Wher does human life begin?

Mrs. MacGyver

I was reading in the paper on my tea break this morning about an Irish woman who had difficulty conceiving due to a problem with her ovaries. She had some embryos frozen for the future in order to ensure she would have a larger family than her two present children. She subsequently seperated from her husband after he had an affair. He is now in a new relationship and does not want the embryos used. Thing is that in order to be used, the consent is needed by both the couple. She is taking legal proceedings against the husband stating that the embryos have a right to life and the constitution gurantees to protect the life of the unborn. No precedent has been set for this yet. If she wins on the basis that life begins at conception, then the morning after pill may be no longer allowable. I'm just wondering if anyone has been following this story and of what their views are? Are a soul and a body fused as one at the moment of conception or at the phase where the embryo becomes a foetus?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Are a soul and a body fused as one at the moment of conception or at the phase where the embryo becomes a foetus?

there's a very simple way to end this argument once and for all. Simply prove to the world that there is such a thing as a soul, and then go about finding exactly when it first appears.

shouldn't be too hard, hope to hear back from you soon.

robindch

> Are a soul and a body fused as one at the moment of conception
> or at the phase where the embryo becomes a foetus?

Yes, I believe this is the current line from the Vatican.

Though, before 1860 or thereabouts, seem to remember that the catholic church stuck to Aristotle's notion that souls were inserted sixty days after conception for male embyros, or ninety days for female embyros.

Biologists do have a different line...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

rofl

those greek philosophers crack me up

Doomspell

I don't know how anyone could decide who 'wins' that case, because I feel for both sides. But I have absolutely no idea when life begins:D

Pocari Sweat

If new technology can come up with a theory that we don't actually have a soul, but instead we have an army of good and holy micro gremlins living in the bonding structures in the molecules that make us up as persons, would it not get a bit tricky to try and set statutes in the law of an idea that we have this army of undetectable gremlins helping us through our life in some way the scientists have not yet fathomed out?

If some other scientists then said we have two armies of gremlins, but one side are the dark gremlins fighting the good gremlins and this should be put on the statute books.

If we do have a soul (I have no idea what this is except it seems to be immortal) when we are conceived, surely souls are immortal so you cannot kill them and morning after pills are only saving these poor wee souls from a shyte life on this planet living with and coupled to some sweaty, farting, physical living corpse for 70 odd years.

Set souls free.

Dades

Mrs. MacGyver wrote:

She is taking legal proceedings against the husband stating that the embryos have a right to life and the constitution gurantees to protect the life of the unborn.

It seems to me she is cynically using this idea simply so that she can use her embryos. I suspect if she had had enough kids already she wouldn't be so quick to defend the rights of the ones in the petri-dish.

This case is not about right to life - it's about the right to not have an estranged woman bear your children without your consent.

Akrasia

but if she succeeds in her argument then there will be a court precident that unimplanted embryos have a right to life which will mean a challenge by Pro life groups against the Morning after pill would probably succeed and ironically, it might also mean the end of IVF treatments in ireland unless all of the embryo's are used by the mother while they are still viable.

Cantab.

Akrasia wrote:

but if she succeeds in her argument then there will be a court precident that unimplanted embryos have a right to life which will mean a challenge by Pro life groups against the Morning after pill would probably succeed and ironically, it might also mean the end of IVF treatments in ireland unless all of the embryo's are used by the mother while they are still viable.

Let the zygotes be born.

I don't see any moral difference between flushing the woman's fertilised eggs down the drain and infanticide.

ScumLord

I think this is over and done with in the courts (it was in England right?) the court sided with the father from what I know.

I would side with the father too, he would be responsible for this child. She can't bring one of he's children into the world without he's consent.

You could argue that a human baby isn't a fully fledged modern human until the age of 3 or 4, most of human behaviour is learned. If a child is raised by another animal like dogs (it has happened) that child will behave like a dog and they'll never be able to be re-educated to be a normal person.

I've heard that after ten weeks the brain is turned on in the developing baby. I think that's the point the baby becomes it's own entity before that it's just a clump of cells.

