and the zygote takes up to 7 days to reach the uterus. There is NO justification for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception (where does it say so?). If one is aware of early Christain history, there is no theological basis for making such a declaration (remember Aquinas and Augustines' definition). There is also no reason to ban birth control devices that interfere with ovulation AND implantation of the zygote (trophoblastic stage). This is especially true when one considers that God seems to considers 65% of these 7 day old "humans" to be expendable at some point before the end of the first trimester (either don't implant in the lining or are spontaneously aborted)
If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)

When it come to abortions (the only reason we are really having this "personhood" discussion),50% have occurred on or before the 7th week and 90% have occurred before the 12th week. A functional brain is the sign of life as a person. AT this point NO person exists...not til after 22 weeks (really a bit early, because none survive that young anyway). A useful guide line here the one used by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology which sets the time for considering a fetus to be viable at 20 weeks. One thing to remember here is that only ~16,000 abortions occur after the 20th week, and one has to have one really good reason to get an abortion after 20 weeks.

The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood (however limited that capacity might prove to be, i.,e., severely handicapped infants). In other words, let's assume a soul exists, it needs a physical vessel in order to function in this world, no matter how limited that functioning may prove to be. One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus). This is an argument over the personhood of the fetus not those already here. The same holds true for comparing a fetus to a slave. Slaves are fully developed beings and their social postion had nothing to do with their physical development and even at the beginning of the nation were still accorded them the status of persons, only "three-fifths" of a person, but still accorded personhood status in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise")

References:
1) When Did I Begin?by Catholic theologian Dr. Norman Ford. 1988. C.U.P., pages 39-43, 193

2) Criteria for life from any up-to-date biology textbook. Embryonic development can be verified using a current textbook on medical physiology and/or mammalian embryology

3) New Republic: Abortion and the Brain

4) The Extremely Immature Newborn—The Dilemma of the Microbaby