Right to life - where does it begin?

Flamed Diving

I realise that this thread may kick off, but hopefully people can remain calm as I have a few questions.

I lived with a couple of evangelicals who were (obviously) opposed to abortion. My other housemate was an atheist and his opinion was rather extreme in thinking that as long as the child is connected to the mother, it should be her choice to abort. The other housemate (evangelical) was of the opinion that abortion of any kind was wrong, as this denied the right to life. However, I felt that if aborting a zygote is denying right to life, where does this line of reasoning end? For me, it certainly doesn't end at terminating a zygote. Surely using a condom or withdrawing at climax counts as denying the possibility of life? Surely abstaining from sex counts as this. I know these may seem like extreme examples, but the evangelical was claiming to be on one extreme in contrast to the other guy, whilst I was occupying this allegedly illogical 'middle ground'.

What do you think?




Note: I dont want this to turn into a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong. We are working from the position that it is wrong and where we draw the line on the 'potential of life'.

AtomicHorror

To me the only thing that sets a zygote apart from any other cell is the new recombination of genes in its nucleus. Killing a single cell poses no ethical problem for me. Countless of my cells die every day, some even inadvertently killed by me. It is only the new genome that posses an ethical problem for me. The potential would make me reluctant to destroy it. In terms of right to life, as in the becoming of a human, that to me could arguably be extended to a point post birth. Humanity is for me defined by coherent consciousness, self awareness and empathy. Not things present in an infant and not easy things to measure by any means. Of course advocating post birth abortion would never fly and in the absence of a meaningful way to measure humanity and given that such a measure would differ for every individual, nor should it.

JimiTime

the difference between a sperm or egg and a Zygote, is that a Zygote is a young human. It is growing. The gift of life has been imparted on it. If it fails to develop any further, is it counted a a human being? TBH, I don't know. As a Christian, I think only God can really say. Though I would personally say that in the absence of this knowledge, it would be ethically wrong to abort a human at any stage in its growing. Is Zygote a term that dehumanises the growing child? Maybe, maybe not. Will god resurrect what we would call Zygotes? Honestly, I don't know. I would not encourage their killing though. Thats my 2 cent on it from my present understanding.

kelly1

Flamed Diving wrote: »

My other housemate was an atheist and his opinion was rather extreme in thinking that as long as the child is connected to the mother, it should be her choice to abort.

God creates life and God alone has the right to call a soul from this earthly life.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The other housemate (evangelical) was of the opinion that abortion of any kind was wrong, as this denied the right to life.

I agree with this.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

However, I felt that if aborting a zygote is denying right to life, where does this line of reasoning end? For me, it certainly doesn't end at terminating a zygote. Surely using a condom or withdrawing at climax counts as denying the possibility of life?

Absolutely! Any form of contraception frustrates God's designs. Sexual intercourse and openness to life must never be separated. Humanae Vitae explains this.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Surely abstaining from sex counts as this.

Abstention from sex can most certainly be compatible with God's will. Many Catholic saints have been virgins and those who weren't virgin lived chaste lives after consecrating their lives to God. Within marriage, couples who don't have the resources to bring new life into the world can practice periodic abstinence and still enjoy sex without resorting to contraception.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Note: I dont want this to turn into a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong. We are working from the position that it is wrong and where we draw the line on the 'potential of life'.

Before the egg and sperm meet, new life isn't possible and when they meet life becomes possible. The moment of conception has to be defining moment.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

... Humanity is for me defined by coherent consciousness, self awareness and empathy. Not things present in an infant and not easy things to measure by any means.

Your definition will run in problems. For instance, how long do you need to be in coma before you are no longer humane? At what time did you stop being a human? And for a baby/zygote, what does make it a human?

Any definition for human life that that starting with the fusion of egg/sperm to create a new life in the mother's womb will run into serious problems imho.