Mrs. MacGyver

No Scumlord the court case is in Ireland. But i'd tend to agree with you . I means if i was a guy and a woman wanted to be impregnated with our embryos without my consent i would not be pleased as i would have responsibility towards these individuals for the rest of their lives.

Crucifix

Pocari Sweat wrote:

If new technology can come up with a theory that we don't actually have a soul, but instead we have an army of good and holy micro gremlins living in the bonding structures in the molecules that make us up as persons, would it not get a bit tricky to try and set statutes in the law of an idea that we have this army of undetectable gremlins helping us through our life in some way the scientists have not yet fathomed out?

If some other scientists then said we have two armies of gremlins, but one side are the dark gremlins fighting the good gremlins and this should be put on the statute books.

Midiclorians?

ArthurDent

Cantab. wrote:

Let the zygotes be born.

I don't see any moral difference between flushing the woman's fertilised eggs down the drain and infanticide.

So to turn this case on its head - if it was the man that wanted the fertilised eggs implanted and the woman didn't, do you think she should be forced to?

Should all fetilised eggs be implanted regardless of medical advice and/or the wishes of the parent/parents?

I think the woman in this case is wrong - I think you should be able to give or refuse to give consent to become a father/mother. How would she feel if the courts upheld the absolute right to life of the fertilised eggs and then the father decided he wanted them implanted in his new partner.....

UU

ArthurDent wrote:

So to turn this case on its head - if it was the man that wanted the fertilised eggs implanted and the woman didn't, do you think she should be forced to?

Should all fetilised eggs be implanted regardless of medical advice and/or the wishes of the parent/parents?

I think the woman in this case is wrong - I think you should be able to give or refuse to give consent to become a father/mother. How would she feel if the courts upheld the absolute right to life of the fertilised eggs and then the father decided he wanted them implanted in his new partner.....

That's a very good point actually ArthurDent. Why can't the mother not just have babies with someone else if she's so determined to have children? The father mightn't want to be held responsible for children with someone else who he's no longer with. I can see where he's coming from. I'd support the father in this one.

Mrs. MacGyver

I agree with Arthur and UU's points.

Cantab.

ArthurDent wrote:

So to turn this case on its head - if it was the man that wanted the fertilised eggs implanted and the woman didn't, do you think she should be forced to?

Yes.

ArthurDent wrote:

Should all fetilised eggs be implanted regardless of medical advice and/or the wishes of the parent/parents?

Yes, nobody has the right to say who should and should not live.

ArthurDent wrote:

I think the woman in this case is wrong - I think you should be able to give or refuse to give consent to become a father/mother. How would she feel if the courts upheld the absolute right to life of the fertilised eggs and then the father decided he wanted them implanted in his new partner.....

I've a feeling you only say this because you've made a pro-choice bed and now must sleep in it.

The father's intention was to procreate, he can't change his mind mid-way through, flush the eggs down the drain and cite an argument of 'inconvenience'.

I hope to God that the judges see sense and uphold the law.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Originally Posted by ArthurDent
So to turn this case on its head - if it was the man that wanted the fertilised eggs implanted and the woman didn't, do you think she should be forced to?

cartab wrote:

Yes.

you think it would be ok to forcibly impregnate a woman?

what?

ArthurDent

ArthurDent wrote:

So to turn this case on its head - if it was the man that wanted the fertilised eggs implanted and the woman didn't, do you think she should be forced to?

Cantab. wrote:

Yes..

Just to be absolutely clear on this - you are advocating that the right to life of a fetilised egg is paramount and that a woman should be forced to be impregnated AGAINST her choice?

Cantab. wrote:

I've a feeling you only say this because you've made a pro-choice bed and now must sleep in it.

The father's intention was to procreate, he can't change his mind mid-way through, flush the eggs down the drain and cite an argument of 'inconvenience'.

I hope to God that the judges see sense and uphold the law

No I'm taking the "right to life" of the fertilised egg to the extreme, if as you say nobody should have the right to say who should live and who should not - well then surely the father can choose to have the fertilised egg implanted in whoevers womb he chose to ensure this " right to life". So do you uphold the fathers absolute "right to life" as well as the mothers and that he can choose who he wants these eggs implanted into, without the consent of the mother.

hairyheretic

Cantab. wrote:

Yes, nobody has the right to say who should and should not live.

