When does life begin?

deise go deo

The question I am asking is when do you think life begins? Specifically at what point does the being have a right to life.

This issue comes up very often in abortion debates, but I don't really want this thread to be a thread on abortion as such, just the issue of when people think life begins, and why that particular stage.


For me its at conception. I think that once the process of the development of Human life begins, then the being has a right to Life.

Morag

While at conception the human zygote may have a unique human DNA code, so many things can happen that it is rejected normally and naturally by the woman's body that it never implants, and so it never grows into a human. It has potential but it never reaches it and I can't see how legislation can give rights to a human zygote which equals the right of a human being.

The development of the zygote into 'human life' as you put it does not happen until the zygote implants it's self in the wall of the uterus and starts a biochemical chain reaction and starts to absorb the nutrients it needs to develop from the lining of the uterus.
When this happens a pregnancy has begun and not before that.

Currently there difference between a miscarriage and a still birth.

If the baby is less then 500 grames or the pregnancy is less then 24 weeks, then it's a miscarriage and there is no registration of the birth/still birth and the woman does not go on maternity leave and is not considered a mother.

If the baby is 500 grames or more, or the pregnancy is 24 weeks or longer then it's a still birth and it it registered and the mother will get full maternity leave to recover.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/miscarriage_and_stillbirth/registering_stillbirth.html

I guess I can't answer when it goes from being a potential human being to being a human being, it's not like a cake where you can take it out of the over and check and put in back in and take it out again and check.

The medically agreed time/term of 24 weeks is changing as there at advances in Neonatal care and the development of better equipment for the NICU.
But before that esp in the first 10 to 16 weeks it a growing potential human being.

MagicMarker

How exactly do you expect this not to turn into an abortion debate? A debate in a long list of endless, tiresome, pointless abortion debates?

I don't agree that life begins at conception, and that's about as far as I will go. There is no right or wrong answer.

seenitall

I agree that life begins at conception, OP.

You say that you don't want this thread to be on abortion, yet you nailed your colours to the mast with mentioning "a right to Life" (with a capital L no less ), so I will do likewise: I am pro-choice. Therefore I believe that a "being"'s right to life is superceded by the right of the "gestational carrier" to choose whether they want to gestate the particular "being" to term. :P

MagicMarker

seenitall wrote: »

Therefore I believe that a "being"'s right to life is superceded by the right of the "gestational carrier" to choose whether they want to gestate the particular "being" to term. :P

Ugh, so much wrong with this sentence for starters.

seenitall

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ugh, so much wrong with this sentence for starters.

G'wan, I'm listening (reading)

deise go deo

MagicMarker wrote: »

How exactly do you expect this not to turn into an abortion debate? A debate in a long list of endless, tiresome, pointless abortion debates?

I don't agree that life begins at conception, and that's about as far as I will go. There is no right or wrong answer.

Mainly because the issue is not abortion, Abortion Legislation or people having abortions here or in the UK are not things that need be discussed in this thread for the issue its self to be dealt with.

The Issue I am mainly concerned with is at what point people think the Child/Embryo/Cluster of cells ect Should have the right to life.

johnthemull

Well dont tell me for a minute op didnt want this to turn into a debate on abortion.
My view.....take all of your god crap out of it and look at the facts.
Life is all about a whole person. When is a person a whole person? A complex question based on individual values, customs, traditions etc etc etc......
When is there a person?
When there is a personality.
When is there a personality?
When there is a complex aggregation of biological tissues capable of making a sensate entity.......In short this happens late in gestation.
Above all.......GOD HAS NOTHING TO OFFER THIS DEBATE

diddlybit

deise go deo wrote: »

The Issue I am mainly concerned with is at what point people think the Child/Embryo/Cluster of cells ect Should have the right to life.

Maybe you should have said conciousness, rather than "right to life" so. that phrase will immediately encourage abortion debates.

Morag

deise go deo wrote: »

The Issue I am mainly concerned with is at what point people think the Child/Embryo/Cluster of cells ect Should have the right to life.

You can't decouple the right to life of the 'Child/Embryo/Cluster of cells' from that of the mother if they are inside her.

But the only way to talk about the rights of embryo separate from that are those which have not been implanted.

