The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...

Sam Vimes

I've picked an "arbitrary" post to move the start the OT discussion thread.
Dades

---

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course they need to.

Life begins at conception?
Why?
Because that is when the soul enters the body.

I've had that discussion so many times I have lost count. :rolleyes:

I'd say that life begins at conception because that's the point that a new genetic pattern distinct from both parents comes into existence inside a single cell which is unlike any other because it can divide until a full human is formed, which it begins to do from the moment it comes into existence

I'm honestly confused by people who claim that life doesn't begin at conception when it's so incredibly obvious that it does. I've never seen any justification for the stance that amounts to any more than "I don't want it to" and I've never got a definitive answer on where it's actually supposed to begin. The point always changes based on the person's abortion views.

Here's a white paper on the topic:
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113

summary:

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned
public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article
considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two
central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg
interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg?
and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based
on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into
existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a
second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of
events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic
development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm
or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific
evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the
life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of
conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and
independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life
or of human embryos.

Whatever about your abortion views, if you're going to argue that life doesn't begin at conception you're going to be proven wrong because it does. Whether it becomes a "person" (by your own personal definition of what constitutes a person) is another matter entirely however

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

I've lost count of the times I've had this discussion with someone who doesn't understand or see a difference between simply being alive and something having the rights that we attribute to some life forms.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd say that life begins at conception because that's the point that a new genetic pattern distinct from both parents comes into existence inside a single cell which is unlike any other because it can divide until a full human is formed, which it begins to do from the moment it comes into existence

I'm honestly confused by people who claim that life doesn't begin at conception when it's so incredibly obvious that it does. I've never seen any justification for the stance that amounts to any more than "I don't want it to" and I've never got a definitive answer on where it's actually supposed to begin. The point always changes based on the person's abortion views.

Here's a white paper on the topic:
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113

summary:


Whatever about your abortion views, if you're going to argue that life doesn't begin at conception you're going to be proven wrong because it does. Whether it becomes a "person" (by your own personal definition of what constitutes a person) is another matter entirely however

I know you lost count Wickie, but you can add one more to the endless list.

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I know you lost count Wickie, but you can add one more to the endless list.

Well that's not what I was responding to and that's why I made the distinction at the end "Whether it becomes a "person" (by your own personal definition of what constitutes a person) is another matter entirely however". I'm talking specifically about the claim that life doesn't begin at conception when it clearly does. The issue of the conferral of rights is a different kettle of foetuses

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well that's not what I was responding to and that's why I made the distinction at the end "Whether it becomes a "person" (by your own personal definition of what constitutes a person) is another matter entirely however". I'm talking specifically about the claim that life doesn't begin at conception when it clearly does. The issue of the conferral of rights is a different kettle of foetuses

Mmm! Foetuses...

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd say that life begins at conception because that's the point that a new genetic pattern distinct from both parents comes into existence inside a single cell

Why does that mean life "begins"? For example, when a cell mutates in your body it has a different, new genetic pattern distinct from the parent cells. Does this mean that this cell is a new distinct life form? Defining life distinct from other life based on whether it has different genetic material is riddled with problems. Plenty of cells in side your body have different genetic material. And then there is the idea of cloning. Say someone cloned you. Same genetic material. Same life form? Different life form? If different why if life is separated from other life based on when genetic material changes. The reverse of that surely is that cells that share the same genetic material are all the same life form. If you are distinct from your parents because you genetic material has changed then surely you and your cloned/twin brother are the same life form because it hasn't?

I also have issue with the idea that life begins. It is not that I think life beginning at conception is wrong because I think it begins at a different point, it is the whole idea of life beginning. Life began 3.5 billion years ago and it hasn't stopped. The chemical reaction that is your body did not begin at the moment of conception. It began billions of years ago. You, your body, are simply the current state it finds itself it. It began once, a long long time ago, and hasn't stopped.

Picking conception to me is simply picking an arbitrary point for an arbitrary reason, at least until someone can give me a good reason. Ok, so the new cell has different genetic code than it's parents. Now what? Why does that mean anything in relation to life or the value we place on life?

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Why does that mean life "begins"? For example, when a cell mutates in your body it has a different, new genetic pattern distinct from the parent cells. Does this mean that this cell is a new distinct life form? Defining life distinct from other life based on whether it has different genetic material is riddled with problems. Plenty of cells in side your body have different genetic material. And then there is the idea of cloning. Say someone cloned you. Same genetic material. Same life form? Different life form? If different why if life is separated from other life based on when genetic material changes. The reverse of that surely is that cells that share the same genetic material are all the same life form. If you are distinct from your parents because you genetic material has changed then surely you and your cloned/twin brother are the same life form because it hasn't?

That's covered pretty well by the bit you cut off

Sam Vimes wrote:

I'd say that life begins at conception because that's the point that a new genetic pattern distinct from both parents comes into existence inside a single cell which is unlike any other because it can divide until a full human is formed, which it begins to do from the moment it comes into existence

Wicknight wrote: »

I also have issue with the idea that life begins. It is not that I think life beginning at conception is wrong because I think it begins at a different point, it is the whole idea of life beginning. Life began 3.5 billion years ago and it hasn't stopped. The chemical reaction that is your body did not begin at the moment of conception. It began billions of years ago. You, your body, are simply the current state it finds itself it. It began once, a long long time ago, and hasn't stopped.

Well that's an argument that each individual life has no beginning which is clearly not the case. I'm not talking about life in general, I'm talking about the life of an individual

Wicknight wrote: »

Picking conception to me is simply picking an arbitrary point for an arbitrary reason, at least until someone can give me a good reason. Ok, so the new cell has different genetic code than it's parents. Now what? Why does that mean anything in relation to life or the value we place on life?

Having different genetic material isn't a necessity as in the case of clones. It's when you put that genetic material into this particular cell that is unique in that it is the only cell that immediately upon creation begins the to divide until a full human being is formed that a new life has begun. I'm not arguing anything to do with rights or lack thereof, I'm simply pointing out the scientific fact that a new life begins at conception

Picking conception is in fact the only possible non-arbitrary point. What point would you pick?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's covered pretty well by the bit you cut off

Not really as I hope I explain below.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well that's an argument that each individual life has no beginning which is clearly not the case.

How is it clearly not the case. Can you define a point in the process where something was not living?

You are two cells that broke away from your parents. Are you defining you an individual from your parents simply because these cells are no long in your parents body? If so why, why does that matter. Again it is arbitrary.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's when you put that genetic material into this particular cell that is unique in that it is the only cell that immediately upon creation begins the to divide until a full human being is formed that a new life has begun.

Again there are whole set of problems with that definition.

How do you define a "full human"? If a zygote dies without being able to grow to a full human then does that not mean it wasn't a life form given that to be an individual life for the new cell must be able to grow into a "full human"?

It is also circular since you are defining an individual human based on the ability to become an individual human.

The best way to see the fallacy of seeing the zygote as an individual is if a zygote is an individual and it then splits in embryo stage to form two twins, are they the same individual? If not, why not?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Picking conception is in fact the only possible non-arbitrary point. What point would you pick?

You are working on the assumption that there must be a point. But my point about the continuation of life is that it doesn't seem that life is easily classified as we would like.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

How is it clearly not the case. Can you define a point in the process where something was not living?