Mark Hamill

Flamed Diving wrote: »

However, I felt that if aborting a zygote is denying right to life, where does this line of reasoning end? For me, it certainly doesn't end at terminating a zygote. Surely using a condom or withdrawing at climax counts as denying the possibility of life?

The problem with equating using a condomn as denying the possibility of life is that even then if you don't use a condomn, you are still denying millions of possible lives of existence because only one sperm out of the millions present can fertilize the egg, the rest die.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Your definition will run in problems. For instance, how long do you need to be in coma before you are no longer humane? At what time did you stop being a human?

I wouldn't claim my definition to be water-tight or final at all. The issue is wide open for me and I have never reached a conclusion on the matters of abortion or non-consenting euthanasia. I suppose I would modify my definition to state that humanity is defined by the actuality and potential for consciousness and it's associated characteristics. A coma victim with an intact brain and the potential for conscious thought is thus protected.

I'm sure there are still moral crises attached to my revised definition.

santing wrote: »

And for a baby/zygote, what does make it a human?

By my definition, it would not be possible to protect the life of the unborn on the basis of "right to life". That does not constitute open season on the unborn, as I think there are other considerations. The unborn may still feel physical pain as an animal would, which is undesirable. A zygote still constitutes a unique genetic recombination, which presents moral problems not associated with human rights.

santing wrote: »

Any definition for human life that that starting with the fusion of egg/sperm to create a new life in the mother's womb will run into serious problems imho.

It is likely that without a deeper understanding in terms of both science and philosophy, most definitions of life will run into great difficulty. Also, given that abortion and euthanasia are emotive issues, these will always come into conflict with efforts to define rules in a purely rational manner.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

Your definition will run in problems. For instance, how long do you need to be in coma before you are no longer humane? At what time did you stop being a human? And for a baby/zygote, what does make it a human?

People in comas still have functioning brains. Whether you "pull the plug" is largely up to the wishes of the person themselves, as some people don't like the idea of forever living in that state. I would be against pulling the plug on someone simply because they are in a coma.

A better question when contrasting with something like a zygote, would be how long do you keep a brain dead person alive on life support? Most people I would imagine (including a lot of Christians) would say not very long, considering a brain dead person is generally considered to be dead.

To me this would strongly suggest that people recognize that personhood is a product of the human brain. Once the brain is damaged beyond repair or function the person is considered dead, even if the entire rest of their body is functioning perfectly fine.

Of course all this ignores the spiritual aspect of a soul. I would be interested in the Christian idea of how the soul is connected to the brain, for example does a brain dead person continue to have a soul, or when do they think the soul either enters or leaves the body when a body is still technically functioning.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I suppose I would modify my definition to state that humanity is defined by the actuality and potential for consciousness and it's associated characteristics.

May I suggest that a unborn baby (zygote) has the most potential? Just wait a few months...

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

May I suggest that a unborn baby (zygote) has the most potential? Just wait a few months...

A bacterium has the potential, just wait 3 billion years. I mean the potential here and now.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A bacterium has the potential, just wait 3 billion years.

I admire your optimism and faith ... I haven't got enough faith for this!

But that would bring us to another discussion, which has already 11589 posts!

robindch

santing wrote: »

I admire your optimism and faith ... I haven't got enough faith for this!

That's the cool thing about science -- you don't have to take any conclusion based on "faith" in the religious sense! Makes things just so much easier.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

I admire your optimism and faith ... I haven't got enough faith for this!

My point is that we can certainly say that a zygote may have a given potential for consciousness in the future, but none in the present. A coma victim may or may not have the potential for consciousness in the present, depending on many factors. This determines right to life for me. However, we may be compelled to defend the existence of a zygote for other reasons than right to life.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

My point is that we can certainly say that a zygote may have a given potential for consciousness in the future, but none in the present.

How do you know? Unborn babies do react on music, voices, touch etc. How do you define consciousness? How do you measure it? When does consciousness start?

