When Does Human Life Begin?

[doubtingmerle]

You have surely heard of the promise of stem-cell research. Scientists say it holds great promise for providing cures for Parkinson's, diabetes, and many other diseases. But, alas, there are only a few lines of stem cells available in America, and they are contaminated so that they have little research value. Researchers have been begging for more stem cells. And that is where the problem is. These new lines would need to come from embryos. And many have a problem with that. For they see that the embryo is a human being. And how can one accept tissues from a murdered human? (Yet the same people have no problem with receiving a heart for transplant from a murdered victim, so they are not consistent in this view.)

Let us first make clear that nobody is recommending that anybody murder living human babies to harvest their tissues. We all agree that this would be wrong.

Those who favor the use of stem cells generally argue that the early embryo is not yet a living human being. So they do not see that the ending of the embryo's progress is the equivalent of murder.

So it all comes down to defining when human life begins. When does that spark of humanness enter the cell(s), and make that body a living human being?

Some say it begins at conception, but how can that be? How can a fertilized cell be equated with a human? Yes, the cell contains the entire human genetic code. So what? Skin cells contain all the genetic code. But a skin cell that comes off of the body is not a human being, is it?

Does human life begin when the cell starts dividing? But how can this collection of cells be equated with a human being?

How about when the embryo begins to resemble a human shape? What does that prove? Chimpanzee embryos also resemble a human shape. Corpses have a human shape. It is not the human shape that makes us human, is it?

How about when the heart starts beating? Once more, how would that define human life? A chimpanzee embryo will also come to the point where it's heart starts beating. It does not then have all of the rights of a human because it has a heart, does it? It is not the beating heart that defines what we all value in human life, is it?

If a person's brain shuts down, and he is declared to be brain-dead, the heart can still be kept beating by artificial means. But nobody recommends that we do that. So a beating heart is not the part that makes us human, is it?

How about when the brain cells begin to develop, brainwaves begin, and rudimentary feelings start? Many would argue--quite convincingly--that this is when human life really begins. This is when it can be argued that the cells are, at least to some extent, human.

If this is true, then the aborting of an embryo before it reaches this point would not be murder.

So what do you think? When does human life begin? Can you prove that your definition is true? Can you live with those who differ with your definition, or will you insist that only your definition is true?

---------

I should add that scientists are suggesting that we use tissue that is already available to provide stem cells. Nobody is suggesting that anybody specifically terminate an embryo to provide stem cells.

The issue of stem cells usage and of when human life begins are really two different but related issues. I really should not have combined them both into one thread. This thread is intended to discuss when life begins.

 

[Western Deity]

What does this have to do with apologetics?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What does this have to do with apologetics?

Well, many Christians believe that the only acceptable view of when life begins is the view that it begins at conception. Okay, if anybody here believes that, could they please make an apologetic to defend that belief? And if nobody here believes that popular Christian belief, we can move on.

 

[HRE]

Do you know where they intend to obtain new stem cell lines from?

When a couple chooses to perform in vitro fertilization to produce a child, one embryo is not made. Nay, hundreds, sometimes more, eggs are fertilized. A good portion of those start growing into embryos. When these embryos become blastocysts, the doctors will choose the one that holds the most promise and begin growing it.

What becomes of the other hundred blastocysts? Well, under current laws, they are disposed of. Literally, thrown away. What a waste.

If it became legal to obtain new stem cell lines, those blastocysts will at least be put to a good use helping mankind.

The question is not when life begins, but instead the question is what to do with hundreds of blastocysts that will otherwise go to waste.

The other sources of stem cell lines are umbilical cords and bone marrow. Stem cells do not even always entail the death of anything; it is foolish to think otherwise.

