When does "life" begin?

[arnisador]

And really, does the question of "when life begins" only matter when we're talking about abortion?

Well, the answer only seems to matter then.

I don't think it's a scientific question. It's a philosophical question, and that question really is: What should the word 'life' mean? We're haggling over a definition, not a line that a potential human crosses.

When does life begin when an amoeba is splitting into two?

The problem is reverse engineering the definition to fit our preconceived notions of when abortion should be acceptable.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. My comment about nothing in the law guaranteeing a WISE choice was there because of at least two posts saying that women might make an unwise choice so therefore we needed to have laws telling them what to do. And what I actually wrote before that was a question: why don't men trust women to make a wise decision? Should I try balloon animals?

2. I may be a radical liberal (come again?), but at least I don't keep trying to shift the subject and raise the ante--partial birth abortions, my foot.

3. I'd ask for some sort of vague evidence that I wrote (or intended) anything resembling a claim, "that Catholics are trying to take over the government," but hell, why pollute the weird comment stream with reality?

4. Similarly, nobody I know rejected the, "simple war on terrorism," (and they say I can't stick to the topic...), or anything vaguely resembling that. It's just that some of us object to being repeatedly lied to, and watching lives get thrown away to no purpose. Sorry; we're funny about that stuff, we immoral rad-libs.

5. It certainly is a moral and philosophical issue. That's why we let the people most immediately affected make the decision. And by the bye--please explain how, if men tell women that they must have a child whether or not they want to, this is NOT an example of men controlling women. Can't wait to read the logic behind that one.

6. So how many of you guys are rushing out there to do something about either, a) the millions of babies who die every year because of diarrhea, which could be easily fixed; b) the fact that a very high percentage of pregnancies spontaneously abort before the woman even knows she's pregnant?

Disapprove of abortion? Good for you; don't have one. That's your right, and it should be.

 

[Kane]

1. My comment about nothing in the law guaranteeing a WISE choice was there because of at least two posts saying that women might make an unwise choice so therefore we needed to have laws telling them what to do. And what I actually wrote before that was a question: why don't men trust women to make a wise decision? Should I try balloon animals?

2. I may be a radical liberal (come again?), but at least I don't keep trying to shift the subject and raise the ante--partial birth abortions, my foot.

3. I'd ask for some sort of vague evidence that I wrote (or intended) anything resembling a claim, "that Catholics are trying to take over the government," but hell, why pollute the weird comment stream with reality?

4. Similarly, nobody I know rejected the, "simple war on terrorism," (and they say I can't stick to the topic...), or anything vaguely resembling that. It's just that some of us object to being repeatedly lied to, and watching lives get thrown away to no purpose. Sorry; we're funny about that stuff, we immoral rad-libs.

5. It certainly is a moral and philosophical issue. That's why we let the people most immediately affected make the decision. And by the bye--please explain how, if men tell women that they must have a child whether or not they want to, this is NOT an example of men controlling women. Can't wait to read the logic behind that one.

6. So how many of you guys are rushing out there to do something about either, a) the millions of babies who die every year because of diarrhea, which could be easily fixed; b) the fact that a very high percentage of pregnancies spontaneously abort before the woman even knows she's pregnant?

Disapprove of abortion? Good for you; don't have one. That's your right, and it should be.

It isn't a case of whether man trusts women to make the wise decision. It has nothing to do with gender or telling the other gender what to do. Where do you come up with this stuff? I am curious to know. Don't you know that there are a lot of women that feel the same about life or abortion? So I guess women are controlling women now.

It is not a case of controlling the other gender for the last time. It is about whether or not you think murdering human life, whether it be a fetus above 3 months or a born baby. Many Americans, both men and women, think that it is. If men were the ones who produced the children, it would be no different.

 

[Kane]

A fetus becomes uniquely human at 3 months. At the first month it said that the embryo can be anything from chimpanzee to a turtle to the untrained eye. When about 2 or 3 months hits, it becomes basically human. Is it not almost like murder to a human life when you kill a baby this old in the womb?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nonsense. By that sort of logic, a Tiny Tears doll is, "uniquely human," because it looks like one; my skin cells are, "uniquely human," because they have human DNA; somebody who's be dead for a day is, "uniquely human," because of their shape and their DNA.

The point is exactly what you said it was: whether or not abortion kills a baby. You think it does; that's your right. I think it doesn't; that's mine.

Neither of us gets to make this philosophical and possibly religious decision for a woman, or for anybody else but ourselves.

Why do you INSIST that you have a right to make this decision for others? really: skip the guff, and just explain why you think that you're capable of telling everybody else what to do?

By the way, what's your position on contraception and "morning after," pills? Let me guess--every sperm is sacred, right?

 

[Tgace]

I find the poll results interesting. It would be interesting to how that belief corresponds with their abortion stance...

 

[Kane]

Nonsense. By that sort of logic, a Tiny Tears doll is, "uniquely human," because it looks like one; my skin cells are, "uniquely human," because they have human DNA; somebody who's be dead for a day is, "uniquely human," because of their shape and their DNA.

