When Does Life Begin?

[Intifada]

Just curious to know what the users of RevLeft think about this question.

It was brought up by my Medical Ethics teacher, who happens to be "Pro-Life", as he is a devout Catholic.

At what moment does the foetus deserve to be labeled "human", and be given human rights?

Or, is this question simply irrelevant to the whole debate on abortion?

[Gnosis]

Your question is not irrelevent at all.
When is a fetus really human?
I think it is human before conception even takes place.
I think it is human when the egg and sperm are still seperate.
Female eggs are human and so are male sperm even if they aren't joined and evolving together.

Abortion kills a human every time it occurs.

However, if abortion is wrong, then so is the monthly female period.
Every month the female body aborts an unfertalized egg, and in effect this egg dies, it will never evolve any further, but it is still human.
And if abortion is wrong, then so is the abortion of sperm which occurs everytime a man wacks off and cums into a sock, or pulls out right before cumming, or ejaculates within the vagina but does not impregnate the female, or he does impregnate her, but millions of sperms which did not enter the egg die, never to mature into a full human, though they are still human.
Did you know the vagina is highly acidic and that acid kills off most of the sperm ejaculated into it?

An egg every month aborted because a woman had the nerve to get her period.
Millions of sperm aborted because a man had the nerve to ejaculate.

The problem is people can't see beyond the lable "Abortion" to the reality of the situation.

Humans abort and dispose of their reproductive elements all the time, why should it suprise anyone that they do it after the joining of the two?

Because women don't naturally abort babies, and when they do, it is usually called a "miscarriage" and that lable denotes sadness.
Babies are supposed to be a good thing, a sign of prosperity, of fertility, of male verility, of female duty to society being fufilled.
Babies are not supposed to be killed on purpose by their own parents.
The killing of one's own young should be considered insane.

Well, this is not your average time in history, and though it is insane, i support abortion because there are too many people as it is, we don't need any more who are unwanted anyway.

Let me ask you this: What rights do humans have?

Is it right for a person to be "pro-life" just because they are catholic and catholism demands it?

Could I be considered "pro-life" if I am for abortion because it means a better life for those of us who are currently alive?

Could it be said that what makes a human human is consciousness, and since neither fetus, nor egg, nor sperm are conscious that they are not human?

Also, isn't it strange that the American conservatives are so against abortion and yet are so for war?
Its almost as if they want stupid people to have babies they resent so that the government can have more cannon fodder to throw at the Iraqis or the Iranis or who evers next on the list.
Abortion severely cuts down on the number of children the government can brainwash and recruit, doesn't it?
Everytime an abortion occurs, a politician looses a potential vote.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I agree with most of the last post, apart from there being too many of us (we could sustain many more humans with a better economic system).

Personally abortion only kills, if the baby would survive, if labour occured there and then. If a baby is to premature to live then it is not yet really alive. This is a crude perspective, but it saves a lot of hastle.

[violencia.Proletariat]

biologically a fetus isnt alive until it can breath on its own, (7-9 months into the pregnancy)

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:47 PM
biologically a fetus isnt alive until it can breath on its own, (7-9 months into the pregnancy)
True, but by that logic you could say that human beings are not alive until puberty, since abilty to reproduce partially defines life.

[Intifada]

(Gnosis)

Female eggs are human and so are male sperm even if they aren't joined and evolving together.


Let me just have some clarification here.

Are you actually stating that a sperm cell, and an ovum, can both be described as "human", or have I just missed your point completely?


Abortion kills a human every time it occurs.


So, in your opinion, the foetus is human?

If that is the case, then does it not deserve the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?


Humans abort and dispose of their reproductive elements all the time, why should it suprise anyone that they do it after the joining of the two?


Good point.

My own belief is that the foetus is not a human person per se, and so it cannot be defined as a "human", and cannot be granted the same human rights as the mother.

The foetus is still biologically dependent on the mother, and is connected to her in a biological way, therefore, surely the mother should have the choice of whether or not she wishes to abort the foetus.


What rights do humans have?


Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Could it be said that what makes a human human is consciousness, and since neither fetus, nor egg, nor sperm are conscious that they are not human?

Indeed.

[Bannockburn]

At what moment does the fetus deserve to be labeled "human", and be given human rights?

Couple of problems here, and your medical ethics teacher better learn some more philosophy than just ethics and Catholic metaphysics. To begin with, if you use a noun such as “human” its going to be problematic. Nouns describes entities that generally have an ontological status of some kind of permanency. For Example, we call a this object a “door” which is arbitrary to begin with, but it signifies that the duration of this object has some kind of longevity for an X amount of time. Same thing with a human per se. (even though I would argue otherwise, but that is a separate issue). We call this object a human, and it has some kind of longevity.