 

[WaZoO]

That's a really tough question. I can't really think of any defining point in embryonic development that would distinguish an undeveloped fetus from a human life, but I surely think that it happens before birth. My opinion is that life begins at conception. The fertilized egg may contain the same genetic code as a skin cell that we scratch hundreds of off whenever we itch ourselves, but it is the foundation for life. Maybe the zygote doesn't necessarily need to be considered 'human' in itself, but it is representative of what will be, a human life.

 

[Lifesaver]

An embryo is a distinct individual from its mother; They have different DNA.
If one would analyze the DNA of an embryo, they'd discover that it is of the Homo sapiens sapiens species; that is, it is a member of the human race. Not a wolf, not a fish, not a worm.
It is also a living being; never once in the development of the embryo does it become dead matter.

If someone still entertains doubts about whether or not the embryo is living, or whether it is a human or not, make one test: let one embryo naturally develop itself in its natural place, that is, its mother's womb. After some months, they'll see the embryo has developed into a shape no-one would ever deny it being a human being, and then some more time later it will be born, that is, it will leave the womb of its mother.

Really, there's no denying an embryo is, from day one, a human being, and a living one at that. Therefore, killing it is wrong, even for noble scientific purposes.
Stem cells can be got from grown adults, from umbilical cords, etc. Even if these are not as "useful" as those got from embryos, they are the only ones we can use without commiting murder to get them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you know where they intend to obtain new stem cell lines from?

When a couple chooses to perform in vitro fertilization to produce a child, one embryo is not made. Nay, hundreds, sometimes more, eggs are fertilized. A good portion of those start growing into embryos. When these embryos become blastocysts, the doctors will choose the one that holds the most promise and begin growing it.

What becomes of the other hundred blastocysts? Well, under current laws, they are disposed of. Literally, thrown away. What a waste.

If it became legal to obtain new stem cell lines, those blastocysts will at least be put to a good use helping mankind.

The question is not when life begins, but instead the question is what to do with hundreds of blastocysts that will otherwise go to waste.

The other sources of stem cell lines are umbilical cords and bone marrow. Stem cells do not even always entail the death of anything; it is foolish to think otherwise.

Yes, I think you are right. I should not have combined the two topics in one thread. But I would like to know when people think life begins.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Really, there's no denying an embryo is, from day one, a human being, and a living one at that. Therefore, killing it is wrong, even for noble scientific purposes.

Nobody is suggesting that an embryo be killed for scientific purposes. The question is whether science can use the tissues from a terminated embryo.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Maybe the zygote doesn't necessarily need to be considered 'human' in itself, but it is representative of what will be, a human life.

Many things are representative of what will be human life. Are you certain that it is wrong to terminate a repesentative of what will be, eventually, a human life?

 

[WaZoO]

Many things are representative of what will be human life. Are you certain that it is wrong to terminate a repesentative of what will be, eventually, a human life?

I'm not going to pass judgement on someone's personal decision, I don't think anybody will abort a fetus for no reason at all. I might disagree with some people's reasons to have an abortion, but I can't impose my values on them.

 

[smog]

Human life begins when we say it does.

The threshold is completely arbitrary.

 

[Lifesaver]

Nobody is suggesting that an embryo be killed for scientific purposes. The question is whether science can use the tissues from a terminated embryo.

To use the body of a man who died for scientific purposes (provided that this is the only objective, and no other uses are given to it) is not wrong.
Therefore, to use the tissue of a dead embryo is, likewise, not wrong.

However, the situation seems to be that there are living embryos, which will be killed, and people want to use them for experiments.

The right action here would be not to kill these embryos at all.

Isn't that the case?

 

[Lifesaver]

Human life begins when we say it does.

The threshold is completely arbitrary.

You have touched the central point: any threshold is completely arbitrary, except of course for the first moment of that individual's life: conception.

 

[Evee]

That's a really tough question. I can't really think of any defining point in embryonic development that would distinguish an undeveloped fetus from a human life, but I surely think that it happens before birth. My opinion is that life begins at conception. The fertilized egg may contain the same genetic code as a skin cell that we scratch hundreds of off whenever we itch ourselves, but it is the foundation for life. Maybe the zygote doesn't necessarily need to be considered 'human' in itself, but it is representative of what will be, a human life.