So, should we kill all the doctors then? After all, they make decisions every day about who gets to live.

We could kill all the firemen too, just in case they had to save someone from burning to death. Can't go letting people decide who has the right to live, can we?

We could stop with aid shipments to countries suffering famine too. After all, who are we to say whether they get to live or die.

Ronan|Raven

I hear they taste good on toast.

UU

Well not every embryo that forms always lives anyway. It is human nature to produce millions of sperm and two ova as an insurance policy because "survival of the fittest" naturally occurs. Should we then save every single sperm and ovum because by not doing this we are "denying" the right to life. Anyway, if the embryo has a soul it'll just be reincarnated anyway and will get another life elsewhere! lol

So Cantab. if you were a mother being forced to be impregnated against your wishes, you'd have no problem? Sorry but no woman should be forced to do that. It's alright for you when you're not in any position like that.

I hope the courts reach a verdict soon. It'll be interesting to see what the result will be. I hope the mother be denied the right to use the frozen embryos. I really can't see why see can't jus get a sperm donor or something. There are many out there.

robindch

> not every embryo that forms always lives anyway.

Between 40% and 60% -- the figures are difficult to pin down exactly -- of fertilized ova will abort naturally before birth, most of them within the first couple of weeks (I'd like to hear a creationist defend this piece of "intelligent design"!). Also, unfertilized eggs can be electrically stimulated to begin dividing without the intervention of sperm, so, contrary some people's beliefs or propaganda, it is possible to produce embryonic stem cells without using fertilized eggs.

BTW, there are millions of fertilized eggs in cold storage all over the world, most being the result of IVF treatment and sooner or later, decisions will have to be made about what to do with them (as the unfortunate ongoing case in the high-court is showing)...

stevejazzx

This seems very simple to me, in order for it happen there needs to be mutual consent which the man has denied. Case closed. Otherwise why have that provision to begin with? The woman is clearly asking way too much, in fact if you think why would she want another child of a man who is now in another realtionship?
Time to move on for that woman instead of dragging this through the courts.


Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate

Dades

Cantab,

I get the feeling you didn't really think about what you were saying until the point was made on the flip side. Now you've backed yourself into a corner where you're advocating forcibly impregnating women because of your religious beliefs.

Way to go.

Zombrex

Cantab. wrote:

Yes, nobody has the right to say who should and should not live.

Yes, but last time I checked people do have a right to decide what happens to their body. Forcing a woman to have an embryo implanted is ridiculous, and highly illegal, just as forcuably removing my kidney or left lung because you need one is immoral and illegal.

Cantab. wrote:

The father's intention was to procreate, he can't change his mind mid-way through, flush the eggs down the drain and cite an argument of 'inconvenience'.

He did procreate.

He got a child when the inital embryos were implanted. These were kept as backups in case all the inital embryos didn't take, which is very common. I'm pretty sure the family didn't hold funerals for the embryos that were implanted but didn't take. That is the reality of IVF treatement, you make a whole load of embryos and hope that at least one takes during treatment. Which is why the odd time you have triplets or quadruplets being born as a result of IVF, where all the embryos managed to take.

While you may believe God cares about the right to life of every embryo, it appears that the system of nature he designed doesn't give two hoots.

Crucifix

I read that the father had suggested the fertilized eggs be anonymously donated, so in that particular case we're not even talking about 'flushing' the zygotes.

Mrs. MacGyver

Mrs. MacGyver wrote:

If she wins on the basis that life begins at conception, then the morning after pill may be no longer allowable.

But the morning after pill is emergency contraception, not post-conception stuff.
I'm with the father on this one. If she's so concerned about having children, she can find someone else to be the father.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

But the morning after pill is emergency contraception, not post-conception stuff.

The morning after pill, as well as effecting the release of an egg, also is thought to prevent implantation of a fertalised egg, though how it does this, or even if it actually does, is hard to tell.