However, you can not apply this to a fetus on grounds that a fetus, ontologically speaking is in a process of development, growth, movement. It is a process of potential. Thus, even fetus is problematic. Secondly, human rights are not “given” to man by God, the government or other men. Going as far back as Hobbes and Locke that rights are naturally inherent in all men who have the ability to exercise those rights. Fetus' don't have the ability to exercise those rights if they had any to begin with. Moreover, as rights are individualistic, and in terms are to be applied in isolation, as one above poster has said this does not happen since this process is dependent.

Finally, in the beginning its only cells. Its not an ethical problem if I scratch myself and skin flakes off. So why would this be an ethical problem? The genetic makeup is arbitrary since my DNA is almost identical with every other living entities DNA. So really, if abortion is an ethical problem so is killing puppy fetus' or the fetus of any other mammal on the face of the planet. Also. If your teacher is so worried about if a cluster of cells have rights, ask him if that animal that was killed to serve as his shoe or for his seat cushion had less rights even though it had higher brain function. Take for example a guerrilla which has high cognitive faculties, emotional, psychological and sociological skills and abilities to that of a newly conceived cell. If the later is an ethical problem but the extermination of the former isn't....I fail to see any line of thinking which can justify it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The question is irrelevant to the subject of abortion - at least those abortions which are not for medical reasons.

[Goatse]

Not read in huge detail, so it might have been mentioned, but:

If a fetus is human even though it is not concious or breathing, then sperm and eggs are human. Therefor, the only humane way to reproduce is to castrate everyone at birth and use cloning, which most anti-abortion people are also against (yes?).

I would never choose abortion unless the baby was destined to die regardless and abortion was the only way to save the mother. But I'm not everyone else, they make their own choices.

[Ownthink]

Doesn't matter, the Q is irrelevent.

Abortions will still occur under illegality, just with rusty coat hangers in a back alley, rather than with medical doctors and medicines.

Simple, really. Keep abortion legal and safe.

[Severian]

Any answer is arbitrary. That is, any point you single out and say: right here! This is where a human being's life starts. Whether conception, "quickening" as the Catholic Church once preached, birth, whenever. (This is a good example of a dialectical process: there is no simple, rigid dividing line between life and unlife, but a constant process of change.)

There's a process of development over nine months where a single cell (zygote) gradually becomes a human being.

Obviously that zygote, and later the embryo and the fetus, is a human cell,embryo, etc. Just as an egg is a chicken egg or a duck egg or whatever, and an acorn is an oak seed not and not an elm seed or a maple seed.

But an egg is not a chicken, an acorn is not an oak tree, and a fetus is not a fully developed human being!

It is a potential human life, yes. But the actual human life takes precedence. The actual human life of the pregnant woman, who is the only one who can ultimately decide the moral questions involved in ending a potential human life.

Also, all rights, including the right to life, are a product of society. And a human's entry into society occurs at birth.

Ask anybody: How old are you? When are you counting from?

Most people would answer: birth.

Also, nobody - not even the Catholic Church - holds a funeral every time a woman has a miscarriage. Which happens more often than anybody realizes: often it just seems a heavy period.

This whole "life begins at conception" line was developed specifically in response to the development of the technical possibility of medical, safe abortion, and the accompanying expansion of women's ability to control their bodies, their reproductive abilities, the course of their lives. That had to be controlled.

Almost nobody acts like they really think life begins at conception...except when it comes to the question of abortion.

(Sometimes it's back-projected or expanded in an effort to cover up this inconsistency, but that's also abortion-motivated.)

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:22 PM
Just curious to know what the users of RevLeft think about this question.

It was brought up by my Medical Ethics teacher, who happens to be "Pro-Life", as he is a devout Catholic.

At what moment does the foetus deserve to be labeled "human", and be given human rights?

Or, is this question simply irrelevant to the whole debate on abortion?

When they are born. Pro-lifers will always try to use this argument to justify their opinion, however it is simply a biological argument that denies the social nature of human life. It is therefore pointless.

[rioters bloc]

i don't know the exact time, but i'd say around the time it begins to move by itself [which is sometimes as early as 8 weeks] and smile, blink, etc.

it's not really irrelevant to the debate on abortion [since there are a few different aspects] but it is irrelevant to whether abortion should be made illegal or not. while i do not believe in abortion myself i do believe the option should be available legally because as people have mentioned it's gonna be done anyway, so it may as well be done in safe, sterile conditions.