You know the famous philosophical statement "I think/doubt therefore I am" It seems to be a major obstacle to define our consciousness, and the definition seems to be long in philosophy rather than one of the "hard" sciences.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

How do you know? Unborn babies do react on music, voices, touch etc. How do you define consciousness? How do you measure it? When does consciousness start?

You know the famous philosophical statement "I think/doubt therefore I am" It seems to be a major obstacle to define our consciousness, and the definition seems to be long in philosophy rather than one of the "hard" sciences.

A zygote is a single cell ... no brain, no consciousness.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

How do you know? Unborn babies do react on music, voices, touch etc. How do you define consciousness? How do you measure it? When does consciousness start?

A zygote is not an unborn baby. It is a single cell with as much chance of having consciousness as a skin cell. I would still hesitate to render it without value, but it does not have value on the basis of being human in my opinion.

As for the foetus we have observed such reactive behaviour in many species which we consider to not possess human-like consciousness, let alone "a soul" whatever that may be. There is good evidence to suggest that some of the features we associate with human consciousness do not develop in humans until after birth. Empathy and theory of mind may not emerge for a couple of years. This raises serious issues for those who would reject abortion on the basis of human right to life.

Hivemind187

santing wrote: »

How do you know? Unborn babies do react on music, voices, touch etc. How do you define consciousness? How do you measure it? When does consciousness start?

I would point out that plant stems will "bend" to remain in the light as long as possible.

Just sayin' is all ...

djpbarry

kelly1 wrote: »

Absolutely! Any form of contraception frustrates God's designs.
...
Within marriage, couples who don't have the resources to bring new life into the world can practice periodic abstinence and still enjoy sex without resorting to contraception.

But that's still a form of contraception; I don't understand why the means is important when the intent is the same?

kelly1 wrote: »

Before the egg and sperm meet, new life isn't possible and when they meet life becomes possible.

Are the egg and sperm not alive?

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

the difference between a sperm or egg and a Zygote, is that a Zygote is a young human. It is growing. The gift of life has been imparted on it. If it fails to develop any further, is it counted a a human being? TBH, I don't know. As a Christian, I think only God can really say. Though I would personally say that in the absence of this knowledge, it would be ethically wrong to abort a human at any stage in its growing. Is Zygote a term that dehumanises the growing child? Maybe, maybe not. Will god resurrect what we would call Zygotes? Honestly, I don't know. I would not encourage their killing though. Thats my 2 cent on it from my present understanding.

I am an atheist and humanist. There is a spectrum of opinion on abortion within these philosophies. I would be against abortion in most cases.

As for when does life begin, The Roman Catholic Church's position on this was that life began after 3 months for a male and after birth for a female. This position then changed to the moment of conception.

I heard this at a talk about 2 years ago from the Irish Council of Bioethics, but can't find a reference for it.

For me there the issues are:
1. When exactly does life begin?
2. What is the actual potentiality of life?
3. What are the alternative options? Is adoption possible?
4. What are the consequences of having / not having the baby? Is the life of Mother at risk?
5. What are the causes of the pregnancy? Habitual casual sex or rape?

I don't think location or having an attachment to the mother is an issue.

all the stars

kelly1 wrote: »

Absolutely! Any form of contraception frustrates God's designs. Sexual intercourse and openness to life must never be separated.

Just on this - do you not think god would understand that not using condoms can result in say - syphalis- and potentially can kill you as you will be unaware you have it til the damage is well done?
Not think he would be against syphalis?
Would he not understand that these days, you can catch very nasty STD's that definatly will end your fertility and definatly interfere with the whole creating life... ?

(not trying to provoke - this is quite a sincere question)

Biro

Tim Robbins wrote: »

For me there the issues are:
1. When exactly does life begin?
2. What is the actual potentiality of life?

