When does human life begin?

[@DCGoldPants]

Then there was no point in you responding to my point. Because, we're talking about different things.

But, if you go by your standards..... then that makes us no different from a any random "living" thing on earth. A tree, a bug, a fish, a roach, a bird, etc. They are all the same, just further developed.

Are you a Vegan?

[webnarc]

And some remain parasites long after birth.

My apology to TheSteve for making what could be interpreted as a mockery of his thread.

Actually RD, it is a funny comment on a no win thread. The search feature will reveal just how insidious this topic is.

I'll comment that as I grow older and see more of my friends starting families I become increasingly troubled with abortion. I remain pro-choice but grateful that I haven't had to force a womens hand to make it.

[skins0128]

My wife and I lost a child to a miscarriage and I can tell you we very much did mourn the loss of our daughter. It was one of the most painful experiences of our lives.

Ditto, my wife and I have gone through the same experience just recently. It was also one of the most painful experiences of our lives.

Congrats Dave and best wishes.

[gbear]

Congrats on the coming baby, Dave.

My problem with the cells arguement is the skins cells counter. By this arguement. having and killing changing cells with human dna (and you skins cells do change and have human dna) would mean that I am killing "human life" everytime I wash my hands. Do you wash your hands? Do you feel guilty?

Now the natural counter to that is but they can become a human life. But the very fact that you say "can become" means they are not yet. So that takes us back to trying to define what is human life, of a threshold to be held in higher regard than the cells I lose when I wash my hands?

[Art Monk Fan]

Then there was no point in you responding to my point. Because, we're talking about different things.

But, if you go by your standards..... then that makes us no different from a any random "living" thing on earth. A tree, a bug, a fish, a roach, a bird, etc. They are all the same, just further developed.

Are you a Vegan?

I don't follow your logic. While ontogeny recapitulates philology and many organisms have similar developmental stages, at no point does any organism have the DNA structure of a human being, unless it happens to actually be a human being. One can argue that other species should be afforded the same protections as humans (I do not), but it's not really germane to the topic at hand.

The basic organizing principle of most human societies is "we're not going to kill each other." If an organism is both alive and human it should receive full legal protection — trees, bugs, fish, roaches and birds don’t make the cut.

And no, I’m not a Vegan, and I question the morality of anyone who believes it’s wrong to eat eggs because it kills a chicken fetus, yet supports abortion.

[gbear]

Art Monk fan,

do your skins cells live? Do they have your dna? Do they deserve full legal protection under the law?

[Art Monk Fan]

My problem with the cells arguement is the skins cells counter. By this arguement. having and killing changing cells with human dna (and you skins cells do change and have human dna) would mean that I am killing "human life" everytime I wash my hands. Do you wash your hands? Do you feel guilty?

Now the natural counter to that is but they can become a human life. But the very fact that you say "can become" means they are not yet. So that takes us back to trying to define what is human life, of a threshold to be held in higher regard than the cells I lose when I wash my hands?

Isolated skin cells are not self-contained organisms in and of themselves. Amputating a leg so that a crash victim can survive is not murder; it saves the rest of the organism. Abortion ends the life of an individual human organism, washing your hands does not. Your argument is specious and based upon a false syllogism.

[Kilmer17]

Define-

Human

Life

Begin

Then I'll answer.

[@DCGoldPants]

Define-

Human

Life

Begin

Then I'll answer.

thank you

[SkinsD]

When you're in my phone book.

[Art Monk Fan]

Define-

Human

Life

Begin

Then I'll answer.

Courtesy of Dictionary.com :

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens

Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Begin:

1. To take the first step in performing an action; start.

2. To come into being.

3. To do or accomplish in the least degree.

[gbear]

Art Monk fan,

Now we're getting somewhere because your denition is getting more detailed. You've added individual human organism to your definition above. What's more, you've added self contained. Honestly, I think you are rapidly getting a definition more restrictive than mine. "self contained?" I would have gone with the cognitive parts of what makes one human, but that part of the definition sounds like at birth.

Please define self contained. That sounds like viability arguement again.

Please define human organism? Obviously it is more than a collection of changing cells. When science gets there, is any dna from which a body can be cloned a human organism?

[Art Monk Fan]

Art Monk fan,

Now we're getting somewhere because your denition is getting more detailed. You've added individual human organism to your definition above. What's more, you've added self contained. Honestly, I think you are rapidly getting a definition more restrictive than mine. "self contained?" I would have gone with the cognitive parts of what makes one human, but that part of the definition sounds like at birth.

Please define self contained. That sounds like viability arguement again.

Please define human organism? Obviously it is more than a collection of changing cells. When science gets there, is any dna from which a body can be cloned a human organism?

At conception the human organism is self contained — a skin cell is a constituent part of a whole organism, a fertilized egg is an organism in and of itself. A fertilized egg is situated inside its mother, but is not a part of its mother. A fertilized egg is a foreign organism within the mother — a foreign organism that is itself also human. Whether or not you classify this stage of human development as parasitic, it remains a human being.