Again, life in general versus an individual life

Wicknight wrote: »

You are two cells that broke away from your parents. Are you defining you an individual from your parents simply because these cells are no long in your parents body? If so why, why does that matter. Again it is arbitrary.

No I'm defining it as the point where a cell is formed which is unlike any other because it can divide until a full human is formed, which it begins to do from the moment it comes into existence

Wicknight wrote: »

Again there are whole set of problems with that definition.

How do you define a "full human"? If a zygote dies without being able to grow to a full human then does that not mean it wasn't a life form given that to be an individual life for the new cell must be able to grow into a "full human"?

When I say full human I mean a baby that has just been born. The fact that the process might be stopped in its tracks by an accident or an abortion does not mean that the zygote had not begun the process that only it is capable of

Wicknight wrote: »

It is also circular since you are defining an individual human based on the ability to become an individual human.

No I'm not I'm defining the zygote as a new life by the unique ability to divide until a fully developed human is formed

Wicknight wrote: »

The best way to see the fallacy of seeing the zygote as an individual is if a zygote is an individual and it then splits in embryo stage to form two twins, are they the same individual? If not, why not?

They're not because both of those entities have the capability of developing into fully formed humans and begin to do so as soon as they come into existence

Wicknight wrote: »

You are working on the assumption that there must be a point. But my point about the continuation of life is that it doesn't seem that life is easily classified as we would like.

You see I think it is very easy to classify until people have a vested interest in defining it some other way.

Naz_st

Wicknight wrote: »

How is it clearly not the case. Can you define a point in the process where something was not living?

Perhaps you should both define what you mean by "living". Neither the fully formed embyronic cell, nor the gametes that went into creating it would be defined as "living" under the biological definition of life (briefly, a living thing will "undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations")

But there is still a distinction in that, on it's own, the embryonic cell has the potential to be "living" under the biological definition and the gamete does not.

You are two cells that broke away from your parents. Are you defining you an individual from your parents simply because these cells are no long in your parents body? If so why, why does that matter. Again it is arbitrary.

Well, the "two cells" that broke away aren't the same as normal cells. While most cells in a human body contain all the necessary genetic material for the whole body, the gametes do not. They are unlike the other cells of the parents as they only have half the number of chromosomes.

How do you define a "full human"? If a zygote dies without being able to grow to a full human then does that not mean it wasn't a life form given that to be an individual life for the new cell must be able to grow into a "full human"?

It isn't a "lifeform" period. It does have the potential to become a "full human" (I presume that means being born?) lifeform.

The best way to see the fallacy of seeing the zygote as an individual is if a zygote is an individual and it then splits in embryo stage to form two twins, are they the same individual? If not, why not?

They are identical at that moment, subsequent environmental and random processes ultimately differentiate them. The concept of an "individual" is irrelevant here as it is inherently linked to complex higher brain function and is a far later development than evident at this stage.

You are working on the assumption that there must be a point. But my point about the continuation of life is that it doesn't seem that life is easily classified as we would like.

There is a difference between a "lifeform" and "life", which perhaps is being blurred here? I think it is objectively self-evident that at some point in the past of each individual "lifeform" there was a moment when it was not "alive" and subsequently was. Your argument seems to be conflating individual lifeforms with the broader concept of life in general?

Edit: Oops, didn't see Sam's reply that covered a lot of that... my bad!

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

Perhaps you should both define what you mean by "living". Neither the fully formed embyronic cell, nor the gametes that went into creating it would be defined as "living" under the biological definition of life (briefly, a living thing will "undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations")

But there is still a distinction in that, on it's own, the embryonic cell has the potential to be "living" under the biological definition and the gamete does not.

The zygote undergoes metabolism, maintains homeostasis and possesses a capacity to grow. It does not respond to stimuli as far as we know and cannot reproduce but then a child can't reproduce yet either until it hits puberty. And the link does specify that "The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena". Sounds to me like it does meet the definition

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The zygote undergoes metabolism, maintains homeostasis and possesses a capacity to grow.

The mother does the metabolism and homeostasis for the zygote until quite far into the pregnancy. It also doesn't possess a capacity to grow without the mother.

It does not respond to stimuli as far as we know and cannot reproduce but then a child can't reproduce yet either until it hits puberty.

A child possesses the capacity to reproduce at some point, without external intervention, the zygote does not.

And the link does specify that "The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena". Sounds to me like it does meet the definition

The only criteria it meets is that of organisation, in that it is structurally composed of one or more cells.

Goduznt Xzst

Naz_st wrote: »

Perhaps you should both define what you mean by "living".

From reading this argument, it isn't about the definition of "life", rather it's about the much more sticky idea of "value of life". I'm with Wicknight in this regard, you are not going to be able to explain why, at conception, the material in a womans body suddenly has obtained value.

There is no way for you to neutrally explain why you believe matter at conception inherits value, ergo, you are subjective in your understanding. I am likewise. In such, you may define abortion as wrong for yourself, but you do not have the right to define it for others. Further, I would never personally have an abortion or recommend it, but I do acknowledge the subjective nature of the argument, so accept that the freedom should be allowed for the individual to decide where they place value regarding existence.

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

The mother does the metabolism and homeostasis for the zygote until quite far into the pregnancy.

Does it? Does the mother only pass over energy to the child? I don't think that's the case tbh

Naz_st wrote: »

It also doesn't possess a capacity to grow without the mother.

And you don't possess the capacity to grow without eating food. Every life form gets food in one way or another

Naz_st wrote: »

A child possesses the capacity to reproduce at some point, without external intervention, the zygote does not.

If it stays as a zygote it doesn't but the whole point is that the very second it becomes a zygote is begins the process of cell division that will one day allow it to reproduce. That process begins at conception and ends at puberty

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

From reading this argument, it isn't about the definition of "life", rather it's about the much more sticky idea of "value of life". I'm with Wicknight in this regard, you are not going to be able to explain why, at conception, the material in a womans body suddenly has obtained value.

There is no way for you to neutrally explain why you believe matter at conception inherits value, ergo, you are subjective in your understanding. I am likewise. In such, you may define abortion as wrong for yourself, but you do not have the right to define it for others. Further, I would never personally have an abortion or recommend it, but I do acknowledge the subjective nature of the argument, so accept that the freedom should be allowed for the individual to decide where they place value regarding existence.

This particular argument is actually about the definition of life. I'm deliberately not saying anything about the value of life, just correcting the common misconception that a zygote is not a life.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

There is no way for you to neutrally explain why you believe matter at conception inherits value, ergo, you are subjective in your understanding. I am likewise. In such, you may define abortion as wrong for yourself, but you do not have the right to define it for others. Further, I would never personally have an abortion or recommend it, but I do acknowledge the subjective nature of the argument, so accept that the freedom should be allowed for the individual to decide where they place value regarding existence.

Oh I can explain it but pro choice people reject my explanation. My explanation is "that's the point when a new human life begins". Likewise we can explain to NAMBLA why what they're doing is wrong and they don't accept our explanation but that doesn't mean we should leave them to it. I see a victim so just because someone else chooses to define it so there isn't really a victim doesn't mean they're right

pts

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

From reading this argument, it isn't about the definition of "life", rather it's about the much more sticky idea of "value of life". I'm with Wicknight in this regard, you are not going to be able to explain why, at conception, the material in a womans body suddenly has obtained value.

