Definition of when life begins

[AMX]

I would suggest the point at which life can be artificially sustained outside the womb.

What will that mean once we reach the inevitable point where humans can complete their entire prenatal development cycle under artificial circumstances?

That traditional abortion gets replaced by transfer to an artificial womb?
Does the job (woman no longer pregnant), without even pissing off the religious nutjobs...
OTOH, the economic right would cry havoc over the taxes involved (someone's got to pay for it, and it sure won't be the mother)...

That said, personally, I second dworkin's opinion.

[Turin]

I'd say life begins around weeks 22-24, when independent life is possible outside the womb. A human life that's not viable even with very involved medical assistance isn't an individual. It's a potential individual.

As someone who was born prematurely and had to be on life support for the first month of my life, I take offense at that.

As much as I'm sure anyone here would be glad to say they're happy you made it, I don't think that really makes a difference to the question. I think human life can be argued to begin at the moment of conception, but this doesn't necessarily mean that a human life at this stage should have the same rights as a child - there's a difference between a human life and a human being. I agree that viability outside the womb and the beginning of higher brain function should be our cutoff date for "no-cause," but I'm not sure I'm qualified to say precisely when those two things occur.

[LauraG]

I don't think the viability condition is applicable. If we had the technology to sustain a fetus outside the womb at 12 weeks, would that make a 12 week fetus an individual human life with rights that should be protected?

When the goalposts move, I'm sure we'll have the sense to move the goalie. As it stands, we're very, very far from that level of medical technology.

It should really about whether or not the brain has developed to the point where thought can actually take place and a personality can form - I'm pretty sure this subject has been argued here at SDN before, and IIRC this was the conclusion reached.

When a personality has formed... hmmm. That's pretty vague. It could be any time between the time when the first neurons fire up, which I think is around week 6, and a guy's 50th birthday, when he's over his mid-life crisis.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think the viability condition is applicable. If we had the technology to sustain a fetus outside the womb at 12 weeks, would that make a 12 week fetus an individual human life with rights that should be protected?

When the goalposts move, I'm sure we'll have the sense to move the goalie. As it stands, we're very, very far from that level of medical technology.

Here's an interesting question: if we ever develop the technology to clone people in a test tube from a single cell, then would and could it be said that every human cell is a potential "individual human life with rights that should be protected?"

My position of tying human rights to brain development is not perturbed at all by such a hypothetical situation, but the "potential futures" crowd is going to have to do some acrobatics.

[LauraG]

Here's an interesting question: if we ever develop the technology to clone people in a test tube from a single cell, then would and could it be said that every human cell is a potential "individual human life with rights that should be protected?"

Interesting as well: Who decides that a single, particular cell is to be cloned into a complete human being? On whose shoulders does the decision rest to make a clone of you?

I can't see every single cell being considered indivudual life before a conscious decision has led to an involved process that will make it a developing human.

My position of tying human rights to brain development is not perturbed at all by such a hypothetical situation, but the "potential futures" crowd is going to have to do some acrobatics.

I don't see a problem with moving the goalie in that direction.

[Darth Wong]

I can't see every single cell being considered indivudual life before a conscious decision has led to an involved process that will make it a developing human.

Keep in mind that the same objection could easily be raised about removing a premature baby and keeping it on life support when it would have "naturally" died. It's an involved process requiring intervention and a conscious decision.

[LauraG]

Keep in mind that the same objection could easily be raised about removing a premature baby and keeping it on life support when it would have "naturally" died. It's an involved process requiring intervention and a conscious decision.

There's always point before which, no matter how involved the process, the result won't be a living human. What we've been doing with advancing medical technology is moving back that threshold to earlier moments in development and we keep adjusting our views to that.

There will possibly be a point where we've moved the threshold back to day one, but the moral positions from which everyone views the issue, I think, can still be applied after the expected adjustment.

In other words, I think we'll still be having the same discussion, basically with the same points, adjusted for the threshold defined by whatever's technologically possible then.

[The Nomad]

My position of tying human rights to brain development is not perturbed at all by such a hypothetical situation, but the "potential futures" crowd is going to have to do some acrobatics.

Which level of brain development are you refering to ? The primitive brain is formed during the third week ( according to my embryology course ). Most psychological studies ( at least those few that I've been required to know of ) point to children gaining "true self-awareness" ( though the lecturer left the precise definition of said awareness undefined ) at about IIRC the age of two.
AFAIK, the foetus starts sensing its environment at around the 21st week. Does it sound like a valid threshold to you ?