So if 'Life' starts at conceptions then should all human embryos have the 'right' to be implanted so that they can try and for fill their potential?

drkpower

deise go deo wrote: »

The Issue I am mainly concerned with is at what point people think the Child/Embryo/Cluster of cells ect Should have the right to life.

First, as others have said, I dont know how you can think that this conversation can be had without abortion entering te debate.

Second, even if an embryo is 'life', it does not mean it has the right to life.

Third, even if an embryo has a right to life from conception, that doesnt really advance the debate. The exercise of that right is subject to the rights of others. How those rights are balanced is the real question.

Dave!

I see it as: at conception, it's just a cluster of cells, and for a few weeks after it still is. When it comes out of the mother, it's a person, and for a few weeks/months before it is also. At some point between conception and birth, it becomes a human. When that is exactly, I don't know though.

Ickle Magoo

deise go deo wrote: »

Mainly because the issue is not abortion, Abortion Legislation or people having abortions here or in the UK are not things that need be discussed in this thread for the issue its self to be dealt with.

The Issue I am mainly concerned with is at what point people think the Child/Embryo/Cluster of cells ect Should have the right to life.

What is "right to life" referring to, if not abortion/abortfacients?

deise go deo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What is "right to life" referring to, if not abortion/abortfacients?

The right to life I am referring to Is the point at which it would be wrong to end someones life.

I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say that we can all agree that it is wrong to kill a new born baby. So the question I am asking is at what point before birth does the developing person gain the same right to life that a new born baby has.

This issue is obviously of major importance in any discussion about abortion, yet this is not an abortion debate as such, just a discussion on when a person developing inside the womb should gain the right to life, and why people feel it should be at that particular stage.

Well dont tell me for a minute op didnt want this to turn into a debate on abortion.
My view.....take all of your god crap out of it and look at the facts.
Life is all about a whole person. When is a person a whole person? A complex question based on individual values, customs, traditions etc etc etc......
When is there a person?
When there is a personality.
When is there a personality?
When there is a complex aggregation of biological tissues capable of making a sensate entity.......In short this happens late in gestation.
Above all.......GOD HAS NOTHING TO OFFER THIS DEBATE

I have not once mentioned God, Why do you feel the need to tell me to stop?*

I happen to believe that something that is in the process of developing into a Human being, can be deemed to be its self human, and thus should be valued in the same way.

*If there is one thing that bores me to tears it is evangelizing atheists.

Sharrow

Life began a long time ago. That phrasing really irritates me. It does not go from non life to life in one sudden leap. This is why the whole argument comes up over and over again.
At conception it is still a matter of living cells, just as it was before that. Anything you choose as a "right to life" point seems fairly arbitrary after that.

Sharrow wrote:

I guess I can't answer when it goes from being a potential human being to being a human being, it's not like a cake where you can take it out of the over and check and put in back in and take it out again and check.

Dave wrote:

I see it as: at conception, it's just a cluster of cells, and for a few weeks after it still is. When it comes out of the mother, it's a person, and for a few weeks/months before it is also. At some point between conception and birth, it becomes a human. When that is exactly, I don't know though.

Yes, I agree.
One point sometimes suggested in these arguments is brain activity.

This link seems to give a good summary of the different stages chosen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kerryman12

Second, even if an embryo is 'life', it does not mean it has the right to life

please do explain that one for me.

drkpower

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you aware of any jurisdictions that have a definition of 'life' and which have considered brain activity and consciousness as crucial factors in that definition?

It certainly isnt a factor that has ever been (explicitly) coonsidered in this jurisdiction.

drkpower

kerryman12 wrote: »

please do explain that one for me.

Second, even if an embryo is 'life', it does not mean it has the right to life

Honestly, do you need someone to explain it to you? Can you not think of other examples of 'life' that do not have a right to life?

I honestly think you can work this one out for yourself.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, but the definition of life at end of life is usually considered to be a formula along the lines of "all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased" or 'irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe'.

One pre-requisite is 'irreversibility' which means that it is difficult to apply this particular formula to a healthy foetus. I am not saying it shouldnt be considered a relevent factor, but 'brain activity' (or 'conciousness') are far from the smoking gun in this debate. And that is before we even consider that it is (as yet) impossible to reliably measure these issues. If someone at the end of life has no conciousness, no brain activity, yet it is considered that there is a possibility that these faculties will return, they are still 'life.