So techincally it is a post fertalisation method of "contraception"

I suppose it's all a little up in the air... Still, banning it as a result of that court case would be a tad extreme

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

I suppose it's all a little up in the air... Still, banning it as a result of that court case would be a tad extreme

As far as I know the "let my children live" argument is largely being ignored by the courts, since it has very little legal basis. IVF treatment regularly fertalises more eggs that will ever produce children, and as has been pointed out stopping implantation is a perfectly legal way of contraception. Medically pregenecy is taken from the point of implantation, not fertalisation, since eggs can be fertalised perfectly naturally yet fail to implant, and this is taken as the point after which an abortion is considered tampering with nature and illegal.

The argument seems to have been used more for public opinion than anything else.

So I think the contraceptive pill is safe for the time being.

ArthurDent

Wicknight wrote:

As far as I know the "let my children live" argument is largely being ignored by the courts, since it has very little legal basis. IVF treatment regularly fertalises more eggs that will ever produce children, and as has been pointed out stopping implantation is a perfectly legal way of contraception. Medically pregenecy is taken from the point of implantation, not fertalisation, since eggs can be fertalised perfectly naturally yet fail to implant, and this is taken as the point after which an abortion is considered tampering with nature and illegal.

The argument seems to have been used more for public opinion than anything else.

So I think the contraceptive pill is safe for the time being.

THe regular contraceptive pill and the morning after pill don't have the same mechanisms. The regular contraceptive pill in effect prevents ovulation (with a back up of making the womb less attractive for implantation). The morning after pill works on the premise that ovulation has and fertilisation may have occured and prevents impantation of any potentially fertilised eggs - there is a distinct difference between the two and if the right to life is defines as occuring at fertilisation and not implantation then the morning-after pill could possible be rules as contrary to this ( the same goes for the coil - again effects contraception by prevention of implantation rather than fertilisation). It think rather than being ignored the "let my children live argument" is conciously being avoided at the moment, because it has huge constitutional issues associated with it - we have never in law defined when life begins and I'm pretty sure no judge wants to touch that particular hot potato with a ten foot barge pole.

Nevyn

well if you look at it from the point of view what they have is a combination of his and her gentic material and each has equal say over thier genetic material as they would any other cell sample they just happen to be co mingled and can't be seperated.

It will be interesting as to what the judgement will say never mind the ruling in this matter.

UU

Well a "living thing" is scientifically defined by the five characteristics of life: organisation, nutrition, excretion, response and reproduction. That could be a start to defining when life actually begins or better said when a clump of cells is considered a "living thing".

As for the relgious point of view, firstly there is no proof that a soul actually exists - that lies in faith, and if it does exist nobody knows when a "living thing" obtains a spirit.

Anyway, the "right to life" is a right that's a bit watery in that when does one actually have rights? How can a clump of cells have rights if they're not even a fully formed person yet. What's next? We'll be giving rights to bacteria. After all, isn't it wrong to kill and they're defined as living as they have the five characteristics of life. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

ArthurDent wrote:

The morning after pill works on the premise that ovulation has and fertilisation may have occured and prevents impantation of any potentially fertilised eggs - there is a distinct difference between the two

Not to get dragged off topic, but that isn't quite true.

The only certain effect that has been scientifically studied and observed with the morning after pill is that it stops ovulation from taking place, or can cause the egg to not move down from the ovaries. It is basically a high dose of what a woman would normally take with he normal pill and works in the same way.

It is highly suspected, though has never actually been scientifically proven, that the morning after pill also causes the lining of the uterus wall to thicken which prevents implantation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Contraception

robindch

This story's still bubbling away, but a top Vatican official has called for medical researchers working with embryonic stem cells to be excommunicated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5158760.stm

metrovelvet

Oh what a troubled web we weave when we conspire to conceive.

UU

Oh what ever happened to the spirituality of the Catholic religion? It seems to me these days the bunch of them (the Vatican cardinals) are so pre-occupied in matters that are really none of business, they have lost the initial essence of faith. Yes, faith. The transformative power within you. Where is theirs? It has been lost as this ancient religion has been overlaid by extraneous matter which has completely obscured the spiritual essence of Christianity.