The point is exactly what you said it was: whether or not abortion kills a baby. You think it does; that's your right. I think it doesn't; that's mine.

Neither of us gets to make this philosophical and possibly religious decision for a woman, or for anybody else but ourselves.

Why do you INSIST that you have a right to make this decision for others? really: skip the guff, and just explain why you think that you're capable of telling everybody else what to do?

By the way, what's your position on contraception and "morning after," pills? Let me guess--every sperm is sacred, right?

That logic makes no sense. So should we make murder legal too? Some people might think murder is wrong, but that it their opinion. Why should we deny the rights to those who think murder is right? Do you not see that the logic of "opinion" can only go so far. If society was just run on opinions of other people then there would be no rules. Some sick child molesters think raping little kids is alright. Why should we deny them their right to rape little kids? That logic is so flawed.

Heck why don't we make drinking and driving legal? Certianly some people think it is wrong since it risks the lives of other people, but that its their opinion. Some people think it is no risk, therefore drunk dirving should be legal.

Does that not sound similar to your logic?

 

[tshadowchaser]

I realize that this might put some of us in the non life form category but

How about life begins when a being is able make conscience thought

 

[Tgace]

I realize that this might put some of us in the non life form category but

How about life begins when a being is able make conscience thought

Well since some scientists say that doesn't happen until sometime after birth, that would justify infanticide. Want to allow that? What about patients that are unconscious?

 

[Tgace]

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm

Although functional definitions of personhood may tell us some conditions that are sufficient to say that a being is a person, they are not adequate in revealing to us all the conditions that are sufficient for a particular being to be called a person. For example, when a human being is asleep, unconscious, and temporarily comatose, she is not functioning as a person as defined by some personhood criteria. Nevertheless, most people would reject the notion that a human being is not a person while in any of these states. In other words, while personhood criteria, such as the ones presented by Warren can tell us that a being is a person, these criteria are not adequate to declare a being a non-person: The exercise of rational thought tells us that a being is a person; when that person is sleeping, and thus is not exercising rational thought, that lack of exercise of the thought function does not make her a non-person at that time. Consequently, it seems more consistent with our moral intuitions to say that personhood is not something that arises when certain functions are in place, but rather is something that grounds these functions, whether or not they are ever actualized in the life of a human being. Thus, defining personhood strictly in terms of function is inadequate.

 

[tshadowchaser]

As I said that might also put some of us in the non liveing area.

OK how about till the brain funtions
a non brain funtioning person is considered dead (by medical standards)

 

[Tgace]

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

 

[sgtmac_46]

I may have missed it, but I was waiting for robertson, or someone, to explain at what point does a woman NOT have the right to murder her child? At conception, at 6 months, at birth, at 10 years? I keep hearing "Choice" and "I just support women's rights". At what point does a woman's rights end, and a child's rights begin?

I still maintain it's an issue of political power. Women have more political power than fetus'. At various times in our history infanticide were considered reasonable population control methods. The Roman's had their Pater Familias, who had absolute control over his family. Are were to presume that the list of "property" owned by humans has been reduced to women owning their fetus?

Actually, I don't have a horse in this race, however, I am interested to see the response. I am neither for or against abortions (or abortion rights, as the semantical minded prefer).

 

[Flatlander]

Somehow, this discussion has turned into an abortion issue, and I'm not certain as to whether or not that was the original intent. If upnorth could help clarify that, I'd be appreciative. I do understand that, for all intents and purposes, the question of where life begins is really only relevant in that context. In that spirit, I will offer my answer to Sgt. Mac regarding when a woman "no longer has the right".

I would suggest that, when a fetus is viable outside the womb, it should be allowed the opportunity to live under whatever circumstances it can be afforded. If the woman's body is no longer a necessary component in the life of the fetus, then the woman no longer has claim to all decisions regarding its perpetuation. To me, that seems reasonable. The caveat here being that, as a man, I have never been a woman, never experienced the issue, and may be missing some important contextual knowledge.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Please cite an instance in which in would be OK by you to have the State step in and make decisions of comparable importance about their health and their testicles for men.

2. If you write something such as, "when does a woman's right to murder her child end," you're pretty much saying that any and all abortion is murder. It's not a real question, but a rhetorical one.

3. Incidentally, the way you guys are arguing would outlaw not only any and all abortion, but any and all contraception.

4. Since all ya got to support your claims are religious and philosophical arguments unsupported by science (a 1982 textbook? c'mahn...and by the way, "brain waves," don't tell you jack...MICE have "brain waves" what'll it be next--"The Silent Scream," hokum?), gee, maybe, just maybe, this is a religious and philosophical issue in which the State has no business.

5. In the current political climate, the people pushing hardest to deny women their rights to reproduction just happen to be--surprise, surprise, surprise!--right-wing religious wackos and right-wing politicans like Henry Hyde. Congrats on your allies.

