When Does Human Life Begin?

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Okay, but there is much useful tissue which is not part of a developing embryo, and which could be used for promising research. You seem to say it would not be wrong to use this tissue for scientific progress. And you seem to say it is wrong for the Bush Administration not to allow this tissue to be used.

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?

Nobody is proposing the production and killing of embryos in order to produce stem cells. Folks are only asking to use the tisssue that is already available.

Why is it the right action "not to kill embryos"? Is a human embryo equivalent to human life? If so, when do you think human life actually begins? Are you absolutely certain that those who think "human life" actually begins months after the conception are wrong?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

How do you know that other thresholds are completely arbitrary? Do you not agree that the thing that we value in human life--as opposed to what we value in all animal life--is human thoughts, emotions, and intellect? And so why would we not define the beginning of human life as the point where brain cells and/or brain waves begin?

 

[smog]

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.

Yes, if you want, but there are good arguments for the other points as well. It really depends on what you mean when you say a being is "human". You may consider that belonging to the homo sapiens sapiens species is sufficient, or you may not.

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.

Well, in that case, I doubt anyone would be okay with it.

Basically, for me, killing someone isn't an action against the person but an action against the people who know her. I mean, when you're dead, you're just... dead, and for you it ends there. If no one know or cares about you, what incidence would your death have on anything? None.

But then again, I am a really amoral person. I have moral feelings, but no moral thoughts, no moral reasoning and no moral convictions whatsoever. So when I say things like that it's pretty much food for thoughts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes I believe as you WaZoo even though this baby is not formed I do believe it is a person with personal traits.

How can a group of cells with no brain be defined as a person?

Why could we not use babies that has been miscarried and aborted.
Why waste a useful product as harsh as that may seem.

Nobody is suggesting that we "waste a useful product" to harvest stem cells. Scientists are suggesting that we use tissue that would otherwise be thrown away. Why not use it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

I do value the physical body, and it's marvels. But having a physical body does not make one human, does it? If we were to define "being human" as having a physical body and a beating heart, than chimpanzees and anteaters are "being human".

If we define "human life" as having a physical body and a beating heart, than a brain-dead corpse whose heart is kept going via a machine is "human life".

So I think one needs to have a brain to have human life.

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.

Oh, but a person in a coma has a brain, and has brain waves. So he passes my test as to how we define "being human".

And I think there may even be some minimal level of feeling in a person in a coma.

And a person in a coma continues to retain memories and personality, that can be activated again when the person comes out of a coma.

None of these things apply to the zygote. It has no brain, no brain waves, no feelings, no stored memories. That is why many think a zygote is different from a person in a coma.

So are you absolutely certain that your definition of when human life begins is correct, and that all who disagree with you are wrong?

 

[Ave Maria]

Human life begins at conception. But the question one really needs to answer is when does the fetus become a person with rights?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The embryo is an individual organism.

I agree.

It is alive.

I agree.

The moment of conception is, objectively speaking, when human life (the life of a member of the Homo sapiens sapiens species) begins.

Is it human life, or is it a living organism in the process of becoming what we call human life?

The state of becoming X is not the same as being X is it? A first year med student is becoming a doctor, but it is not yet true that he is a doctor, is it?

An acorn is becoming an oak tree, but it is not yet true that it is an oak tree, is it?

So can you see that there is a difference between "is becoming X" and "is X"?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Human life begins at conception.

Okay, this is your definition of when human life begins. Others disagree. Can you say with absolute certainty that your definition is right, and that those who diagree with you are wrong? Or can you tolerate those who define human life differently, and allow them to act according to their definition?

But the question one really needs to answer is when does the fetus become a person with rights?

And do you understand that there are differing answers to the question as to when a fetus should have human rights?

 

[Lifesaver]

I do value the physical body, and it's marvels. But having a physical body does not make one human, does it? If we were to define "being human" as having a physical body and a beating heart, than chimpanzees and anteaters are "being human".

If we define "human life" as having a physical body and a beating heart, than a brain-dead corpse whose heart is kept going via a machine is "human life".

These both speak in favour of physical traits not being what defines one as a human.

So I think one needs to have a brain to have human life.

Oh, but a person in a coma has a brain, and has brain waves. So he passes my test as to how we define "being human".

But you said that physical characteristics do not make anything human.

What you value, as you said before, are thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc.

And people in a coma are completely unconscious, and don't remember their unconscious time after the coma. They are in a complete blank.

And I think there may even be some minimal level of feeling in a person in a coma.