[Vendetta]

Keep in mind that the same objection could easily be raised about removing a premature baby and keeping it on life support when it would have "naturally" died. It's an involved process requiring intervention and a conscious decision.

The difference is that the creation of a clone from a single cell requires a definite act of initiation (fertilising a donor egg and replacing the genetic material), whereas life support or surrogate development mechanisms for a premature baby are a continuation of a process already initiated.

Cells would have no more individual rights than your jizz, or your wife's unfertilised eggs, because they have a definite boundary condition before they could ever become an entity.

[Darth Wong]

Keep in mind that the same objection could easily be raised about removing a premature baby and keeping it on life support when it would have "naturally" died. It's an involved process requiring intervention and a conscious decision.

The difference is that the creation of a clone from a single cell requires a definite act of initiation (fertilising a donor egg and replacing the genetic material), whereas life support or surrogate development mechanisms for a premature baby are a continuation of a process already initiated.

Bullshit. Invasive procedures are NOT a "continuation of a process already initiated"; they are a CHANGE in that process. Any cell in your body is a process already initiated, and you are merely altering that process in order to start the cloning process.

Cells would have no more individual rights than your jizz, or your wife's unfertilised eggs, because they have a definite boundary condition before they could ever become an entity.

And there is a definite boundary condition in the development of the brain as well; the development of the central nervous system.

[Zero]

Here's an interesting question: if we ever develop the technology to clone people in a test tube from a single cell, then would and could it be said that every human cell is a potential "individual human life with rights that should be protected?"

My position of tying human rights to brain development is not perturbed at all by such a hypothetical situation, but the "potential futures" crowd is going to have to do some acrobatics.

Each individual sperm and egg could become an eventual person as well, with the right conditions, but most of them don't. The same is true of each cell in this scenario. Most cells will never matter in the developement of life. The difference is, once the cells created from the combination of the sperm and egg combine, there's a much better chance of said cell growing into an actual human. The same is true of the clone, after it's already gone through whatever processes are required to start it on its way to being a human.

Of course, that's just my idea of things. Shit has to start before you can stop it.

[Darth Wong]

Each individual sperm and egg could become an eventual person as well, with the right conditions, but most of them don't. The same is true of each cell in this scenario. Most cells will never matter in the developement of life. The difference is, once the cells created from the combination of the sperm and egg combine, there's a much better chance of said cell growing into an actual human. The same is true of the clone, after it's already gone through whatever processes are required to start it on its way to being a human.

Sorry, but "much better chance" is merely a matter of degrees, and not a clear defining line. In that sense, it's no more of a clear defining line than the 21-week boundary for nervous-system development and the ability to receive sensory input.

The people who promote this "life begins at conception" bullshit seek to invent a clear defining line where no such thing exists, so they arbitrarily pick a point which is easily defined and declare that this is the line even though there's no reason to call it such.

[Zero]

Would you claim that NOTHING begins at conception? I know that isn't what you said, but that IS when the individual really begins, even if it isn't when his/her personality of more apparent physical features start. That is the beginning of something, at least... it isn't just an arbitrary point in time, it's an event. Using it as a defining point doesn't seem so far off to me, although you are correct that in terms of probability of survival, it is just one degree of things among many.

It's still the point where there's actually an individual specific person that's reasonably likely to exist, barring an event to cause it's end.

[SirNitram]

How can it be an individual at conception? Post conception, it can become twins or more. Post conception, it can still simply fail to adhere to the side of the uterus.

We're humans because of our nervous systems. Not because we self-replicate cells, the only definitive 'starting' at conception.

[Zero]

How can it be an individual at conception? Post conception, it can become twins or more. Post conception, it can still simply fail to adhere to the side of the uterus.

We're humans because of our nervous systems. Not because we self-replicate cells, the only definitive 'starting' at conception.

Point conceded. I admit, I hadn't considered the twins angle. Even so, concpetion isn't a random event to cut things off of.. if it were, it wouldn't have a name.

And I wasn't trying to claim that people were people because of anything. I don't typically think it's a good idea to try and define what's human by one single attribute; can lead to bad things. I was simply trying to say that conception is when that specific life began, a point which you showed me was quite mistaken.

[SirNitram]

How can it be an individual at conception? Post conception, it can become twins or more. Post conception, it can still simply fail to adhere to the side of the uterus.

We're humans because of our nervous systems. Not because we self-replicate cells, the only definitive 'starting' at conception.

Point conceded. I admit, I hadn't considered the twins angle. Even so, concpetion isn't a random event to cut things off of.. if it were, it wouldn't have a name.