Are you aware of any jurisdictions that have defined the beginning of 'life' and which have applied 'conciousness' or 'brain activity' to the definition?

kerryman12

Honestly, do you need someone to explain it to you?

yes please

Can you not think of other examples of 'life' that do not have a right to life?

no I cant

.

I honestly think you can work this one out for yourself.

I am afraid you are going to have to joint the dots for me.

drkpower

kerryman12 wrote: »

I am afraid you are going to have to joint the dots for me.

Im afraid it's pointless given your other answers. Sorry.

kerryman12

drkpower wrote: »

Im afraid it's pointless given your other answers. Sorry.

your grand, sorry for wasting your time.

Earthhorse

As already stated on this thread, you can't ask when life begins without first having a definition of "life". What qualities does it possess? What qualities does it not necessarily have to possess? Nobody has ever been able to come up with a wholly satisfactory answer to this question; perhaps satisfactory to their own conscience but not really, irrefutable, intellectually satisfying.

The current trend tends to be toward measuring brain activity or consciousness. But really, from a purely objective point of view, there is nothing special about the beginnings of brain activity in the fetus. It's just a bunch of electrical impulses or what have you, the same way the fetus is just a bunch of cells (like pretty much everything in the universe).

Beyond coming up with a definition of life that satisfies all enquiries we then need to be able to measure these qualities. Again, I don't think we really have instruments sophisticated enough that could alert us to when something has reached it's "life-state". We can come up with guidelines and in many jurisdictions they have. 24 weeks, or whatever; so at 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds it's not alive and a second later it is! Remember, all fetuses develop at exactly the same rate so this must be true!

Of course, it isn't, which comes back to bluewolf's point about arbitrariness; any point we choose will essentially be arbitrary. Some will be less arbitrary than others but nonetheless, all we are giving are estimates. Educated estimates, perhaps, but estimates all the same.

When confronted with this question I really wish more people would throw their hands up and simply admit they don't know. They might have some ideas about it but ultimately, they do not know and there's no shame in that when an issue as complex as this is being considered.

drkpower wrote: »

Honestly, do you need someone to explain it to you? Can you not think of other examples of 'life' that do not have a right to life?

I honestly think you can work this one out for yourself.

Honestly? I think that's pretty rude of you. You introduce an idea into the thread and, when quizzed on it, refuse to elaborate in even the slightest way.

There are only two instances I can think of where something can be said be alive but not have rights. The first is where it's an animal. Given that this debate is about humans I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't thinking of this scenario given how wholly irrelevant it is to the definition of when human life begins.

The other instance is when someone faces the death penalty, which is a hugely controversial area of debate. But without getting into it I think it would be hard to argue that anything a fetus could do that would merit the death penalty so I fail to see how this is relevant to the debate either.

drkpower

Earthhorse wrote: »

Honestly? I think that's pretty rude of you. You introduce an idea into the thread and, when quizzed on it, refuse to elaborate in even the slightest way.

Honestly? I dont really care!

Kerryman didnt even bother to try and acquaint himself with the very basics of this debate. Why would I bother to explain to him/her what are very straightforward concepts when he couldnt be bothered to do some cursory googling first.

Earthhorse wrote: »

There are only two instances I can think of where something can be said be alive but not have rights.
The other instance is when someone faces the death penalty. The first is where it's an animal. .

But as you have at least tried to grasp some of those concepts, I would remind you of another instance where something is 'life yet many do not consider it to have a right to life. For instance, an ovum.

Bloody Nipples

drkpower wrote: »

But as you have at least tried to grasp some of those concepts, I would remind you of another instance where something is 'life yet many do not consider it to have a right to life. For instance, an ovum.

An ovum and a zygote are not the same thing. Women pop an ovum out once a month and it is explicitly designed (if you'll allow the term) to be destroyed if not fertilised. A zygote is not, and whatever happens with the mechanics of the zygote, whether it manages to reach a full term pregnancy or not, the biological aim is for it to be implanted and carried to term.

drkpower

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

An ovum and a zygote are not the same thing. Women pop an ovum out once a month and it is explicitly designed (if you'll allow the term) to be destroyed if not fertilised. A zygote is not, and whatever happens with the mechanics of the zygote, whether it manages to reach a full term pregnancy or not, the biological aim is for it to be implanted and carried to term.