There is no way for you to neutrally explain why you believe matter at conception inherits value, ergo, you are subjective in your understanding. I am likewise. In such, you may define abortion as wrong for yourself, but you do not have the right to define it for others. Further, I would never personally have an abortion or recommend it, but I do acknowledge the subjective nature of the argument, so accept that the freedom should be allowed for the individual to decide where they place value regarding existence.

QFT, great post. I've been thinking a lot about the subject recently. Was thinking along similar lines, but couldn't put it as well as you have.

Naz_st

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

From reading this argument, it isn't about the definition of "life", rather it's about the much more sticky idea of "value of life". I'm with Wicknight in this regard, you are not going to be able to explain why, at conception, the material in a womans body suddenly has obtained value.

There is no way for you to neutrally explain why you believe matter at conception inherits value, ergo, you are subjective in your understanding. I am likewise. In such, you may define abortion as wrong for yourself, but you do not have the right to define it for others. Further, I would never personally have an abortion or recommend it, but I do acknowledge the subjective nature of the argument, so accept that the freedom should be allowed for the individual to decide where they place value regarding existence.

I agree - that was exactly the sort of further definition that was required.

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does it? Does the mother only pass over energy to the child? I don't think that's the case tbh

The embryo must obtain oxygen and nutrients directly from the mother - how else do you think it gains the energy to grow?

And you don't possess the capacity to grow without eating food. Every life form gets food in one way or another

This really is not the same thing at all. A zygote is completely dependent on the mother for nutrition. It cannot survive independently.

If it stays as a zygote it doesn't but the whole point is that the very second it becomes a zygote is begins the process of cell division that will one day allow it to reproduce. That process begins at conception and ends at puberty

But this process is inherently predicated and dependent on the mother, not so a child. A child will grow independently of any other living organism.

Zillah

Wow.

So, am I the only one who doesn't care about the exact definition of life and how it applies to a foetus? I think a woman has the right to control her body, whether she wants to scoop a zygote from her womb or refuse to donate blood.

I'd make an exception at the point where the foetus is realistically capable of surviving outside the womb; she's had 7/8 months to get an abortion if she wanted.

mewso

I'm just sorry people took the bait and started discussing abortion.

Mickeroo

Would never condone an abortion myself but respect peoples choice to have them. I think there should be a cut off point though ie if the foetus has developed a brain and a nervous system then an abortion should under no circumstances be carried out in my eyes.

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

The embryo must obtain oxygen and nutrients directly from the mother - how else do you think it gains the energy to grow?

This really is not the same thing at all. A zygote is completely dependent on the mother for nutrition. It cannot survive independently.

But this process is inherently predicated and dependent on the mother, not so a child. A child will grow independently of any other living organism.

Pretty much all life forms require other life forms to get nutrients, whether they survive parasitically, eat ticks of them, live in their colons, just eat them the way we do or whether they get the nutrients through a tube attached to another life form. There is no part of the definition of a life form that says it has to be able to survive completely independently of all other life forms because that would exclude pretty much all life as we know it.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again, life in general versus an individual life

I don't see a difference between "life" and individual life. "Individualism" is a human construct, like dividing the seas up. It is like picking a point where the Atlantic turns into the Med. You can pick any point you life but it is arbitrary. In fact so is "Atlantic" and "Mediterranean" for that matter.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I'm defining it as the point where a cell is formed which is unlike any other because it can divide until a full human is formed, which it begins to do from the moment it comes into existence

But that is the point about twins. The cells that follow from they zygote can also form individual humans.

So under your definition of what is an individual life form is an embryo one life form or 20?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When I say full human I mean a baby that has just been born. The fact that the process might be stopped in its tracks by an accident or an abortion does not mean that the zygote had not begun the process that only it is capable of

Again that is the point, if the zygote is not capable of doing this (say due to a genetic error), does that mean it is not an individual life form?

You are taking the abstract concept of a zygote that can develop and applying it's properties to a specific zygote that may not actually have this ability.

It is like buying a Ford without any wheels and saying that it is a car because it is a Ford because Fords are cars. Is it a car because it is a Ford, or can it not be a car because it has no wheels. What is a "car".

If a specific zygote does not have the ability to last more than a few days in the womb is it an individual life form because in general zygotes do have the ability to last to birth? Can it be if the property that makes it such only exists in the general term, not in this specific instance?

It may sound like I'm being picky but these are important questions (about the embryo at least, not the car :pac:) and highlight the mind field that is trying to tie down specific definitions when it comes to "life"

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They're not because both of those entities have the capability of developing into fully formed humans and begin to do so as soon as they come into existence

The problem there is the "as soon as they come into existence". They existed before they split off. So when the individual life form that is the embryo had 20 cells in it was it an single life form or was it 20 life forms? When it split in two was it 2 life forms? What if it split in two and one clump of cells died instantly? Was it ever 2 life forms, or just one life form expelling cells?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You see I think it is very easy to classify until people have a vested interest in defining it some other way.

It is very easy to classify but to me one classification is as arbitrary as the next. Which becomes more relevant when we bring abortion into it, but for the time being I think it is possible to discuss this without vested interests as you say.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't see a difference between "life" and individual life. "Individualism" is a human construct, like dividing the seas up. It is like picking a point where the Atlantic turns into the Med. You can pick any point you life but it is arbitrary. In fact so is "Atlantic" and "Mediterranean" for that matter.

If you actually see life that way then either you should be against abortion or ok with all murder since you see no distinction between lives since the very beginning of life.

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the point about twins. The cells that follow from they zygote can also form individual humans.

So under your definition of what is an individual life form is an embryo one life form or 20?

An embryo is one life form. If at a very early stage it splits of into two distinct embryos, both of which are capable of growth into a baby (barring genetic conditions and accidents, the same as any life form) then it's two life forms. One life has split into two, both of which possess the capacity to grow.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that is the point, if the zygote is not capable of doing this (say due to a genetic error), does that mean it is not an individual life form?

You are taking the abstract concept of a zygote that can develop and applying it's properties to a specific zygote that may not actually have this ability.

It is like buying a Ford without any wheels and saying that it is a car because it is a Ford because Fords are cars. Is it a car because it is a Ford, or can it not be a car because it has no wheels. What is a "car".

If a zygote is not capable of doing this due to a genetic error then it is a lifeform that has a disease that has unfortunately prevented its development. Such genetic errors can occur at any point in a life form's existence from conception to old age and none of these errors remove its status as a life form.

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem there is the "as soon as they come into existence". They existed before they split off.

I didn't say "as soon as they come into existence", I said "as soon as it comes into existence". A sperm and egg are parts of your body, they are not life forms in themselves. You can tell this by the fact that a sperm left in a womb and which remains a sperm (ie does not fertilise an egg) will never grow into a baby. A zygote is a life form because given the correct environment, food and other nutrients it will grow into a baby. The only important point is when the zygote comes into existence because that is the instant when a new baby starts to grow.

Wicknight wrote: »

So when the individual life form that is the embryo had 20 cells in it was it an single life form or was it 20 life forms? When it split in two was it 2 life forms? What if it split in two and one clump of cells died instantly? Was it ever 2 life forms, or just one life form expelling cells?