I think I’ve pointed out above the issues involved with using cognition as the determinative factor in one’s humanity: it is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint the beginning of cognition, and it exposes more fully developed human beings to jeopardy whenever we are asleep or unconscious.

Viability is no benchmark because it is a moving target. It also raises serious ethical questions regarding partial birth abortion and infants who survive the abortion procedure — questions which NOW and NARAL do not want asked.

Many here are attempting to confuse the argument through false syllogisms:

At conception a human is one cell containing unique human DNA: a skin cell is a single cell containing unique human DNA — therefore a skin cell is a human being.

The syllogism is false and the argument is specious. There is obviously a distinction between the earliest stage of human development, during which (for a matter of roughly 24 hours) a human being consists of one cell, and any single cell that makes up a more developed human being.

[gbear]

What about the umbilical cord? That seems to cause a problem with self-contained. Up until this is cut, is not the mother and the baby one self contained organism? I'm not sure I agree with you're statement that it is not a part of the mother or it is a seperate (self-contained) organism. What about the membranes around the baby before birth (not a doc, know little about this)? As I understand it, what becomes the human being we raise is only a part of what comes fro mthe fertilized egg. Can we ditch the rest as not part of the "self-contained" organism?

Cognition is difficult so let's not use it? That seems like a cop-out. My problem with the cop out is that you are copping out because it doesn't lead to the abortion outcome you desire or know in your heart to be correct. In effect, cognition is the truest factor that differentiates us from the ants. The level of cognition is what differentiates us from dogs or apes. Cognition is the biggest part of what defines "human life." Being difficult to measure is no reason not to use it as a standard.

The skin cell arguement was based on your previous defnition of a living changing cell containing human dna. You have since added to your definition which is good. It's just that with your definition, I disagree with a baby before the cords is cut being "self contained." That self contained seemed more restrictive (rather than less as I think your aim is). It would be more restrictive than a viable standard, which was the only point I had in bringing up the viable definition that is often used. Why would I care what ethical questions people are afraid to address? I was trying to answer the human life begins question as put to us.

[Skins24]

Why is it always a bunch of males answering?

Where are the females? Especially the ones who have had kids...

[@DCGoldPants]

and the females that don't have kids.

But, you make an excellent point.

[Art Monk Fan]

What about the umbilical cord? That seems to cause a problem with self-contained. Up until this is cut, is not the mother and the baby one self contained organism? I'm not sure I agree with you're statement that it is not a part of the mother or it is a seperate (self-contained) organism. What about the membranes around the baby before birth (not a doc, know little about this)? As I understand it, what becomes the human being we raise is only a part of what comes fro mthe fertilized egg. Can we ditch the rest as not part of the "self-contained" organism?

The umbilical cord is part of the child and attaches the child to the placenta, not the mother. The placenta is a temporary organ that has two parts, one of which is part of the child and one of which is part of the mother. From Wikipedia:

The placenta is an ephemeral (temporary) organ present only in female placental mammals during gestation (pregnancy).

The placenta is composed of two parts, one of which is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother. It is implanted in the wall of the uterus, where it receives nutrients from the mother's blood and passes out waste. This interface forms a barrier, the placental barrier, which filters out many substances which could harm the fetus.

A child and it’s mother share a single temporary organ and are connected in a fashion similar to conjoined twins — they are not one organism.

Cognition is difficult so let's not use it? That seems like a cop-out. My problem with the cop out is that you are copping out because it doesn't lead to the abortion outcome you desire or know in your heart to be correct. In effect, cognition is the truest factor that differentiates us from the ants. The level of cognition is what differentiates us from dogs or apes. Cognition is the biggest part of what defines "human life." Being difficult to measure is no reason not to use it as a standard.

I did not argue that cognition is too difficult and I did not “cop out.” What I stated was the fact that cognition is an unacceptable option because of the ramifications for more fully developed humans. If you are only human while self aware, I can knock you out and kill you while unconscious. I am guilty of assault for hitting you, but not murder, since you were unconscious and therefore not human when I killed you. Cognition differentiates us from lower orders of mammals, but cannot realiably stand as the sole determiner of “humanity” for the reasons I have stated.

The skin cell arguement was based on your previous defnition of a living changing cell containing human dna. You have since added to your definition which is good. It's just that with your definition, I disagree with a baby before the cords is cut being "self contained." That self contained seemed more restrictive (rather than less as I think your aim is). It would be more restrictive than a viable standard, which was the only point I had in bringing up the viable definition that is often used. Why would I care what ethical questions people are afraid to address? I was trying to answer the human life begins question as put to us.

You believe that my definition of life is more restrictive than yours, only because you persist in purposely misunderstanding me. I have pointed out above that, umbilical cord or not, a child and mother are separate human beings in the same way as conjoined twins. Do you contend that conjoined twins are one organism?

[gbear]

conjoined twins until seperated? not sure if one organism, but self contained? Note how many share vital organs and die apon separation. That alone doesn't make them one as many parasites require the host to live, but sharing a spine or other organs?