I agree; however they are both techincally 'life', and I was merely making the point that the mere fact that something is 'life' does not mean it has a 'right to life'. If you scroll back a few posts you can see how this particular point arose.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

There are only two instances I can think of where something can be said be alive but not have rights. The first is where it's an animal. Given that this debate is about humans I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't thinking of this scenario given how wholly irrelevant it is to the definition of when human life begins.

The other instance is when someone faces the death penalty, which is a hugely controversial area of debate. But without getting into it I think it would be hard to argue that anything a fetus could do that would merit the death penalty so I fail to see how this is relevant to the debate either.

Living cells have life without rights. I wash my hands every day; bacteria, skin cells, etc.

Earthhorse

Yeah, drkpower, already clarified that point. When he referred to 'life' earlier I assumed he was referring to a life rather than something which is alive.

Monty Burnz

johnthemull wrote: »

Well dont tell me for a minute op didnt want this to turn into a debate on abortion.
My view.....take all of your god crap out of it and look at the facts.
Life is all about a whole person. When is a person a whole person? A complex question based on individual values, customs, traditions etc etc etc......
When is there a person?
When there is a personality.
When is there a personality?
When there is a complex aggregation of biological tissues capable of making a sensate entity.......In short this happens late in gestation.
Above all.......GOD HAS NOTHING TO OFFER THIS DEBATE

Agreed 100%. This should be a logical discussion, and until someone logically proves the existence of a god, he/she/it should be ignored.

Can a 1 month old baby have a personality? No. Not at all. So infanticide up to a certain age should surely be acceptable? (assuming we take out all the religious nonsense)

kerryman12

drkpower wrote: »

Honestly? I dont really care!

Kerryman didnt even bother to try and acquaint himself with the very basics of this debate. Why would I bother to explain to him/her what are very straightforward concepts when he couldnt be bothered to do some cursory googling first.


But as you have at least tried to grasp some of those concepts, I would remind you of another instance where something is 'life yet many do not consider it to have a right to life. For instance, an ovum.

WOW that is an amazing display of arrogance on your part I must say.

How can you assume how well acquainted I am with this subject based on the few questions above? Where on Google am I going to find drkpower's opinion on this subject?
Or is perhaps because I am not a medical professional, therefore my opinion/questions are not relevant!

The OP clearly mentioned human life in his/her post, in that context my original question still stands:

Quote:
Second, even if an embryo is 'life', it does not mean it has the right to life

please do explain that one for me.

but I guess as you have already stated;

Honestly? I dont really care!

so you will just ignore the question again!

drkpower

kerryman12 wrote: »

The OP clearly mentioned human life in his/her post, in that context my original question still stands:
Second, even if an embryo is 'life', it does not mean it has the right to life
please do explain that one for me.

Yet you didnt notice these two points?:

The other instance is when someone faces the death penalty.

For instance, an ovum.

I dont especially want to get into a discussin with you if you cant do some of the heavy lifting yourself.

deise go deo

Some people are asking for a definition of 'Life' for this discussion.

I would say that the definition I would use is, developing human Life between the point of conception and Birth.





As mentioned earlier, I would consider conception to be the point at which the developing life can be said to be human, with the rights ect that go along with it.
I would consider this to be the stage at which a Human Life begins because it is the point after which there is a continuum to Human Life within a single biological unit. I don't see any reason to pick a later stage of development as the starting point of Human Life, as all points are just stages in the development of the same thing, which is a Human Being.

Now obviously there are some people who would disagree with me on that, so the question is, at what stage between conception and Birth can the developing life be said to be human and be given the same rights as a new born child, most specifically the right to life, and why it should be that particular stage instead of any other.

Wibbs

It's quite an arbitrary line in the sand IMHO. Hard to pin down beyond emotional, cultural and religious feelings. You might be able to break it down into levels of potential. Conception itself has potential behind it, but it's quite small in actuality. Given how many fertilised cells will die off naturally.