In relation to the BBc article, the vatican seem to make a bigger deal over flipping embryotic research than those clergy who have raped and molested children and people! Perhaps they should consider excommunicating rapist priests and nuns before they start of IVF scientists and embryologists. That would make a healthy start.

ScumLord

UU wrote:

Well a "living thing" is scientifically defined by the five characteristics of life: organisation, nutrition, excretion, response and reproduction. That could be a start to defining when life actually begins or better said when a clump of cells is considered a "living thing".

Each individual cell is a living thing isn't it?

Maybe they should bring in a law that says when the embryo takes and a healthy child is born any left over embryos should be distroyed. Your in ensence only buying one child per treatment.

panda100

Has there been any official statements from the catholic community in Ireland over this case?

Not too sure where I stand on this.I dont think its fair on the father if the court rules in the mothers favour.However,we all started as a diploid zygote and all have the right to life.
I guess I agree with mother Teresa in the sense that there wont be peace in the world until there's peace in the womb.

panda100

UU wrote:

.

Anyway, the "right to life" is a right that's a bit watery in that when does one actually have rights? How can a clump of cells have rights if they're not even a fully formed person yet. What's next? We'll be giving rights to bacteria. :

the one thing I cant stand about pro-choice/pro life debates is the language that some people and imagery some people use.They really lower the tone of a decent debate.
A clump of cells??
Comparing a unicellular bacteria to a multicellular embryo??

robindch

> A clump of cells?

Like it or not, that's what we all start out as -- the product of an oocyte and sperm which combine to give a single-cell life-form known as a fertilized egg, then a clump of cells, then an embryo, baby etc, etc. Or you can say that we started out as an exotic mixture of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur and a few other bits and bobs. Or you could say that we are part of a living world directly connected, offspring to parent(s) over the generations of four billion years. Our biological heritage is quite remarkable when you think about it (unless you're a creationist).

ISAW

bluewolf wrote:

But the morning after pill is emergency contraception, not post-conception stuff.
I'm with the father on this one. If she's so concerned about having children, she can find someone else to be the father.

Apparently not. Didnt she have ovarian cancer and had them removed. the only eggs she has are the already fertilised ones AFAIK.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

The morning after pill, as well as effecting the release of an egg, also is thought to prevent implantation of a fertalised egg, though how it does this, or even if it actually does, is hard to tell.

So techincally it is a post fertalisation method of "contraception"

Not if conception is considered under law to be when a person is formed. That would make the morning after pill an abortifacient. Now the point is whether these fertilised eggs on the shelf have rights under law. even if they dont the second point is who owns them.

ISAW

UU wrote:

Well a "living thing" is scientifically defined by the five characteristics of life: organisation, nutrition, excretion, response and reproduction. That could be a start to defining when life actually begins or better said when a clump of cells is considered a "living thing".

Ah but there is a world of difference between a "living thing" and a "living being". the skin cell on you hand are living. The grass is living. dogs and cats.
they all have legal status to different degrees. whether a blastocyst is a person or whether a person can exist before that stage is the question. Certainy a "potential" person may exist but legislating for that is like legislating for "potential" murderers.

As for the relgious point of view, firstly there is no proof that a soul actually exists - that lies in faith, and if it does exist nobody knows when a "living thing" obtains a spirit.

there is no proof that "all people are equal." Yet it is held to be self evident under law and on that basis anti racism laws are created.

Anyway, the "right to life" is a right that's a bit watery in that when does one actually have rights?

Do you mean enumerated or unenumerated rights? I mean written down or just there anyway?

How can a clump of cells have rights if they're not even a fully formed person yet. What's next? We'll be giving rights to bacteria. After all, isn't it wrong to kill and they're defined as living as they have the five characteristics of life. :rolleyes:

Non human life has rights. Dogs and cats have a right not to be mistreated. One could argue the environment has or may have rights. Even dead things. Even a dead person could be given the right of a decent funeral. And non human persons such as corporate bodies have rights. Paraplegics could be regarded as "not fully formed". So dont roll your eyes up when people talk about rights of the unborn.

ISAW

stevejazzx wrote:

This seems very simple to me, in order for it happen there needs to be mutual consent which the man has denied. Case closed.

they already had a child by IVF before they split up! therefore the man ALREADY gave his consent. Case opened again! How can he now withdraw the consent that he already gave?