Twins are a special case where one life form splits into two at a very early stage. After a certain very early point (afaik it's actually at the zygote stage), splitting into two will just result in a single deformed baby and some medical waste because the part that broke off was a part of an integral part of a life form and was not a life form in itself.

If a single embryo has 20 cells then it's one life form. If one embryo breaks into 20 separate cells and each of these cells possesses the ability to grow into a baby (barring genetic conditions and accidents, the same as any life form) then you have 20 life forms but I don't think that's possible

Wicknight wrote: »

It is very easy to classify but to me one classification is as arbitrary as the next. Which becomes more relevant when we bring abortion into it, but for the time being I think it is possible to discuss this without vested interests as you say.

It's really not though. I just can't see how anything other than conception could be singled out as the point when a new life comes into existence. You can give some philosophical idea about life being one long link from billions of years ago but in reality I am 24 years old and I as an individual being did not exist 25 years ago. I (as opposed to my parents) came into existence at some point 24 years ago so at what point do you think that was, if not conception?

eoin5

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's really not though. I just can't see how anything other than conception could be singled out as the point when a new life comes into existence. You can give some philosophical idea about life being one long link from billions of years ago but in reality I am 24 years old and I as an individual being did not exist 25 years ago. I (as opposed to my parents) came into existence at some point 24 years ago so at what point do you think that was, if not conception?

Conception is just as arbitrary as birth for that purpose. You may as well just pick the day your parents named you.

Sam Vimes

eoin5 wrote: »

Conception is just as arbitrary as birth for that purpose. You may as well just pick the day your parents named you.

People keep saying this but it just boggles my mind. It makes as much sense to me as saying it's arbitrary to say gravity makes things fall

The only thing I can think is that people really really want it to be ok to have an abortion so they do that thing we so criticise religious people for, they deny facts because they don't want them to be true

I say conception is the point because that's when a new cell is formed that, given a livable environment, nutrients and oxygen will grow into a fully formed human being. Growth starts at conception and ends when you die. Before conception all you have is a sperm and an egg, neither of which possess that property and after conception you just have the continuation of the growth process that began at conception, no point of which is any more significant than any other in terms of whether it's a living being or not. Does that honestly not make any sense to you?

What point would you pick if not conception?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you actually see life that way then either you should be against abortion or ok with all murder since you see no distinction between lives since the very beginning of life.

Why?

I thought we weren't discussing rights and abortion, but since you keep bringing it up the status the "start" of an individual life has no bearing on my views on abortion. All the things you are saying can be applied to most other sexual or asexual animals including the ones we eat, so why would it? .

Life is, at the end of the day, a complex chemical reaction, a long chemical process. Whether or not I view that as a single long process or a set of distinct individual processes doesn't have anything to do with how I value life or my views on abortion.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An embryo is one life form. If at a very early stage it splits of into two distinct embryos, both of which are capable of growth into a baby (barring genetic conditions and accidents, the same as any life form) then it's two life forms. One life has split into two, both of which possess the capacity to grow.

Why is an embryo one life form and not two life forms stuck together? Is an embryo that will eventually turn into twins not two individual life forms?

You appear to be introducing a new determining factor, proximity. See how difficult it is to properly define this stuff once you start seriously looking at it?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If a zygote is not capable of doing this due to a genetic error then it is a lifeform that has a disease that has unfortunately prevented its development. Such genetic errors can occur at any point in a life form's existence from conception to old age and none of these errors remove its status as a life form.

That is circular logic. You cannot define a life form as needing to have the property of being able to develop into a full young and then say that a this is not necessary in specific cases. You are basically saying that because in general a zygote can do this that means it is still a life form if a specific one cannot do this.

It is like saying that to be classified a "car" a vehicle must have wheels, but you can still classify that wheelless vehicle a "car"

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't say "as soon as they come into existence", I said "as soon as it comes into existence". A sperm and egg are parts of your body, they are not life forms in themselves. You can tell this by the fact that a sperm left in a womb and which remains a sperm (ie does not fertilise an egg) will never grow into a baby. A zygote is a life form because given the correct environment, food and other nutrients it will grow into a baby.

An egg needs external material to grow. It needs genetic material from the sperm.

A zygote needs external material to grow. It needs nurtrients and specific signals and triggers to grow.

A zygote cell is simply what a growing egg cell turns into given the correct environment.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Twins are a special case where one life form splits into two at a very early stage. After a certain very early point (afaik it's actually at the zygote stage)

That was my point. The zygote splits in two but the multiplication of cells happens in a clump. So at this stage you have a clump of cells that will break apart but haven't yet. Are they one individual or two? They share genetic material. They have the potential to grow to a human being.

And this is the real kicker. If they don't split in time you will get joined twins. Are they one individual life form or two?

On what basis do you define conjoined twins either a single individual life form or two separate life forms.

If you say they are two individual life forms stuck together see what I asked earlier about the embryo being an individual life form or two stuck together.

Life does not fit into easy human classification.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

, splitting into two will just result in a single deformed baby and some medical waste because the part that broke off was a part of an integral part of a life form and was not a life form in itself.

Why?

Under some of your definitions it is and others it isn't. If it isn't because it has genetic material but will not develop into an child how is that different to a zygote that won't develop into a child?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If a single embryo has 20 cells then it's one life form. If one embryo breaks into 20 separate cells and each of these cells possesses the ability to grow into a baby (barring genetic conditions and accidents, the same as any life form) then you have 20 life forms but I don't think that's possible

Again we are back to proximity. So, again the kicker is conjoined twins. Single life form or two individual life forms

The thing about conjoined twins is that, in most cases, they have two brains and thus two seperate personalities. To me, since we are apparently talking about abortion, is the important bit. We think of individuals at the intellect. The body is secondary. I would imagine the majority of people would view conjoined twins as two seperated individuals because of this. But before they have develped brains such a distinction becomes much less meaningful. 4 hands but 1 heart? Single life form or two seperate life forms?

This is why I think these types of classifications and the attempts to classify in the first place, are flawed. Again it is like trying to pick the point he Atlantic turns into the Med.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's really not though. I just can't see how anything other than conception could be singled out as the point when a new life comes into existence. You can give some philosophical idea about life being one long link from billions of years ago but in reality I am 24 years old and I as an individual being did not exist 25 years ago.

But again that highlights exactly what I'm talking about. When you say "you" are 24 years old what do you mean. The stuff you are actually made of is about 8 years old. Hardly any of your cells existed much longer than that. What you are is a full copy of the person you were 8 years ago.

So what was copied? At the basic biological level it is your genetic material. But that was contained in your sperm cell and your egg cell. So if we are talking about the information itself, rather than the physical manifistation of it, why do you not start with the sperm/egg pairing. That is where the information first game from. But of course they themselves came from your parents.

Just as you in the present are a copy of you 8 years ago (which was a copy of you 16 years ago etc), you are also a copy, albeit alternated, of your parents. That copying process started with the formation of the sperm and egg.

If I had to pick a starting point, if I had to pick the first cells of me, I would pick the sperm and egg cells as a pair. The zygote is the "second" stage, not the first.

But then you would probably point out that the sperm and egg come from my parents, which is why I don't see a starting point.

All I see is a long long long series of replication. Replication that is still taking place right now. It started billions of years ago and it is still taking place. Nothing starts, things simply change. And your cells are still changing due to random mutation. Not all your cells share the same DNA pattern.

