When does life begin?

[Wiccan_Child]

Age-old question, let's get everyone's views. When does a human (or, indeed, any animal) begin its life?

 

[Jade Margery]

That depends on what you mean by 'begin'. You could say that your life began a short time after your mother was conceived, when she grew the egg that would later become you (father's don't figure into this, since new sperm is created as an ongoing process, but the eggs you got is all the eggs you gonna get).

Now, you could say that your life begins when you are conceived. There are some cultures who celebrate their equivalent of a birthday three months after the child is born--this being assumed to be roughly the time it was conceived.

Another possibility is intelligent life--after all, an amoeba is alive, but we don't particularly care about those, eh? Intelligent life would begin when the brain is sufficiently developed to support thought.

And, our lives as functioning members of a society begin when we are born. (Even if our function at the time is only to scream and poo.)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If the ability to reproduce is needed for life, then for some of us life never begins. It all stems from the initial definition. Some say it is just the period between birth and death. I think that we have to acknowledge that we are not going to "discover" the answer scientifically in any absolute sense, but that the answer is at least partially dependent on our prior cultural constructs and philosophy of biology.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the ability to reproduce is needed for life, then for some of us life never begins. It all stems from the initial definition. Some say it is just the period between birth and death. I think that we have to acknowledge that we are not going to "discover" the answer scientifically in any absolute sense, but that the answer is at least partially dependent on our prior cultural constructs and philosophy of biology.

True, but the question is when do you think life begins. When asked that question, do you think of biological activity, or personhood and the inheritance of rights?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure if I like the concept of being "alive" in the first place. We are just replicaing chemical robots, why the need for a new ontological category? Then again we have certain moral rules relating to "life" which may increase the value of our days on Earth. So for me life begins as a term on the tongue of the speaker, we have to use it pragmatically if at all. I am not in the business of trying to legislate for all people for all time when life begins etc - that is often an embarassing habit of people with little actual power (although I admit I do sometimes get involved).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Age-old question, let's get everyone's views. When does a human (or, indeed, any animal) begin its life?

What sort of life?

Life began several billion years ago, and merely continues through us, so it is really only life as an individual biological organism that begins at conception.

But when it comes to certain ethical issues, it is life as a rational person that matters to me, so while biological life as an individual with human DNA starts at conception, life as a rational person starts well into pregnancy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am not sure if I like the concept of being "alive" in the first place.

We can fix that. *cracks knuckles*

We are just replicaing chemical robots

Are we? I don't think so. Is there a need to be so reductionistic here?

why the need for a new ontological category?

Life is a process. Our existence is found in motion -- in self-sustaining actions -- not in a static conception of "chemicals". When this motion stops, we are dead. Since life may either exist or fail to exist, we need a new ontological category.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OllieFranz]

I agree that it depends on what exactly you mean by the beginning of life. (No I'm not aguing that we don't know what "is" is. There is a real philosophical need to define the meaning of the phrase, and there are different practical consequences to different definitions.)

An egg becomes a living organism the moment it is fertilized, but is that "the begining of [the person's] life? Until it implants itself in the uterus and starts drawing nourishment from the mother's bloodstream, it is only a single short-lived cell or a small short-lived group of cells. So implantation might be considered the beginingof life. But even after implantation, it is nothing more than a small collection of cells. As it transitions from an embryo to a fetus the cells begin to differentiate, and organs, including the brain and nervous system begin to develop. So some might be inclined to say that when the embryo becomes a fetus is the beginning of its life. But even the fetus remains dependent on the mother's womb to sustain it. So maybe it's whn it has developed enough to survive outside the womb. But both of these last two transitions are gradual changes. There is no moment when we can say before this moment it was an embryo (or could not survive) but after this moment it is a fetus (or can survive). Another possibility is at birth. And finally, in some cultures, a child is not considered a person -- and may even not be named -- until it is weaned and talking -- having survived an extremely high infant mortality rate.

There is no obvious reason to prefer any one of these moments over the others. Especially when you are asking when human rights begin. The answer is we cannot be sure. The most moral thing for a society to do, then, is to assume that human rights begin at the earliest of these points. That way actions taken against those rights are properly discouraged by society no matter how the philosophical question is eventually decided.

 

[solarwave]

Well it could be said that any individual cell is alive. I'll assume life means personhood for humans. I said during gestation as that appears to be when the child gains some sort of consciousness.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Life is a process. Our existence is found in motion -- in self-sustaining actions -- not in a static conception of "chemicals". When this motion stops, we are dead. Since life may either exist or fail to exist, we need a new ontological category.

We have "living" and "dead". Why not "working replicator" and "irreparably broken replicator"? It seems to me that the concept of life lends support to some form of vitalism (although that may be a personal response) as if there are mystical additional properties to organisms alongside merely complicated chemical processes, something fundamental and metaphysically profound when if fact it is just a mechanical permutation of an underlying neutral reality.

 

[Simply_Amazing]

Well it could be said that any individual cell is alive. I'll assume life means personhood for humans. I said during gestation as that appears to be when the child gains some sort of consciousness.

This. (kinda)

 

[jayem]

A zygote begins at conception.

A person, who I define as a member of human society, begins at either of two points, whichever comes first. 1) At birth. 2) At natural viability, which is 24 weeks of gestational age.

 

[selfinflikted]

I answered "during gestation" since this is the period of time when the heartbeat and brain activity of a human fetus are first observed.

 

[chaotic_rayne]

I chose during gestation b/c I believe life begins when the fetus gains consciencness.... However, I don't know when exactly that is.
I am still prochoice, however I don't agree with it after the first trimester.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Looks like 'during gestation' is winning. I'd be interested in hearing the ideas of those who said 'before conception'.

 

[pgp_protector]

Looks like 'during gestation' is winning. I'd be interested in hearing the ideas of those who said 'before conception'.

Well Technically given that both the sperm & egg were already alive before conception, that life started before conception

 

[Eudaimonist]

We have "living" and "dead". Why not "working replicator" and "irreparably broken replicator"?

"Working", while true, doesn't really say enough. My computer "works", but it isn't alive. (The fact that my computer isn't a "replicator" isn't the issue, either. Even viruses replicate themselves, but they aren't alive.)

Living processes are self-sustaining, and what they sustain are more of such processes. A living thing has something to lose, unlike a rock, which can only be shattered. The existence of life is conditional, while the rock's existence isn't. We need an ontological category for living things.

It seems to me that the concept of life lends support to some form of vitalism

Nah. Life doesn't have to have to be the product of some "life energy". It can be a chemical activity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well Technically given that both the sperm & egg were already alive before conception, that life started before conception

By that logic, my computer is extremely old indeed - some of its parts have been sitting in rock for millennia before they were turned into machinery.

 

[Eudaimonist]

By that logic, my computer is extremely old indeed - some of its parts have been sitting in rock for millennia before they were turned into machinery.

We'll have to keep that in mind when we visit the issue of AI rights.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Nah. Life doesn't have to have to be the product of some "life energy". It can be a chemical activity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Maybe i have grown up with a vitalist conception, and am projecting.