These are two questions which I consider impossible to answer, if even only to find common ground with those who differ.
Taking the first one, if the moment of life beginning is at conception, some people argue that this zygote has no brain therefore is not human. Taking this arguement further - at some point between the zygote existing and when you can see a foetus developing a brain comes into the equation. Can anyone ever say for sure when that moment is?
For me, I'm happy saying that the point of conception is the point of human life beginning. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
I can see the logic behind arguements stating that the zygote isn't yet human, however I can't see any arguement for saying that a 9 month old baby still in the womb is not yet human cause it's still "attached to the mother" as opposed to a baby the same age who is already born.
Taking the 2nd point, I don't believe potential has much if anything to do with it. I don't think a human is defined solely by it's brain. A foetus with a defective condition where part of the brain is not developed doesn't render that foetus non-human. If it did, would that mean it comes under the care of the ISPCA?

Biro

all the stars wrote: »

Just on this - do you not think god would understand that not using condoms can result in say - syphalis- and potentially can kill you as you will be unaware you have it til the damage is well done?
Not think he would be against syphalis?
Would he not understand that these days, you can catch very nasty STD's that definatly will end your fertility and definatly interfere with the whole creating life... ?

(not trying to provoke - this is quite a sincere question)

Well, if you take the arguement that if you (both parties) only have sex with your husband/wife then that negates the risk of syphalis, then surely that'd negate the need for condoms to protect against same?

djpbarry

Biro wrote: »

For me, I'm happy saying that the point of conception is the point of human life beginning.

There's no such thing as the "point" of conception; it's not like it's an instantaneous reaction. Defining the point of conception is just as ambiguous as defining any other "point" in the gestation process.

Biro

djpbarry wrote: »

There's no such thing as the "point" of conception; it's not like it's an instantaneous reaction. Defining the point of conception is just as ambiguous as defining any other "point" in the gestation process.

Very true.

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

Well, if you take the arguement that if you (both parties) only have sex with your husband/wife then that negates the risk of syphalis, then surely that'd negate the need for condoms to protect against same?

Considering it is possible to catch without having sex various infections that can be spread through sexual contact, it would be rather naive to assume the need for condoms is negated simply because both people are virgins at marriage. That is before you get to the fact that most people, Christian or otherwise, aren't virgins at marriage. it is the ideal to strive for, not the reality.

Tim Robbins

Biro wrote: »

These are two questions which I consider impossible to answer, if even only to find common ground with those who differ.

Yes they can be head benders alright.

But we know what is there at each stage. All the chromozones and DNA are there at conception. The brain is there at 11 weeks.

I think potentiality does matter. A zygote has a much better chance of personhood than a bunch of sperm. A fetus has a much better chance of personhood than a zygote. So if someone argues, that wasting sperm is wrong if killing a zygote or fetus is wrong, that is ridiculous.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering it is possible to catch without having sex various infections that can be spread through sexual contact, it would be rather naive to assume the need for condoms is negated simply because both people are virgins at marriage.

I think this risk is minimal ... but then, I am not an expert on this issue!

Wicknight wrote: »

That is before you get to the fact that most people, Christian or otherwise, aren't virgins at marriage. it is the ideal to strive for, not the reality.

You are right, but it is sad. People listen more to peers and Holywood than to straightforward Biblical teaching.

Heb 13:4 GNB Marriage is to be honored by all, and husbands and wives must be faithful to each other. God will judge those who are immoral and those who commit adultery.

Or maybe we preachers do no longer dare to emphasize (or believe) this?

Biro

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering it is possible to catch without having sex various infections that can be spread through sexual contact, it would be rather naive to assume the need for condoms is negated simply because both people are virgins at marriage.

Would you really be worried about it or any of the other rampant STD's if everyone in the world only had sex after they were married to their partners?
It might be in the "possible to get" diseases, but the likely hood would be dramatically reduced.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is before you get to the fact that most people, Christian or otherwise, aren't virgins at marriage. it is the ideal to strive for, not the reality.