Sure. But since it is not verifyable at all, you might as well think that embryos have a little bit of feeling as well.

So are you absolutely certain that your definition of when human life begins is correct, and that all who disagree with you are wrong?

Yes, human life begins at conception.
The embryo is a living individual of the Homo sapiens sapiens species.
It is human. It is alive.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But you said that physical characteristics do not make anything human.

Huh?

Where are you having difficulty here? It is thoughts, personality and emotion that I value in a human, and define what it means to be human.

What you value, as you said before, are thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc.

And people in a coma are completely unconscious, and don't remember their unconscious time after the coma. They are in a complete blank.

But the personalities and memories are all still there when the person is in a coma, even if he is not conscious of it. If and when the person recovers, these personalities and memories can again be activated. That is my point. A person in a coma still has a functioning brain that continues to retain these human qualities. He has the essence of what it means to be human. But an embryo does not have this essence, does it?

you might as well think that embryos have a little bit of feeling as well.

Where do you get that idea from? Embryos do not have functioning brains. How can an embryo possibly have feelings without a brain?

Yes, human life begins at conception.

But is a zygote a person? That is the question.

 

[Gracchus]

It is thoughts, personality and emotion that I value in a human, and define what it means to be human.

I would define as human any member of the human species. (Excepting of course Republicans! ) Your definition is of "person".

But is a zygote a person? That is the question.

A zygote is human. (It can't register as a Republican!)

 

[HRE]

A zygote is no more human than a cancerous tumor on your lung.

If you wish to say that the difference is that a zygote has the potential to be human, then you must explain to me how each and every sperm and egg don't have the same potential.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, let's draw some conclusions from this thread.

First, on the issue of stem-cell research. If there is embryonic stem-cell tissue that will either be thrown away or used in valuable research for curing diseases, what should be done with it? The overwhelming consensus of this thread is that it would be fine to use those tissues for research. And yet the current American administration has decreed just the opposite. We all here seem to agree. The current American administration is wrong on stem-cell research.

Second, on the issue of when human life begins, we see a variety of opinions. But we have found nobody who will say that they know for sure that there definition is the one correct one, and that all who disagree with them have an evil definition. So it seems to me that we should tolerate those who have a difference of opinion. If someone thinks human life must surely begin at conception, then for them abortion would be wrong. But if someone thinks human life begins months after conception, then, for them, abortion would not be wrong. So it seems to me that those who favor one view of the origin of life--that it begins at conception--should not force everyone to go by their view. And it seems to me that Christians should not be limiting their choice of candidates only to those who favor the view that human life begins at conception.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Note: The following quotes are from the thread, Is it not the rich...

Actually, Bush as done alot [about abortion], and is trying to alot. Are you not aware of the battle about Supreme Court Justices? Bush is trying to appoint 3 Surpreme Court Justices that are prolife, and over turn Roe vs. Wade, which would put it back to the states. There is mo

re at stake for the little people in this election than there has been since 1972.

I did not ask you what Bush had promised. I asked you what he has done about abortion. Your reply is that he has promised. So you seem to admit that his actual performance on abortion is little more than rhetoric.

You tell me he promised to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would overturn Roe vs. Wade? Last night in the debate Bush was very clear that he would not use abortion as a litmus test in selecting Supreme Court nominees. Did he tell you otherwise?

Can I hear you say, "Flip flop"?

So, once more, what has Bush actually done to prevent abortions. Very little. And yet many Christians ignore all other issues, and support Bush because they like his rhetoric about abortion.

Shoudn't we be concerned about more than just his rhetoric?

Also, Kerry supports the brutal and violent act of partial birth abortion.

Brutal and violent? Do you understand that "partial birth abortion" is allowed only as a last effort to save the mother if it is obvious that both the mother and baby will die unless something is done. This is a humanitarian move. Why let the mother suffer and die when she could be saved? Why let both die when one could be saved?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

When does human life begin?

When you finally get a car.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Brutal and violent? Do you understand that "partial birth abortion" is allowed only as a last effort to save the mother if it is obvious that both the mother and baby will die unless something is done. This is a humanitarian move. Why let the mother suffer and die when she could be saved? Why let both die when one could be saved?

While that is the liberal mantra, it does not represent the reality of how it is practiced. Leaving a kicking baby's head in the birth canal, while you hold the feet so you can crush it's skull by poking a hole and sucking out the brain avoids having to deal with a live birth. To kill the baby after it clears the canal and is delivered presents a problem, especially given the age at which they can now survive. There is nothing obvious in that practice which resembles saving life.
Sorry this goes off topic, but could not just let that go.