But I think when you say "you" what you actually mean is your consciousness, your intellect, your brain.

If we define the zygote as "you", as a person, and then it splits in two to form two cells, what happens to "you". Which one of these is "you". It is like asking were you the sperm or where you the egg.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I (as opposed to my parents) came into existence at some point 24 years ago so at what point do you think that was, if not conception?

When your brain formed.

"You", in relation to abortion and rights and a "person", are your brain, and more specifically the information of your neural network that is maintained by the brain cells that continue to replicate themselves while keeping this pattern "alive".

If I took your brain and stuck it in another body "you" would be in the other body.

If conjoined twins have two brains in the same body they are two different people. Whether or not they are one or two life forms is impossible to answer except in an arbitrary way and I think largely irrelevant.

You are your brain

sink

I agree with you wicknight. I have an instant gut reaction that abortion is wrong, I can't justify it in any other way than emotionally. Which is why I am not against legalising abortion, but I would dissuade anyone from having one due to the emotional damage it can cause.

Thinking along these terms going OT, if it were possible to clone humans but suppress the growth of the nervous system while maintaining normal development of all other organs. Would doing so for the purposes of organ harvesting be morally justified, as it would maintain the life of a fully functional consciousness, or would it be morally wrong based on some other grounds?

Zombrex

sink wrote: »

I agree with you wicknight. I have an instant gut reaction that abortion is wrong, I can't justify it in any other way than emotionally. Which is why I am not against legalising abortion, but I would dissuade anyone from having one due to the emotional damage it can cause.

Thinking along these terms going OT, if it were possible to clone humans but suppress the growth of the nervous system while maintaining normal development of all other organs. Would doing so for the purposes of organ harvesting be morally justified, as it would maintain the life of a fully functional consciousness, or would it be morally wrong based on some other grounds?

yes, i think it would be morally justified. I would have no problem growing say a new heart for myself from stem cells from an embryo.

no brain no significant value. it is just cells and organs.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

I thought we weren't discussing rights and abortion, but since you keep bringing it up the status the "start" of an individual life has no bearing on my views on abortion. All the things you are saying can be applied to most other sexual or asexual animals including the ones we eat, so why would it? .

Life is, at the end of the day, a complex chemical reaction, a long chemical process. Whether or not I view that as a single long process or a set of distinct individual processes doesn't have anything to do with how I value life or my views on abortion.

Well it kind of does tbh. You are making the point that life is one long link since the primordial goo so why place value on one particular part of it over another?

Wicknight wrote: »

Why is an embryo one life form and not two life forms stuck together? Is an embryo that will eventually turn into twins not two individual life forms?

I've already answered that several times but I suppose I'll answer it again:

If a single embryo has 20 cells then it's one life form. If one embryo breaks into 20 separate cells and each of these cells possesses the ability to grow into a baby (barring genetic conditions and accidents, the same as any life form) then you have 20 life forms but I don't think that's possible

And it seems from some googing that it's actually the zygote itself that splits and not the embryo.

Wicknight wrote: »

You appear to be introducing a new determining factor, proximity. See how difficult it is to properly define this stuff once you start seriously looking at it?

No because I'm not introducing that factor
I said "I don't think that's possible" because unless I see some compelling evidence to the contrary, the separate cells of an embryo can not produce a new baby. The cells of an embryo are parts of the living being and cannot be used to create a new being, only a zygote can do that

Wicknight wrote: »

That is circular logic. You cannot define a life form as needing to have the property of being able to develop into a full young and then say that a this is not necessary in specific cases. You are basically saying that because in general a zygote can do this that means it is still a life form if a specific one cannot do this.

It is like saying that to be classified a "car" a vehicle must have wheels, but you can still classify that wheelless vehicle a "car"

It's really not circular logic Wicknight. A zygote has the property that it can grow into a human unless it has a disease preventing it from doing so. Living being can get all forms of disease that don't remove their status as living beings.

By comparing a zygote with a genetic error to a car built without wheels you are not comparing like with like. A better analogy would be a car that has been damaged by removing the wheels and what you have there is a damaged car. When a zygote has an error it's a damaged life form

Wicknight wrote: »

An egg needs external material to grow. It needs genetic material from the sperm.

An egg needs to combine with another object so that neither object exists anymore and a new object that has a completely different genetic structure from both an egg and a sperm comes into existence. I specifically used the words "the correct environment, food and other nutrients" to prevent this line of argument. All living beings need food but that food does not change the entire genetic structure of the thing that is eating it

Wicknight wrote: »

A zygote cell is simply what a growing egg cell turns into given the correct environment.

Now that's just factually incorrect. What grows is not an egg not least because an egg contains 23 chromosomes and a zygote contains 26.

Wicknight wrote: »

That was my point. The zygote splits in two but the multiplication of cells happens in a clump. So at this stage you have a clump of cells that will break apart but haven't yet. Are they one individual or two? They share genetic material. They have the potential to grow to a human being.

And this is the real kicker. If they don't split in time you will get joined twins. Are they one individual life form or two?

On what basis do you define conjoined twins either a single individual life form or two separate life forms.

If you say they are two individual life forms stuck together see what I asked earlier about the embryo being an individual life form or two stuck together.

Life does not fit into easy human classification.

I've already answered that Wicknight so I'll just copy and paste it again:

If a single embryo has 20 cells then it's one life form. If one embryo breaks into 20 separate cells and each of these cells possesses the ability to grow into a baby (barring genetic conditions and accidents, the same as any life form) then you have 20 life forms but I don't think that's possible

And I haven't confirmed it absolutely but if the split does indeed occur at the zygote stage then everything you've said there is out the window. From wiki:
"Monozygotic twins, frequently referred to as identical twins, occur when a single egg is fertilized to form one zygote (monozygotic) which then divides into two separate embryos. "
So one zygote splits into two which then develops into two embryos. The embryo does not split.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?
Under some of your definitions it is and others it isn't. If it isn't because it has genetic material but will not develop into an child how is that different to a zygote that won't develop into a child?

Why? Because that's what medical science says will happen That's not what my definition says will happen, that's what would actually happen in a womb if you broke some cells off an embryo. It's different because a chunk that's broken off an embryo does not and can never possess the ability to grow into a new baby, whether it's functioning correctly or not. A chunk of an embryo is not a life form

I only have one definition btw

Wicknight wrote: »

When your brain formed.

"You", in relation to abortion and rights and a "person", are your brain, and more specifically the information of your neural network that is maintained by the brain cells that continue to replicate themselves while keeping this pattern "alive".

If I took your brain and stuck it in another body "you" would be in the other body.

I didn't ask for ""You", in relation to abortion and rights and a "person"", I asked when it became a living being and suggesting that it wasn't a living being before the brain was formed is provably wrong. This isn't even an abortion debate, this is me proving the incorrect statement wrong that life does not begin at conception. It does (an individual life as opposed to the philosophical concept of life in general)

Wicknight wrote: »

If conjoined twins have two brains in the same body they are two different people. Whether or not they are one or two life forms is impossible to answer except in an arbitrary way and I think largely irrelevant.

It's not impossible to answer, I have answered it and it's not largely irrelevant because it's the only point I'm making!