Otherwise why have that provision to begin with? The woman is clearly asking way too much, in fact if you think why would she want another child of a man who is now in another realtionship?

Maybe because she had cancer and had her ovaries removed and the only eggs she can use are the already fertilised ones he already consented to her using?

Time to move on for that woman instead of dragging this through the courts.

But she cant move on. She can only use those egs if she wants her own eggs used. where she is maybe going too far is in demanding the man support the child for life and fund it up to eighteen. But she may have that right if the implantation is successful.

Asiaprod

ISAW wrote:

They already had a child by IVF before they split up! therefore the man ALREADY gave his consent. Case opened again! How can he now withdraw the consent that he already gave?

In general, when one give consent to something it is a reaction to the situation going on at that moment. You make it sound like his agreement was a life long agreement. This I do not buy. Any future attempts at implantation would need to be discussed and agreed upon once again. It is IMO not a legal issue, its a personal one. Until science finds a way to unfertilized the eggs, if the male says no thats it. I may be wrong on this, would not surprise me, when I went to school we were taught that the life component was deemed to be the male sperm. Has this changed? As to demanding the man support the child for life and fund it up to eighteen, that is absolutely ridiculous. Any sympathy I may have had for this woman and her predicament went strait out the window when I read that bit.

metrovelvet

Asiaprod wrote:

In general, when one give consent to something it is a reaction to the situation going on at that moment. You make it sound like his agreement was a life long agreement. .

Except that having a child with someone is a lifelong agreement. It's not something you can take back.

Is the fact that they are frozen make them NOT alive? [A bit like cryogenics] The embryos are not growing, not evolving, they are static. Does that make them NOT alive?

Dades

metrovelvet wrote:

Except that having a child with someone is a lifelong agreement. It's not something you can take back.

So once you consent to have one child with someone, you automatically consent to having as many more as they want, regardless of your relationship with them? This is a fluffy argument and not one grounded in reality.

metrovelvet wrote:

Is the fact that they are frozen make them NOT alive? [A bit like cryogenics] The embryos are not growing, not evolving, they are static. Does that make them NOT alive?

They are alive, like every cell in your body.
I don't think the fact they are frozen has any relevance to the issue.

metrovelvet

They are alive, like every cell in your body.
I don't think the fact they are frozen has any relevance to the issue.

I was thinking along the lines of cryogenics.

So once you consent to have one child with someone, you automatically consent to having as many more as they want, regardless of your relationship with them? This is a fluffy argument and not one grounded in reality.

Well, if according to you the embryos are alive, then the kids already exist, but its a question of who has sovreignty over whether the life can actualise?

Dades

metrovelvet wrote:

Well, if according to you the embryos are alive, then the kids already exist, but its a question of who has sovreignty over whether the life can actualise?

Actually you're the one making the jump from embryos to kids. Most kids I know are larger than a pinhead and somewhat more developed.

Whoever's genes are invoved has sovreignty, and like impregnation by natural methods, both parties should have the right to "pull out".

Asiaprod

metrovelvet wrote:

Except that having a child with someone is a lifelong agreement. It's not something you can take back

For your information, I have one and am working on number two. And I am in a lifelong agreement with my better half to raise them. But then I am not seperated and in a new relationship. The person in question is not in a lifelong commitment with his partner, I believe she seperated from him, and has found someone new. He does not want to raise new children with his estranged wife. Added to this, the wife expects him to pay and support for life any new children. I wonder what would have happened if she had asked him could she use the embryos and told him that he did not need to concern himself with their upbrining unless he wanted to. Would he have refused her?

Is the fact that they are frozen make them NOT alive? [A bit like cryogenics] The embryos are not growing, not evolving, they are static. Does that make them NOT alive?

Yes, as has already been mentioned they are alive, but they have no life and will continue to have no life, and if you understood at all the belief system I am part of you would realize that from my perspective this is the worst possible situation these embryos could be in. I would stay neutral on the issue of adults in this situation, but I would very much like to see the embryos either destroyed or given up for what ever the equivalent action of adoption would be in this case.