That's a different discussion really, I was just taking one hypothetical question about God's opinion on something and countering it with an ideal that maybe God would approve of (I can't say for sure - I'm only human and can only make best guesses!).

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

That's a different discussion really, I was just taking one hypothetical question about God's opinion on something and countering it with an ideal that maybe God would approve of (I can't say for sure - I'm only human and can only make best guesses!).

Well I doubt God would expect people to live in an unideal world as if it was an ideal world.

Strive to remain celibate until marriage and try and marry someone who also has, but recognise that this rarely happens and that even if it does it is not a guarantee. Take steps to protect your health.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

You are right, but it is sad. People listen more to peers and Holywood than to straightforward Biblical teaching.

Well remaining celibate until marriage might have been a bit easier when people got married at 14.

In this day and age, when people often don't get married until their late 20s or early 30s it is more of a struggle against biology.

Our bodies become sexual developed from about 16 onwards. Expecting someone to wait 10 years after that until they eventually have sex is rather unrealistic and unnatural.

Equally expecting someone to be able to make the commitment to a life long partnership with little or no experience of relationships as many in their late teens or early twenties have, is equally unrealistic.

So you get young people who don't (and probably shouldn't) get married who are in romantic relationships and (often very) sexually aware.

I think it is more a question of listening to biology than Hollywood or peer pressure.

santing wrote: »

[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Or maybe we preachers do no longer dare to emphasize (or believe) this?

Well given the prevalence of abstinence only sex education in America, Africa and other parts of the world I don't think that is the issue.

Again it is a reflection of people not getting married until later. I don't think people are starting to have sex earlier, they are getting married at a later stage in their lives so the sex they do have is pre-marital.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Well remaining celibate until marriage might have been a bit easier when people got married at 14.

In this day and age, when people often don't get married until their late 20s or early 30s it is more of a struggle against biology.

Our bodies become sexual developed from about 16 onwards. Expecting someone to wait 10 years after that until they eventually have sex is rather unrealistic and unnatural.

Equally expecting someone to be able to make the commitment to a life long partnership with little or no experience of relationships as many in their late teens or early twenties have, is equally unrealistic.

So you get young people who don't (and probably shouldn't) get married who are in romantic relationships and (often very) sexually aware.

I don't think the age of marriage is the only or the sole contributor to the problem, but I agree that being celibate until 14 is much easier than being celibate until 40..

During the Middle Ages women married as early as fourteen. Men generally waited until they were in their twenties or early thirties. In 1427, the average male did not marry until he was in his mid-30's, usually choosing a bride about half his age. Rich girls seemed to marry at a younger age than poor girls.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it is more a question of listening to biology than Hollywood or peer pressure.

One of the Christian virtues is Self Control. This does not apply only to sexual activity of course, but it is also applicable to it.
In the Middle Ages until the 19th century there were many sons and daughters that couldn't marry due to financial and/or heritage restrictions. Do you assume they all had extramarital sex?

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

I don't think the age of marriage is the only or the sole contributor to the problem

See that is the thing. I think the "problem" as you call it, has always existed, but it appears new because of the changing attitudes to sex.

As your quote says women got married very young, the reason being the men wanted virgins. The man most likely wouldn't have been a virgin, but there is little physical sign of this so it was easy to pretend.

The idea that modern society has created a most lusty sexual promiscuous population is largely a myth.

santing wrote: »

Do you assume they all had extramarital sex?

Most definitely. Humans are designed with strong instinct to have sex and to procreate. Biological evolution knows very little about the size of ones dowry or the religion one follows.

Do you assume they didn't?

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

See that is the thing. I think the "problem" as you call it, has always existed, but it appears new because of the changing attitudes to sex.

As your quote says women got married very young, the reason being the men wanted virgins. The man most likely wouldn't have been a virgin, but there is little physical sign of this so it was easy to pretend.