I'm not gonig to answer the rest because it's about "you as a person" and "you as a person" is irrelevant to what I'm saying. All I'm talking about is when it becomes a living being separate from its parents. I'm not saying anything about rights or lack thereof, I'm talking in medical facts


Growth of a new baby begins at conception and that's why life begins at conception, simple as that. Before conception you have a sperm and an egg neither of which can grow into anything and after it is just the continuation of the growth process. The development of the brain is just one more step in the process. It's only "arbitrary" because people have a vested interest in keeping the point vague. You really should look it up btw because a lot of what you're saying is simply not medically accurate. If you want to argue that a foetus shouldn't have rights until its brain is formed you can do that but if you're saying that it's not a living being until its brain is formed you are simply wrong. If it's not a living being it's impossible for it to grow in order for a brain to be formed

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

All I'm talking about is when it becomes a living being separate from its parents.

Yes, and I would have thought that the answer to that is pretty self-evident: when it is born. Until then it is demonstrably not a "living being separate from its parents" since it's biologically, inextricably, necessarily, directly attached to one of its parents!

I think that at some point during the pregnancy and prior to being born the foetus can be described as a "living being" that could survive independently of its mother and so is subsequently unnecessarily (but beneficially) attached to its mother. I think this is an important distinction, but when it occurs is not a simple determination.

Growth of a new baby begins at conception and that's why life begins at conception, simple as that. Before conception you have a sperm and an egg neither of which can grow into anything and after it is just the continuation of the growth process.

And after that you have a zygote that also can't grow into anything without the the mothers body providing it with an environment and nutrients and oxygen. It cannot exist and grow independently. It can only exist and grow independently of the mother after a certain stage of development.

By your reasoning, every cell in the human body is a new life form since it contains all 46 chromosomes and could theoretically be implanted into an egg during a cloning process and potentially, given the right environment grow into a whole new lifeform.

If it's not a living being it's impossible for it to grow in order for a brain to be formed

A cancer "grows" in the body of a human - is this a "living being" also?

Growth is not a sufficient requirement for life, merely a necessary one.

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

yes, i think it would be morally justified. I would have no problem growing say a new heart for myself from stem cells from an embryo.

no brain no significant value. it is just cells and organs.

So would you be against abortion after the brain has formed in the foetus? Would the brain have to be just starting to form (8 weeks after conception, i think), or would the brain have to be pretty much formed (about 26 weeks, i think) for you to be against the abortion? Or would you support the notion that if it cant feel pain the abortion would be ok (as early as 14 weeks)?

Mark Hamill

Naz_st wrote: »

And after that you have a zygote that also can't grow into anything without the the mothers body providing it with an environment and nutrients and oxygen. It cannot exist and grow independently. It can only exist and grow independently of the mother after a certain stage of development.

Yeah but going by some of the people I've met in school and college, that stage is somewhere between the ages of 18 and 30 .
But, seriously, even after the stage where the child is still completely biologically dependent the mother for growth (birth, i assume), its still completely dependent on others for its survival, its just the specificity of that dependence has gone. This implies that all you are saying is that abortion is wrong if the child can be shoved into some one elses arms, it's right if the child is stuck being your problem and that seems pretty pathetic to me.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not gonig to answer the rest because it's about "you as a person" and "you as a person" is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

Funny, because this is the only part that needed answering due to its relevance.

You seem to be going around in circles defining life, without really dealing with the issue of why you imagine it has so much value at conception that it can't be aborted, and why this value you give it is not arbitrary. The process of life, by definition, and yours, in this argument, is irrelevant.

You need to outline your reasons for placing value on the material in a womans body at conception. Your problem here is that I think you lack an understanding of the difficulty of neutrally describing values and where and why they should be given. Values are neither physical nor mental, and thus lack any objective substance.

If you are saying the material at conception has value because of what it may become at some future date, then at least accept that this is utterly subjective and arbitrary.

Rev Hellfire

Its all down to cuteness, if it looks like a little baby we're all on for saving it otherwise its fair game.

Lets face it, if its all about brain function we should busy harvesting organs from the severely mentally impaired and those in vegetative states.

Naz_st

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But, seriously, even after the stage where the child is still completely biologically dependent the mother for growth (birth, i assume), its still completely dependent on others for its survival, its just the specificity of that dependence has gone.

Yes. But the point is that it can survive and grow independent of the mother. It is still dependent on someone for quite some time in order to grow from being a baby to a full adult, but it is not wholly dependent on the specific biology of a single entity without which not only can it not survive, but it can't grow into something that can survive.

This implies that all you are saying is that abortion is wrong if the child can be shoved into some one elses arms, it's right if the child is stuck being your problem and that seems pretty pathetic to me.

First off, I wasn't specifically getting into the right and wrong of abortion, I was more justifying the counter-position to Sam's argument that a zygote is a lifeform. Second, the "abortion debate" is not so much about when it is "right or wrong" and more about at what point do we attribute the same set of criteria around human rights to an unborn foetus (i.e. its focus is on when it can be objectively deemed wrong). Third, you're completely missing the point I was making anyway. What I was implying was that there is a distinction between a foetus at the end of a pregnancy (where it is essentially identical to a newborn baby but located inside the mother rather than outside) and the single cell that is formed by the two separate gametes. One can survive as a living breathing entity completely independently (for a short time) of any other being and, with non-specific external dependency, can grow into a human adult who can in turn have children. One cannot, and is wholly dependent on the biology and life of the mother. It has no capacity to think, feel, breath, eat or any other criteria that is universally and objectively attributed to being deemed "alive". I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that concept?

Goduznt Xzst

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its all down to cuteness, if it looks like a little baby we're all on for saving it otherwise its fair game.

Funnily enough, those types of rules DO seem to apply to the animal kingdom. If you had the choice between killing a lizard or a puppy which would you choose? Aesthetics seems to play an arbitrary role on the value we place on creatures

Same thing goes for other arbitrary aspects like size. Between a blue whale and a blue bottle fly which would you kill? Again, both living creatures, yet we kill flies and insects all the time but wouldn't dream in most instances of killing creatures larger or equal in size to ourselves on such a scale.

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

Yes, and I would have thought that the answer to that is pretty self-evident: when it is born. Until then it is demonstrably not a "living being separate from its parents" since it's biologically, inextricably, necessarily, directly attached to one of its parents!

Sorry there's confusion here. When I say separate I mean that it's not just a part of the mother's body like a lung is, it's a separate being that's using the mother for nutrients. It's basically a parasitic life form but a life form nonetheless

Naz_st wrote: »

I think that at some point during the pregnancy and prior to being born the foetus can be described as a "living being" that could survive independently of its mother and so is subsequently unnecessarily (but beneficially) attached to its mother. I think this is an important distinction, but when it occurs is not a simple determination.

It's an important distinction for people who want to abort foetuses but it's an irrelevant distinction for what I'm talking about. I'm not having an abortion debate here, I'm simply giving the medical fact that a new individual life begins at conception and not attaching any connotations to it

Naz_st wrote: »

And after that you have a zygote that also can't grow into anything without the the mothers body providing it with an environment and nutrients and oxygen. It cannot exist and grow independently. It can only exist and grow independently of the mother after a certain stage of development.

And you can't exist and grow independently of food (which almost completely consists of other life forms), water, oxygen and heat. Being able to exist independently of other life forms is not a requirement that is placed on being a life form.