Yes I believe as you WaZoo even though this baby is not formed I do believe it is a person with personal traits.
Why could we not use babies that has been miscarried and aborted.
Why waste a useful product as harsh as that may seem.

 

[WaZoO]

Or better yet, we could get the government to pay for mothers to abort their children so that they can harvest their organs in secret underground laboratories. We could also start allowing abortions in the 4th trimester.

[this was all a joke]

 

[doubtingmerle]

Human life begins when we say it does.

The threshold is completely arbitrary.

Why do you say it is completely arbitrary? I don't understand.

It seems to me that I have given a logical threshold for when human life begins--when the brain and brainwaves appear. For this is what we value in humans--the thoughts, emotions and memories that come from the brainwaves. So why is it arbritrary to use brainwaves as the standard to say when human life begins?

 

[Lifesaver]

It seems to me that I have given a logical threshold for when human life begins--when the brain and brainwaves appear. For this is what we value in humans--the thoughts, emotions and memories that come from the brainwaves. So why is it arbritrary to use brainwaves as the standard to say when human life begins?

You have already walked what would have been the first step of my argument against your threshold: the choice of brainwaves as the determinant is not because of the brainwaves themselves, but because these brainwaves cause thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc.
If thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc came from the toenails, the choice of determinant would be toenails.
Therefore, what is really being valued here are thoughts, emotions, etc, and not anything physical.

Well, a person in a coma has no thought, no emotions. According to that threshold, someone in a coma is not a person. It would be right to kill someone in a coma.

This conclusion is absurd, and therefore, the choice of the threshold is not a good one.

 

[Osiris]

a human life begins about the age of 3

 

[smog]

It seems to me that I have given a logical threshold for when human life begins--when the brain and brainwaves appear. For this is what we value in humans--the thoughts, emotions and memories that come from the brainwaves. So why is it arbritrary to use brainwaves as the standard to say when human life begins?

First of all, valuing "thoughts, emotions and memories" is an arbitrary choice. Second, as far as I know, brain and brainwaves develop continuously, and you would need to set a threshold of minimal brain development, and that also is arbitrary. Third, brainwaves aren't everything - the environment has a huge effect on who you are, and it could be argued that human life only truly begins once you are born.

Here are a couple positions; I argue that the choice of any of these over another is arbitrary, and that there are many others:

1) At conception - it's a potential human.

2) At birth - what makes a human being are experiences and interactions with other human beings.

3) When the brain attains a certain stage of development.

4) As long as people are okay with it - you can kill any living being you want as long as there are no nefast side effects on the people it was in contact with.

Personally, I lean towards 4), but I don't really have a strong opinion on anything, if I have an opinion at all.


Well, a person in a coma has no thought, no emotions. According to that threshold, someone in a coma is not a person. It would be right to kill someone in a coma.

Well, actually... why not? As long as it can be guaranteed that the people who know and care for the person are okay with it, I have no problem with that.

 

[Lifesaver]

Here are a couple positions; I argue that the choice of any of these over another is arbitrary, and that there are many others:

1) At conception - it's a potential human.

The embryo is an individual organism.
It is alive.
The moment of conception is, objectively speaking, when human life (the life of a member of the Homo sapiens sapiens species) begins.

Well, a person in a coma has no thought, no emotions. According to that threshold, someone in a coma is not a person. It would be right to kill someone in a coma.

Well, actually... why not? As long as it can be guaranteed that the people who know and care for the person are okay with it, I have no problem with that.

Even if the doctor told you that there was a great probability of the person getting out of the coma some months later?
Well, since you just stated you have no problem with the killing of anyone (!?) provided the people who'll remain alive are okay with it, I presume this will not be a problem for you to accept.