On the placenta, a part from mother, part from baby...which part of self contained?

One side question I always wondered as a non medical person who should just ask his wife (nurse): digestive track? does a baby use the mother's?

You keep saying separate human being like that is magic...except you can't separate them...but you insist they are separate. Circular logic?

As for cognition being insufficient...I'd go along with that. But as the defining part of what makes us "human," a definition wihtout it seems to miss the boat. I'd say it is still a necesary part of any definition even if it is insufficient in and of itself...but that takes you the other way from where you want to go... making human life a more restictive term rather than a more open ended as you seem to want. Just curious, where were you on the persistant vegatative debate with Shiavo? Was hers a human life that had to be saved at all costs? I ask because that is where I end up when I try to use only your separate human organism standard, and I keep thinking that without cognition, that standard just doesn't hold water for me.

[Thiebear]

Wait?

You can't say were not human till we can live independantly... Watching the Science channel all they ever say is: Human babies are the weakest on the planet and can not survive without help upon birth.

So by definition not being able to survive is being Human .

[TheSteve]

For those that say life begins at conception, what about the fact that there is still a possiblity for that fertilized egg to split and become what will eventually be twins? If life began at conception, and that was an individual human life right there and not merely a living organism that had yet to become human, then did that fertilized egg all of a sudden become two living individuals? Gain two souls?

[Art Monk Fan]

conjoined twins until seperated? not sure if one organism, but self contained? Note how many share vital organs and die apon separation. That alone doesn't make them one as many parasites require the host to live, but sharing a spine or other organs?

You’ve become hung up on the phrase “self-contained” which makes me regret employing it — it’s neither elegant, nor entirely appropriate. I meant to denote a complete organism in opposition to an isolated constituent part of an organism.

I also did not state that mother and child are conjoined twins, only that the relationship between them is similar to that between conjoined twins.

On the placenta, a part from mother, part from baby...which part of self contained?

Connection to a shared temporary organ does not make the mother any less human, so I am not sure why it should make the child so.

One side question I always wondered as a non medical person who should just ask his wife (nurse): digestive track? does a baby use the mother's?

I don’t believe they do, in fact there is a danger at birth that the child will evacuate in utero and poison itself by ingesting its own waste — meconium aspiration.

You keep saying separate human being like that is magic...except you can't separate them...but you insist they are separate. Circular logic?

They are separate human beings in the same way as conjoined twins, again I am obviously not saying they are conjoined twins, only that the relationship is similar. Go talk to a pair of conjoined twins and come back and tell me if they’re one person.

Also, in the case of absorbed twins, the second deceased twin is medically recognized as not being a part of the surviving twin, though one partially absorbed the other in utero. In fact, the presence of an absorbed twin will cause a false blood doping positive, as the survivors blood will show traces of another human being’s blood in their system.

As for cognition being insufficient...I'd go along with that. But as the defining part of what makes us "human," a definition wihtout it seems to miss the boat. I'd say it is still a necesary part of any definition even if it is insufficient in and of itself...but that takes you the other way from where you want to go... making human life a more restictive term rather than a more open ended as you seem to want.

Cognition is a trait apparently unique to humans that sets us a part from other animals. Scientifically, it is irrelevant in determining whether or not an organism is human. After my death, my remains can be tested to determine whether or not I was human, though I am no longer cognizant.

We are in search here of a scientifically verifiable definition of human life — a DNA test.

Just curious, where were you on the persistant vegatative debate with Shiavo? Was hers a human life that had to be saved at all costs? I ask because that is where I end up when I try to use only your separate human organism standard, and I keep thinking that without cognition, that standard just doesn't hold water for me.

Terry Schiavo was clearly a living human being. Her autopsy proved that she had no brain functions and likely didn’t suffer from her starvation and dehydration. Neither of these was a 100% lock until the autopsy proved it. She had family members who were willing and able to care for what was left of her and I think it would have hurt no one for custody to have been transferred to the parents. We had only the husband’s word that she would not have wanted to persist in this state and several legitimate reasons to doubt his motives and intentions. I am always going to come down on the side of caution where life is concerned — that is why I oppose the death penalty.

However, ending the life of an adult human beyond any hope of recovery, especially in cases where they have expressed their personal desire for this to occur, is completely different than ending an innocent life, full of potential, at the earliest stages, merely for convenience. As Mother Theresa said: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

[Art Monk Fan]

For those that say life begins at conception, what about the fact that there is still a possiblity for that fertilized egg to split and become what will eventually be twins? If life began at conception, and that was an individual human life right there and not merely a living organism that had yet to become human, then did that fertilized egg all of a sudden become two living individuals? Gain two souls?

Souls are irrelevant to the discussion — you cannot base laws on religion in the U.S.

Scientifically it is one human life until it splits into two separate entities, then two identical human lives exist. Single celled organisms reproduce this way and science accepts that one amoeba has become two amoebas; I see no scientific problem here.

[twa]

What I feel is the strongest argument for life at conception is once the egg is fertilized,the end result is invariably a human being unless death occurs.