Naz_st wrote: »

By your reasoning, every cell in the human body is a new life form since it contains all 46 chromosomes and could theoretically be implanted into an egg during a cloning process and potentially, given the right environment grow into a whole new lifeform.

No, by my reasoning every cell in the human body could theoretically be used to create a new life form. It's not a new life form until you actually inject the dna into the egg and start the process of growth.

Naz_st wrote: »

A cancer "grows" in the body of a human - is this a "living being" also?

Growth is not a sufficient requirement for life, merely a necessary one.

No it's not. Cancer is a part of a body, the same as a lung. It is not a living being

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Funny, because this is the only part that needed answering due to its relevance.

You seem to be going around in circles defining life, without really dealing with the issue of why you imagine it has so much value at conception that it can't be aborted, and why this value you give it is not arbitrary. The process of life, by definition, and yours, in this argument, is irrelevant.

You need to outline your reasons for placing value on the material in a womans body at conception. Your problem here is that I think you lack an understanding of the difficulty of neutrally describing values and where and why they should be given. Values are neither physical nor mental, and thus lack any objective substance.

I don't need to give reasons for placing value because I'm not talking about value and I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Wicknight said that life does not begin at conception (an individual life as opposed to the philosophical concept of life) and that is the only point I am answering because it is factually wrong

Mark Hamill

Naz_st wrote: »

Yes. But the point is that it can survive and grow independent of the mother. It is still dependent on someone for quite some time in order to grow from being a baby to a full adult, but it is not wholly dependent on the specific biology of a single entity without which not only can it not survive, but it can't grow into something that can survive.

But why is that important though? Its not its fault who it is dependent on, its not even its fault that it exists.

Naz_st wrote: »

First off, I wasn't specifically getting into the right and wrong of abortion, I was more justifying the counter-position to Sam's argument that a zygote is a lifeform.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to use any moral connotations here, you can just replace "right" and "wrong" with "you would accept" and "you wouldn't accept" if you like.

Naz_st wrote: »

Second, the "abortion debate" is not so much about when it is "right or wrong" and more about at what point do we attribute the same set of criteria around human rights to an unborn foetus (i.e. its focus is on when it can be objectively deemed wrong).

So the issue isnt when it's right or wrong, but when its objectively right or wrong?

Naz_st wrote: »

Third, you're completely missing the point I was making anyway. What I was implying was that there is a distinction between a foetus at the end of a pregnancy (where it is essentially identical to a newborn baby but located inside the mother rather than outside) and the single cell that is formed by the two separate gametes. One can survive as a living breathing entity completely independently (for a short time) of any other being and, with non-specific external dependency, can grow into a human adult who can in turn have children. One cannot, and is wholly dependent on the biology and life of the mother. It has no capacity to think, feel, breath, eat or any other criteria that is universally and objectively attributed to being deemed "alive". I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that concept?

There's nothing at all difficult to grasp about your concept, sure the only long term difference between your two examples is time. I think this is what the other side of this argument sees and wonders how you are missing it. The only way to have a foetus at the end of a pregnancy (something which should be given the same rights that a human has, if I'm reading your argument right) is to have the single cell in the first place, why not give that single cell the same rights as the human it will become?

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wicknight said that life does not begin at conception (an individual life as opposed to the philosophical concept of life) and that is the only point I am answering because it is factually wrong

Ok, say for a moment Wicknight agrees that life begins at conception*, then what? What is your point?

So lets assume, for arguments sake, an individuals life does begin at conception... please proceed with why you think this matters? What is the purpose of your argument? Are you trying to merely prove Wicknight wrong on a point or is there some end to this line of reasoning, specifically in regards to abortion.

*I agree with Wicknight btw, your argument basically amounts to saying the energy to light a lightbulb only comes into existence when you flick the switch

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't need to give reasons for placing value because I'm not talking about value and I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Wicknight said that life does not begin at conception (an individual life as opposed to the philosophical concept of life) and that is the only point I am answering because it is factually wrong

But surely it's not "factually wrong" given the different definitions and connotations there are around what you, or others, mean when they say "individual life"? If you define it as beginning when a cell has different DNA than either parent then sure. But if you define it as a living breathing organism that is not materially, biologically and inextricably dependent on its "host" (in your parlance) then not?

Basically I don't see the objectivity in your definition that would be required to declare something "factually wrong", as I think there are equally compelling arguments to be made for other definitions of what constitutes an "individual life"...

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

But surely it's not "factually wrong" given the different definitions and connotations there are around what you, or others, mean when they say "individual life"? If you define it as beginning when a cell has different DNA than either parent then sure. But if you define it as a living breathing organism that is not materially, biologically and inextricably dependent on its "host" (in your parlance) then not?

Basically I don't see the objectivity in your definition that would be required to declare something "factually wrong", as I think there are equally compelling arguments to be made for other definitions of what constitutes an "individual life"...

I don't define it as that. I say conception is the point because that's when a new cell is formed that, given a livable environment, nutrients and oxygen will grow into a fully formed human being. Growth starts at conception and ends when you die. Before conception all you have is a sperm and an egg, neither of which possess that property and after conception you just have the continuation of the growth process that began at conception, no point of which is any more significant than any other in terms of whether it's a living being or not.

Breathing is not a requirement placed on a living organism, although the foetus does receive oxygen through other means and not being materially, biologically and inextricably dependent on its "host" is not a requirement either. Both of those are arbitrary restrictions placed on life forms by pro choice people specifically to exclude foetuses. The only objective point that can be chosen as the beginning of a new life is conception.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ok, say for a moment Wicknight agrees that life begins at conception*, then what? What is your point?

So lets assume, for arguments sake, an individuals life does begin at conception... please proceed with why you think this matters? What is the purpose of your argument? Are you trying to merely prove Wicknight wrong on a point or is there some end to this line of reasoning, specifically in regards to abortion.

It matters because an awful lot of pro choice people use the argument that life begins at some arbitrary point after conception, conveniently chosen to give them enough time to abort the foetus before it meets their arbitrary criteria. For people who don't think the fact that it is a living being is important it make no difference to their stance but to people who latch onto this factually incorrect idea as their justification for it, it makes a lot of difference. If it can be proven that a zygote is a living being it blows the "it's just a clump of cells" argument out of the water. It's not a clump of cells, it's a developing living being

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

*I agree with Wicknight btw, your argument basically amounts to saying the energy to light a lightbulb only comes into existence when you flick the switch

So what point would you pick? Is it when the 100th cell develops? The 230th? The 476th? The 10,456,273th? At what point does it stop being a component of someone's body and become a separate life form?


edit: have a read of this:
http://www.familydoctormag.com/sexual-health/251-when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue.html
"The generally recognized pro-life stance is life begins at fertilization. So the pro-choice stance is, no, it doesn’t. … Right?" "Wrong"

You lot should email him and tell him that it actually is the stance of a lot of people. He recognises the fact that life begins at conception but rejects it as not important which is a far more solid stance for a pro-choice person because it's not based on provably wrong statements

Naz_st

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So the issue isnt when it's right or wrong, but when its objectively right or wrong?

It's more about determining when it's wrong. (Objectively in terms of the dictates of society, not some absolute). Perhaps its just my natural aversion to the whole concept and the thought of being able to objectively declare it the "right" thing to do.