Conception is nothing more than the transfer of a few strands of genetic material and the beginning of cell division. To call the cellular mass an 'individual' is ludicrous; it has no mind, no identifiable organs at that stage, and it certainly can't exist without the mother.

And I wasn't trying to claim that people were people because of anything. I don't typically think it's a good idea to try and define what's human by one single attribute; can lead to bad things. I was simply trying to say that conception is when that specific life began, a point which you showed me was quite mistaken.

I eagerly await what horrible fate is dovetailed with linking human existance with the presense of a mind, and thus, the requirement of a central nervous system for it to exist in.

[Firefox]

Even so, concpetion isn't a random event to cut things off of.. if it were, it wouldn't have a name.

Meiotic divisions have names, too. What's your point?

[Zero]

I eagerly await what horrible fate is dovetailed with linking human existance with the presense of a mind, and thus, the requirement of a central nervous system for it to exist in.

Cows have central nervous systems as well. So do chickens. Do we care about those ones? No. What defines a human mind differently? If it's a simple matter of intellectual capacity, it's been said many times that a 5 year old human has less intellectual ability then a chimp of the same age. Also, it's quite obvious that newborn won't be largely intelligent, but it doesn't mean the thing's worthless, or even that it has less worth.

Minds are tricksy things.

[SirNitram]

I eagerly await what horrible fate is dovetailed with linking human existance with the presense of a mind, and thus, the requirement of a central nervous system for it to exist in.

Cows have central nervous systems as well. So do chickens. Do we care about those ones? No. What defines a human mind differently? If it's a simple matter of intellectual capacity, it's been said many times that a 5 year old human has less intellectual ability then a chimp of the same age. Also, it's quite obvious that newborn won't be largely intelligent, but it doesn't mean the thing's worthless, or even that it has less worth.

Minds are tricksy things.

Are you stating for all to see that you are incapable of determining the difference between the mental abilities of a human and cattle?

[Zero]

No, but you said yourself that the presence of a mind was your qualifier. Can you actually explain the difference between the neural processes going on in a 21-week-old fetus's head, and any other animal in the world? A functional mind just seems a week qualifier for humanity, since so many creatures other then humans have them. And I didn't say that there was no difference between the mind of a cow and the mind of a human, but your qualifier of having a mind applies to both.

[Surlethe]

No, but you said yourself that the presence of a mind was your qualifier. Can you actually explain the difference between the neural processes going on in a 21-week-old fetus's head, and any other animal in the world? A functional mind just seems a week qualifier for humanity, since so many creatures other then humans have them.

The phrase "it's human" springs to mind; there's no need to apply human rights to other animals.

[Zero]

No, but you said yourself that the presence of a mind was your qualifier. Can you actually explain the difference between the neural processes going on in a 21-week-old fetus's head, and any other animal in the world? A functional mind just seems a week qualifier for humanity, since so many creatures other then humans have them.

The phrase "it's human" springs to mind; there's no need to apply human rights to other animals.

But the entire purpose of this thread is to decide when something goes from being a bundle of cells to being 'human'. The entire point is to establish what makes someone human, and if having a mind is his qualifier, then it ought to apply to everything with a mind.

[Darth Wong]

Cows have central nervous systems as well. So do chickens. Do we care about those ones? No. What defines a human mind differently?

That's a retarded argument. We kill animals even when they are quite capable of thinking and feeling. The point is that we don't consider human flesh to be a human being until it can think.

[Darth Wong]

But the entire purpose of this thread is to decide when something goes from being a bundle of cells to being 'human'. The entire point is to establish what makes someone human, and if having a mind is his qualifier, then it ought to apply to everything with a mind.

Are you really this stupid? The point is what makes a human person rather than just a piece of human tissue. Animals are totally irrelevant since you are distorting the idea from "when does the human mind begin" to "anything with a mind should be given human rights", which is a huge strawman, hence either idiotic or deceptive on your part.

[SirNitram]

No, but you said yourself that the presence of a mind was your qualifier. Can you actually explain the difference between the neural processes going on in a 21-week-old fetus's head, and any other animal in the world? A functional mind just seems a week qualifier for humanity, since so many creatures other then humans have them. And I didn't say that there was no difference between the mind of a cow and the mind of a human, but your qualifier of having a mind applies to both.

The neural processes in a 21-week old fetus' brain, with sufficient input, will become human. The neural processes of cattle remain the neural processes of cattle. It's blatantly simple.

We recignize the mind to be the person, dumb dumb. That's why braindeath is what it is.