The idea that modern society has created a most lusty sexual promiscuous population is largely a myth.

I am indeed of the opinion that sexual promiscuity as it is today is a problem of the corruption of the western society. I found an article that dates it back to the 1920's ... I am not sure if that is right, but it would support my view that the problem is "recent."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/199998/the_decade_that_gave_birth_to_sexual.html?cat=47

I am not saying that it didn't happen before the 19th centruy, but not on the scale as today and it was definitely not accepted by the society at large.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

I am indeed of the opinion that sexual promiscuity as it is today is a problem of the corruption of the western society. I found an article that dates it back to the 1920's ... I am not sure if that is right, but it would support my view that the problem is "recent."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/199998/the_decade_that_gave_birth_to_sexual.html?cat=47

I am not saying that it didn't happen before the 19th centruy, but not on the scale as today and it was definitely not accepted by the society at large.

Premarital sex for males in the 17th and 18th century was accepted as perfectly normal so long as it remained hush-hush.

There certainly existed a double standard with women, as this was still an age when it was important that a woman produce a heir for the man. Which is why, as you say, women got married young, men got married later, after they had had their "fun"

What you are witnessing in the 20th century is not an increase in sexual promiscuity, but a re-balancing of gender roles when it comes to marriage.

Anyway, this is all going a little off topic

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Anyway, this is all going a little off topic

Agree with this, so maybe its time to stop this direction of the discussion

MrPudding

santing wrote: »

One of the Christian virtues is Self Control. T

Why is it a christian virtue? Self control was needed and evident long before christianity. Self control is a virtue of humanity which was born of necessity quite independently of religion.

MrP

santing

MrPudding wrote: »

Why is it a christian virtue? Self control was needed and evident long before christianity. Self control is a virtue of humanity which was born of necessity quite independently of religion.

What's your point, MrP? I didn't say or claim that self control is exclusive Christian, I just indicated that it has a special status in Christianity. Self Control outside of Christianity might make a nice other discussion.

Bryan Habana

I believe that the right to life begins at conception. A cell from each parent combine to form a new life, albeit one lacking in complexity but never the less with the potential for growth and development. I feel that killing this life is fundamentally wrong and something that needs legal safe guarding.

Zombrex

Bryan Habana wrote: »

I believe that the right to life begins at conception. A cell from each parent combine to form a new life, albeit one lacking in complexity but never the less with the potential for growth and development. I feel that killing this life is fundamentally wrong and something that needs legal safe guarding.

Are the sperm and egg cells not alive?

Do the sperm and egg cells not have the potential for growth and development?

Bryan Habana

Wicknight wrote: »

Are the sperm and egg cells not alive?

Do the sperm and egg cells not have the potential for growth and development?

Yes they do. But by right to life I was referring to the life of the newly formed individual at conception rather than individual body cells of parents.

Zombrex

Bryan Habana wrote: »

Yes they do. But by right to life I was referring to the life of the newly formed individual at conception rather than individual body cells of parents.

well yes I got that, my point was that your criteria of why the zygote has this right can also apply to the sperm and egg cells. The zygote is after all simply the sperm and egg cells of joined together. It is highly debatable if these cells are part of the parents, they are designed to survive independently of the parents. To me they would be the first cells of the new life form.

Bryan Habana

Wicknight wrote: »

well yes I got that, my point was that your criteria of why the zygote has this right can also apply to the sperm and egg cells.

Yes that's true. There can be various legal safeguardings protecting the egg and sperm (especially regarding medical research or whatever). But I don't believe those rights extend to any one individual in particular in the same way as when the individual is actually conceived after fusion. At that point your dealing with an entirely new person (albeit one at an early stage of development) rather than seperate sex cells. That would be my view but thanks for sharing a different angle.

I personally don't count the zygote as part of the respective parents. It is very much dependent on the mother for survival. But none the less is a life in it's own right.