6. I happen to think that these decisions ought to be left to the women directly involved, who can be trusted at least as much as Bible-thumping preachers, right-wing politicians, clinic bombers, assassins of doctors, and the rest of the panoply of Taliban who panic at the very thought of a world in which women make their own choices, just like human beings do.

 

[Tgace]

So Dan, would you say that if a man kicked his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach while she was in labor and killed the baby, its only a case of assault against the mother?

How "far out" of the uterus does the baby have to be to be protected? Water breaking, dialation, crowning, head out, body out, cord cut...when? Where is that "magic point" where we place value on human life? More and more babies are being born premature and surviving. Its apparent that as a separate life they can survive (albeit with signifigant medical aid) far before a full term birth.

 

[Flatlander]

Its apparent that as a separate life they can survive (albeit with signifigant medical aid) far before a full term birth.

Sorry Tom, I think you misunderstood me. That's what I was speaking to when I said "viable outside the womb". I meant "at the point where the fetus no longer requires the womb to stay alive". I think you'll find we are in perfect agreement.

 

[Tgace]

OK..yeah we are. It seemed like an "after birth" argument to me at first. There is obviously a point sometime before birth that the "fetus" is as much a "baby" inside as it is outside....

 

[sgtmac_46]

Somehow, this discussion has turned into an abortion issue, and I'm not certain as to whether or not that was the original intent. If upnorth could help clarify that, I'd be appreciative. I do understand that, for all intents and purposes, the question of where life begins is really only relevant in that context. In that spirit, I will offer my answer to Sgt. Mac regarding when a woman "no longer has the right".

I would suggest that, when a fetus is viable outside the womb, it should be allowed the opportunity to live under whatever circumstances it can be afforded. If the woman's body is no longer a necessary component in the life of the fetus, then the woman no longer has claim to all decisions regarding its perpetuation. To me, that seems reasonable. The caveat here being that, as a man, I have never been a woman, never experienced the issue, and may be missing some important contextual knowledge.

Good answer. Though, I must reject the argument that because you are not a woman, you can't answer this moral question. I've never been a dictator or lived under one, but I don't have to in order to make a moral decision about dictators. Good answer on the viability question, although I would propose this counter: A child is reliant upon his mother for several years, and cannot live without assistance from it's mother or a surrogate, does that mean the child has less rights than the caregiver?

 

[sgtmac_46]

1. Please cite an instance in which in would be OK by you to have the State step in and make decisions of comparable importance about their health and their testicles for men.

Like what, for instance? Lets hear an example, and i'll deal with it.

2. If you write something such as, "when does a woman's right to murder her child end," you're pretty much saying that any and all abortion is murder. It's not a real question, but a rhetorical one.

I knew that would get your goat, robertson. The more pointed question is "at what point does it become murder?"

3. Incidentally, the way you guys are arguing would outlaw not only any and all abortion, but any and all contraception.

No it wouldn't. Sperm and Ova are not human life, that argument is asinine in the extreme. The fact is, in this argument we can set the definite boundary of what is NOT human life at sperm and ova, and the boundary of what definitely IS human life at a live birth child. Now, there is considerable gray area in between. Lets here an argument about that, not some absurdity about sperm and ova. I'm not arguing anything, merely asking questions at any rate. Sorry asking at what point it comes murder is a difficult question, but it seemed of relavent.

4. Since all ya got to support your claims are religious and philosophical arguments unsupported by science (a 1982 textbook? c'mahn...and by the way, "brain waves," don't tell you jack...MICE have "brain waves" what'll it be next--"The Silent Scream," hokum?), gee, maybe, just maybe, this is a religious and philosophical issue in which the State has no business.

Really, and what scietific evidence have you presented? Do you have some scientific evidence to show at what point human life begins? Or is this another one of those famous sidesteps to avoid even discussing it?

5. In the current political climate, the people pushing hardest to deny women their rights to reproduction just happen to be--surprise, surprise, surprise!--right-wing religious wackos and right-wing politicans like Henry Hyde. Congrats on your allies.

Well, i'm not Henry Hyde or a right-wing religious wacko, so just deal with who you're arguing with, not the same old ad hominem's I keep seeing in many of your posts.

6. I happen to think that these decisions ought to be left to the women directly involved, who can be trusted at least as much as Bible-thumping preachers, right-wing politicians, clinic bombers, assassins of doctors, and the rest of the panoply of Taliban who panic at the very thought of a world in which women make their own choices, just like human beings do.

At what point should it NOT be a woman's decision. Since a woman has to care for young infants, should she not have the right to post natal abortion, infanticide. I mean, if we're pro-choice, why not pro-choice all the way. I do like your clever "You're just afraid of women" argument, predictable but clever. Also clever was your backhanded attempt to call all those who disagree with you "Bible-thumping preachers, right-wing politicians, clinic bombers, assassins of doctors, and the rest of the panoply of Taliban", very clever. At least you didn't call me a Fascist again (or fascist small "f").