In practical terms it gets morally complex after that(if such things trouble you).

deise go deo wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, I would consider conception to be the point at which the developing life can be said to be human, with the rights ect that go along with it.

If you're a woman making a contraceptive choice based on the pill for a number of years, chances are you've had fertilised eggs being expelled quite a few times. It's one of the ways the medication works by preventing the implantation of the fertilised ovum. The morning after pill does similar. So are you aborting/terminating the potential? After all it is a fertilised egg. There are men and women who would object to abortion(even the choice being available) yet happily use the contraceptive pill in a relationship and the MAP in emergencies. If you believe life starts at conception not implantation or later and that's the 'magic moment' yet still use the pill, it's a bit of a fudge morally.

In a way the catholic doctrine is clear. IE any artificial interference in teh potential of human life is morally wrong. Then again if you narrow them down you could also argue that the rhythm method is 'interfering' too.

Like I say it's all a bit arbitrary.

kerryman12

Yet you didnt notice these two points?:

Both of which were made after my initial question to you!!

I dont especially want to get into a discussin with you if you cant do some of the heavy lifting yourself.

You are right of course,what was I thinking trying to engage in debate with you - lesson learned.

In a way the catholic doctrine is clear. IE any artificial interference in teh potential of human life is morally wrong.

It is clear and yet completly impractical for the world we live in, yet from their point of view I am not sure what else they would have done.

Personally speaking my arbitrary ( and I completly agree it is arbitrary) point has always been implantaion.

However the last two posts in particular have made me at least think again.

drkpower

kerryman12 wrote: »

Both of which were made after my initial question to you!! .

Yes, but before your last post where you asked the question again. The thread is only 3 pages long, the least you could do is give it a quick glance!

deise go deo wrote:

I would say that the definition I would use is, developing human Life between the point of conception and Birth.
.

That isnt a definition.

deise go deo wrote:

Now obviously there are some people who would disagree with me on that, so the question is, at what stage between conception and Birth can the developing life be said to be human and be given the same rights as a new born child, most specifically the right to life, and why it should be that particular stage instead of any other. .

Have you ever considered that they could have a right to life at conception but it is, in essence, a very weak right, which strengthens throughout their development, rather than viewing it as an all or nothing event?

Wibbs

drkpower wrote: »

Have you ever considered that they could have a right to life at conception but it is, in essence, a very weak right, which strengthens throughout their development, rather than viewing it as an all or nothing event?

This.

Tombones

I truely believe life begins when I finish this FAS course. A life of further unemployment.

deise go deo

Have you ever considered that they could have a right to life at conception but it is, in essence, a very weak right, which strengthens throughout their development, rather than viewing it as an all or nothing event?

No, If the Right to life of the Child in an early stage of development does not over ride the right of the parent to choose to allow that life it continue growing, then in what way can the unborn child be said to have any right to life at all?


I think it is better to take an all or nothing approach. Being relativist with human life is not something that appeals to me in the slightest.

Either way the question remains at what point does the unborn child Have a right to life which can not be superseded by the parents. Weather that is because the child has developed into it, or because it has crossed the all or nothing line is not really relevant to the question.

drkpower

deise go deo wrote: »

No, If the Right to life of the Child in an early stage of development does not over ride the right of the parent to choose to allow that life it continue growing, then in what way can the unborn child be said to have any right to life at all?


I think it is better to take an all or nothing approach. Being relativist with human life is not something that appeals to me in the slightest.

Either way the question remains at what point does the unborn child Have a right to life which can not be superseded by the parents. Weather that is because the child has developed into it, or because it has crossed the all or nothing line is not really relevant to the question.

Do you take an 'all or nothing' approach to the right to life of born humans? Have a think about it before responding on instinct.

deise go deo

drkpower wrote: »

Do you take an 'all or nothing' approach to the right to life of born humans? Have a think about it before responding on instinct.

No, I would take an All approach. Nothing would imply removing someones right to life, I would not support that as long as their life is viable.

deise go deo

deise go deo wrote: »

Some people are asking for a definition of 'Life' for this discussion.

I would say that the definition I would use is, developing human Life between the point of conception and Birth.