 

[doubtingmerle]

While that is the liberal mantra, it does not represent the reality of how it is practiced. Leaving a kicking baby's head in the birth canal, while you hold the feet so you can crush it's skull by poking a hole and sucking out the brain avoids having to deal with a live birth. To kill the baby after it clears the canal and is delivered presents a problem, especially given the age at which they can now survive. There is nothing obvious in that practice which resembles saving life.
Sorry this goes off topic, but could not just let that go.

I understand that "partial birth abortion" is allowed only as a last effort to save the mother if it is certain that both mother and child will die if nothing is done. What evidence do you have that this is not the case?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ok u want to continue off topic:

Partial-birth abortions are performed thousands of times annually on healthy babies of healthy mothers. In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), estimated that the method was used 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. “In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said.” (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997, p. A11.) (See clippings at www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html, in the late 1996 and early 1997 archive.) In January 2003, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute – an affiliate of Planned Parenthood – published a survey of abortion providers that estimated that 2,200 abortions were performed by the method in the year 2000. While that figure is surely low (see www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/release011503.html), it is more than triple the number that AGI estimated in its most recent previous survey (for 1996).

In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”

In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in June, 1995, the late Dr. James McMahon – who is considered to be the developer of the method – explicitly acknowledged that he performed such abortions on babies with no “flaw” whatever, even in the third trimester, for such reasons as mere youth of the mother or for “psychiatric” difficulties. Indeed, even at 29 weeks -- well into the seventh month -- one-fourth of the babies that McMahon aborted had no “flaw,” however minor. Moreover, McMahon’s submission showed that in a “series” of about 2,000 such abortions that he performed, only 9% were performed for “maternal [health] indications,” and of that group, the most common reason was “depression.”

Although usually used in the fifth and sixth months, the partial-birth abortion method is also used to perform abortions in the third trimester -- that is, the seventh month and later. In Kansas, the only state in which the law requires separate reporting of partial-birth abortions, abortionists reported in 1999 they had performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as “viable,” and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for “mental” (as opposed to “physical”) health reasons. See page 11 of this state report: www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf

aw heck, this is too easy, just do a google dude!

 

[doubtingmerle]

You seem to be taking advantage of the fact that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term and has no precise meaning. It means different things to different people.

We were told on this thread that a certain senator voted for a bill that allowed "partial birth abortion". But that does not mean that the bill agrees with everything that anybody would call "partial birth abortion". In fact, I doubt if the bill even used the phrase "partial birth abortion''--other than a possible explanatory phrase--since the tem is undefined, and bills in the Senate normally deal with precise legal language.

Also, that question is a question of politics, not of apologetics: Did a particular senator cast a poor vote? I don't know. And it is not a question of apologetics to determine if he did. (This section of the forum is for apologetics, not politics.)

The issues I have raised in this thread deal with apologetics. Can Christians support the common belief that an embryo is a person? Can Christians support the common belief that it is morally wrong to use new embryonic stem cell tissue for research, even if the tissue would be otherwise thrown away?

Those are the questions.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So when faced with the reality about partial birth abortion you want to return to the thread. Ok, but let's remember you are the one that pushed for me to support my claim against your unsupported statement that it was only done for the "health" of the mother. Above you find a quote from the man that invented the barbaric practice admitting in testimony the facts about how it really being used.

Ok back to your question. We do not know, which for me is enough to say we have no right to stop a human life from forming. It puts us in a position of saying who will become, and who will not. For if we did not interfere, the end result is a human no matter how you view “when” that happened. The same logic applies to making decisions like people did during the holocaust and other such evils. People have no ‘right’ to decide based on any criteria who should live and who should die. The only difference between such decisions and abortion is when in the process of a human life the decision is made.



Someone made the analogy earlier to someone studying to be a doctor. The point was the person was “becoming” a doctor(human) and could not properly be called a “doctor”(human), no matter how bad that person wanted to “become” a doctor. Let’s continue that analogy. First we would have to add the provision that the mother participated in non-financial but in some very necessary and absolute way in making it possible for the student to enter a doctoral program. Then the argument would be that the student’s mother has the “right” at any point in the educational process before the student “becomes” a doctor to say “stop, I will not allow my child to become a doctor”. Now never mind why any mother would do that, the question is why would anyone argue for such a “right” for the mother?