There's nothing at all difficult to grasp about your concept, sure the only long term difference between your two examples is time. I think this is what the other side of this argument sees and wonders how you are missing it. The only way to have a foetus at the end of a pregnancy (something which should be given the same rights that a human has, if I'm reading your argument right) is to have the single cell in the first place, why not give that single cell the same rights as the human it will become?

Well, that's the abortion ethics question isn't it. And it's not a simple one.

But as Sam has said, this wasn't about the ethics of whether abortion is right or wrong, just a debate on the definitional aspects of what constitutes "individual life" etc (which is probably inherently part of the abortion debate, but not the entire debate).

To use Sam's answer to one of my questions as a potential example of the difference I was trying to point out:

He said, in elaborating on a point about what he deemed "separate" from the mother:

"When I say separate I mean that it's not just a part of the mother's body like a lung is"

Ok, so a person has the right to have a part of their own body removed. (e.g. a mole, an unsightly lump, a kidney, whatever). So Sam's answer raises an interesting point: at what point is a foetus deemed a separate entity from the mother? As a single cell, or as a blastocyst or an unimplanted zygote or an implanted embryo or a viable foetus, whatever. Now, up until a certain point, it is remaining live cellular tissue purely because of its attachment to the mother, in exactly the same way that the mother's lung or kidney is being maintained as living tissue by receiving energy and oxygen from the mother. If you take out a kidney from a person and hand it to someone and say "take care of this", what you will end up with is necrotic and decaying tissue in short order. Up until a certain point, this is exactly the same as if you took out an undeveloped foetus and gave it to someone with the same instructions. But after a certain point, you can take out the unborn foetus and give it to someone (often highly trained doctors with special medical equipment if too early) and say "take care of this" and it will eventually become a fully independent adult. That is the distinction I was making in trying to point out that Sam's objective definition of life beginning at conception isn't necessarily objective.

The whole ethics of abortion debate needs to go much further than this though and take into account things like foetal pain, reactions to stimuli, the health of the mother, etc, etc

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

As a single cell, or as a blastocyst or an unimplanted zygote or an implanted embryo or a viable foetus, whatever. Now, up until a certain point, it is remaining live cellular tissue purely because of its attachment to the mother, in exactly the same way that the mother's lung or kidney is being maintained as living tissue by receiving energy and oxygen from the mother

Sorry, stopped reading there because that's simply wrong. The foetus is feeding off the mother through the placenta (once it develops). It is not a part of the mother's body, it is living in the mother's body. It's more comparable to a tape worm than a lung

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It matters because an awful lot of pro choice people use the argument that life begins at some arbitrary point after conception

I think you are missing the fundamental purpose behind this argument. No one would deny a fetus is alive, but they are arguing the arbitrary point where it becomes distinctly human and an individual and thus inherits value and rights.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So what point would you pick? Is it when the 100th cell develops? The 230th? The 476th? The 10,456,273th? At what point does it stop being a component of someone's body and become a separate life form?

The clue is in the name of the camp. Ever wonder why it's pro-choice, and not pro-abortion? Personally I would never have an abortion, but would support a society that allows it up until either the formation of the brain, or up until the point where the fetus has the ability to feel pain.

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry, stopped reading there because that's simply wrong. The foetus is feeding off the mother through the placenta (once it develops). It is not a part of the mother's body, it is living in the mother's body. It's more comparable to a tape worm than a lung

Living tissue (as opposed to dead tissue) is different from a living being. A living being is made up of living tissue. Living tissue requires oxygen and energy, the living tissue in a lung is being maintained as living tissue by the mothers circulatory and respatory system, so is the foetus, through the placenta after implantation.

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think you are missing the fundamental purpose behind this argument. No one would deny a fetus is alive, but they are arguing the arbitrary point where it becomes distinctly human and an individual and thus inherits value and rights.

I'm afraid you've made the classic error there by confusing "being alive" with "being a living being". All the cells are of course alive at all points.

Most people are arguing the arbitrary point where it becomes distinctly human and an individual and thus inherits value and rights but not all. Many base their case on the incorrect idea that it's not a living being. The whole mantra of "her body, her choice" makes the incorrect assumption that the foetus is a part of the woman's body when it's actually another living organism that is hitching a ride inside her body. It's not just her body anymore and that is a fact. Once that is accepted we can move onto whether this other being should have rights or not

Sorry you didn't answer me btw. I didn't ask at what point it's ok to have an abortion, I asked at what point does it stop being a component of someone's body and become a separate life form, if not conception?

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

Living tissue (as opposed to dead tissue) is different from a living being. A living being is made up of living tissue. Living tissue requires oxygen and energy, the living tissue in a lung is being maintained as living tissue by the mothers circulatory and respatory system, so is the foetus, through the placenta after implantation.

So is a tapeworm, which is definitely not part of the woman's body

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So is a tapeworm, which is definitely not part of the woman's body

So is a lung, which is definitely part of the womans body. What's your point?

Look, you can take a tapeworm out of a womans body and stick it into a dog or pig or sheep or whatever, it's still "alive", it can still feed, metabolise, "breath", react to stimulus, grow, move, procreate, etc. That is not the same as a zygote/blastocyst.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not just her body anymore and that is a fact. Once that is accepted we can move onto whether this other being should have rights or not

Ok, for arguments sake, lets entertain the idea that a fetus at the moment of conception becomes a separate living being. Please move onto explaining why you believe it has rights.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry you didn't answer me btw.

... because we are discussing abortion When it becomes a "separate life form" is of no consequence to me if it does not have enough value to be considered distinctly human. Until a fetus has value, it is the property of the woman who holds it to do with it what she desires. It is within her rights.

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

So is a lung, which is definitely part of the womans body. What's your point?

Look, you can take a tapeworm out of a womans body and stick it into a dog or pig or sheep or whatever, it's still "alive", it can still feed, metabolise, "breath", react to stimulus, grow, move, procreate, etc. That is not the same as a zygote/blastocyst.

Zygotes feed
Zygotes metabolise
Breathing is not a requirement on a life form but it techincally does "breathe" because it receives oxygen
Reacting to stimulus isn't necessarily a requirement of a living being, lot's don't
Zygotes grow
Moving is not a requirement but Zygotes move anyway, in that they immediately start growing new cells to become an embryo
Even 10 year old children can't procreate so that's clearly not a requirement


My point is that receiving nutrients from the woman's body does not mean that it's part of her body like a lung is because a tapeworm does too, which is more comparable to a foetus.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ok, for arguments sake, lets entertain the idea that a fetus at the moment of conception becomes a separate living being. Please move onto explaining why you believe it has rights.

Oh I'm not going that far Just pointing out factually incorrect information

Mark Hamill

Naz_st wrote: »

If you take out a kidney from a person and hand it to someone and say "take care of this", what you will end up with is necrotic and decaying tissue in short order. Up until a certain point, this is exactly the same as if you took out an undeveloped foetus and gave it to someone with the same instructions. But after a certain point, you can take out the unborn foetus and give it to someone (often highly trained doctors with special medical equipment if too early) and say "take care of this" and it will eventually become a fully independent adult. That is the distinction I was making in trying to point out that Sam's objective definition of life beginning at conception isn't necessarily objective.

So something now is not fully human if medical science cant save it yet if its natural enviroment is altered? Would you be considered to be not fully human since you cannot survive if your heart was removed? What if you were hooked up to a dialysis machine and without it you would not survive, are you now not a full human?