As mentioned earlier, I would consider conception to be the point at which the developing life can be said to be human, with the rights ect that go along with it.

You can't define "life" as starting from conception when your argument is that it should start from conception. It's circular.
Our starting point depends entirely on the arguments used.

Now obviously there are some people who would disagree with me on that, so the question is, at what stage between conception and Birth can the developing life be said to be human ...

It's always human in that it always has human dna -

...and be given the same rights as a new born child, most specifically the right to life, and why it should be that particular stage instead of any other.

- so this is the main question.

drk wrote:

Have you ever considered that they could have a right to life at conception but it is, in essence, a very weak right, which strengthens throughout their development, rather than viewing it as an all or nothing event?

This is a good point but unfortunately we'd still need to establish some cut off point beyond which the strengthened right includes the right not to be aborted.

drkpower

deise go deo wrote: »

No, I would take an All approach. Nothing would imply removing someones right to life, I would not support that as long as their life is viable.

So you do not believe in the right to kill in self-defence?

drkpower

bluewolf wrote: »

This is a good point but unfortunately we'd still need to establish some cut off point beyond which the strengthened right includes the right not to be aborted.

Absolutely; it will always remain a difficulty to enshrine in legal cut-offs something that is so nuanced, but yes, it must be done. Where that cut off should lie, I simply do not know; my instinct is that it should be very early (except in exceptional circumstances) which allows women a reasonable period of time to make a decision, but no more.

However, whatever timeframe might be agreed upon, at least it is done honestly, after an attempt has been made to reconcile the competing interests at stake.

deise go deo

drkpower wrote: »

So you do not believe in the right to kill in self-defence?

If someone forces you to defend yourself, then that was their choice, not yours.
I would consider that the same as killing someone accidentally. It is through no fault of your own.

It's not a crime. Though it is unfortunate.

drkpower

deise go deo wrote: »

If someone forces you to defend yourself, then that was their choice, not yours.
I would consider that the same as killing someone accidentally. It is through no fault of your own.

It's not a crime. Though it is unfortunate.

So you believe that the right to life of another entity can be extinguished depending on the circumstances?

deise go deo

drkpower wrote: »

So you believe that the right to life of another entity can be extinguished depending on the circumstances?

The right to life? No

However that does not mean I believe it is wrong for someone to be responsible for the ending of the life of another if it is through no fault of their own. It is just unfortunate.

If someone throws themselves in front of your car, have you denied them their right to life? I do not think so.

Even though you have killed them, it was through no fault of your own.

MagicMarker

deise go deo wrote: »

The right to life? No

However that does not mean I believe it is wrong for someone to be responsible for the ending of the life of another if it is through no fault of their own. It is just unfortunate.

If someone throws themselves in front of your car, have you denied them their right to life? I do not think so.

Even though you have killed them, it was through no fault of your own.

Are you opposed to the morning after pill?

drkpower

deise go deo wrote: »

The right to life? No

However that does not mean I believe it is wrong for someone to be responsible for the ending of the life of another if it is through no fault of their own. It is just unfortunate.

If someone throws themselves in front of your car, have you denied them their right to life? I do not think so.

Even though you have killed them, it was through no fault of your own.

You believe that you should be allowed to kill someone in certain circumstances. On that basis, you clearly do believe the right to life can be extinguished in certain circumstances!

So, in your view, where you have been put in a predicament, through no fault of your own, where you believe you are justified to kill someone, that it is permissable to do so?

Leaving aside, for the moment, the major issue of what 'fault' means (and who judges it), try and apply your view to a pregnant woman. It appears you are saying that if she is pregnant, through no fault of her own, she should be entitled to kill a foetus which is infringing her rights?

RandolphEsq

There is a difference between 'potential life' and 'actual life', assuming we are saying 'life' in the context of human beings being alive. In order for a human being to 'be alive' it needs more than a couple fertilized weeks in the womb. Women get emotional at the 'prospect' of the growth inside of them and irrationally equate this 'potential life' with a beautiful child. Men are better equipped, biologically, to logically discussing this matter without the risk of maternalism mushing their brains. There must be a distinguishing between potential life and actual life. It isn't wishy washy human rights nonsense defining this a priori but the advancement of science to note a cut-off point. Human rights can then build upon this.