[OleMarxco]

I kind of second that, 'tho - 'Cept the thought of "underground, illegal abortion clinic's" sway me as funny. Hah! An hidden black market of abortion, with "cover-up" activity's such as a butcher's shop to excuse fer all'e blood ;)

So my stance is usually pre'simple on'ris shit;
The mother gives, the mother takes,
Why the hell should we care if the mother decides to take what she's about to give anyways? It wouldn't have happened withouth her iniative nevertheless...OR WOULD IT!? :marx:

[Gnosis]

Are you actually stating that a sperm cell, and an ovum, can both be described as "human", or have I just missed your point completely?


You have not missed my point.
I say ovum and sperm are human.


So, in your opinion, the foetus is human?

Yes.


If that is the case, then does it not deserve the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

A matter of opinion.
I am unsure of my opinion as I have never read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


My own belief is that the foetus is not a human person per se, and so it cannot be defined as a "human", and cannot be granted the same human rights as the mother.

A fetus is not A human, but a fetus IS human.

Just like an individual ovum is not A human, but it is human.

I think death is okay, even if it is by the hand of your mother.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You have not missed my point.
I say ovum and sperm are human.

And you would also be wrong.


Yes.

Also wrong.

[KC]

At what moment does the foetus deserve to be labeled "human", and be given human rights?


Birth.


When is a fetus really human?

A fetus isn't human. That's why it's called a fetus. And not a human.


I think it is human when the egg and sperm are still seperate.

I think that both of these are just as human as a piece of dandruff.


Female eggs are human and so are male sperm even if they aren't joined and evolving together.


No, they aren't. Here's a simple chemical formula for you:

1Egg + 1Sperm --> 1Human

That's like saying that Hydrogen and Oxygen are both water.



The foetus is still biologically dependent on the mother, and is connected to her in a biological way, therefore, surely the mother should have the choice of whether or not she wishes to abort the foetus.


Technically, it's a parasite.


Couple of problems here, and your medical ethics teacher better learn some more philosophy than just ethics and Catholic metaphysics. To begin with, if you use a noun such as “human” its going to be problematic. Nouns describes entities that generally have an ontological status of some kind of permanency. For Example, we call a this object a “door” which is arbitrary to begin with, but it signifies that the duration of this object has some kind of longevity for an X amount of time. Same thing with a human per se. (even though I would argue otherwise, but that is a separate issue). We call this object a human, and it has some kind of longevity.

However, you can not apply this to a fetus on grounds that a fetus, ontologically speaking is in a process of development, growth, movement. It is a process of potential. Thus, even fetus is problematic. Secondly, human rights are not “given” to man by God, the government or other men. Going as far back as Hobbes and Locke that rights are naturally inherent in all men who have the ability to exercise those rights. Fetus' don't have the ability to exercise those rights if they had any to begin with. Moreover, as rights are individualistic, and in terms are to be applied in isolation, as one above poster has said this does not happen since this process is dependent.

Finally, in the beginning its only cells. Its not an ethical problem if I scratch myself and skin flakes off. So why would this be an ethical problem? The genetic makeup is arbitrary since my DNA is almost identical with every other living entities DNA. So really, if abortion is an ethical problem so is killing puppy fetus' or the fetus of any other mammal on the face of the planet. Also. If your teacher is so worried about if a cluster of cells have rights, ask him if that animal that was killed to serve as his shoe or for his seat cushion had less rights even though it had higher brain function. Take for example a guerrilla which has high cognitive faculties, emotional, psychological and sociological skills and abilities to that of a newly conceived cell. If the later is an ethical problem but the extermination of the former isn't....I fail to see any line of thinking which can justify it.


You're fucking awesome.



A fetus is not A human, but a fetus IS human.


So is the shit that comes out of your ass!

[Free Palestine]

There is a consensus that a newborn is a human person. People have different opinions about the stage at which human life becomes a human person. This is the core disagreement that drives the abortion wars. The concept of personhood for "pro-lifers" is just religious fanatacism. Religious fanaticism is not fact.

There is no way a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a human being. They are human, but so is a fingernail attached to a human body. So is a breast cancer cell or a hair follicle or a skin scraping. Until it can survive outside of the mothers womb, meaning fully developed, hence sentient, it is not a human being.(Late First-Early Second Trimester) If a fetus doesn't have a developed brain, its not sentient, and not a human being.

[Commie Rat]

when the egg and sperm are seperate they are part of the parent
when it is a feotus it is part of the woman
when it is born it is a human being