When does human life begin?

[letuswaltzforthedead]

At conception (Within 12-24 hours, a pregnancy is usually detected in week 4-5)

When the fetus starts developing a heart/brain (Begins at around 6-10 weeks)

When the fetus can feel pain (starts to feel pain by week 12, confirmed by week 20 )

When the baby is viable outside of the womb (usually around weeks 22-24, the earliest was 21 week and 5 days old)

At the beginning of the third trimester and beyond (After week 28)

When the fetus is born

Other

[nightdrot]

Logically it must be at the moment of conception.

A thing cannot be other than what it is. When a human egg and a human sperm meet, the only thing that will ever result is human. It will not become a duck or a cow or anything else.

It is what it must be at any point of its development. To point to some sub-category that defines humanity is problematic. If, for example, it is argued that a fetus is not human because it cannot talk, you immediately strip away the humanity of the person in a coma or the deaf mute.

The essence of the abortion debate to which you indirectly allude is that once the definition of "human" becomes not a fact, but a subjective moment in time, lots of bad things begin to happen. That definition becoming controlled by those with the power to exercise and impose it and thus an ethic of subjective power and not moral principle comes to dominate the culture.

A fetus cannot be anything other than a human life. It cannot be other than what it is and if it was not human it would have to have the capacity to become something other than a human being. This it does not have and therefore it cannot be other than what it is - a human being at a point in the natural aging and growing of a human being.

The argument that a fetus is not a human being is problematic. If it is not, then at what point does it become human? What then is the physical difference one second before that instant and one second after? Moreover, what is the moral distinction one second before that moment and one second after?

The last question is pertinent. First, because it is assumed that humans have an inherent worth and that they have rights that inhere in their humanity. "Worth" and "rights" are not physical but philosophical and epistemological phenomena. Therefore, there must be something consistent with physical development that conduces to a moral outcome. It is therefore essential to know what that is and when it happens.

Typically, some will argue that consciousness is the defining factor. That, however, is problematic. The man in a coma lacks consciousness - awareness of self and surroundings. If it is argued that a man in a coma MIGHT recover, then potentiality is the criteria. The problem being that the fetus shares - from the moment of conception - that same potentiality.

A thing does not lose its defining moral and physical characteristics just because of where it is any moment in time. Physical development is transitory, but a being does not lose certain essential characteristics. A fetuses' DNA is as human as an adult. There is no difference at any point in time from conception to death. To repeat, the fetus has NO potential to become a duck. It cannot be other than what it is.

As to the example that a human being by even the 5th month will not survive on its own. That too is a flawed argument. By that logic, the man in a coma is not human as he will not survive absent means to sustain his life. Suddenly your definition of "human" is based on very slippery soil. Humanity being defined by its capacity to survive.

By that logic, the infant is similarly doomed. After all, he too cannot survive absent the conditions that make his survival possible. This again leaving his humanity to be defined by those with the power to provide such conditions.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Further, "worth" and "rights" are either objective and inherent, in which case they cannot be justly taken at the convenience of another being. Alternatively, they are subjective and relative to time and circumstance. In which case, they can be taken as easily from a newly conceived child as from a black man in the pre-Civil War south or a Jew in 1930s Germany.

The problem at the moment is that the culture claims that it believes that life has inherent worth and inherent rights. However, it places freedom and therefore will above such beliefs in practice. As Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Thus do rights become not inherent to the human being, but a subjective judgment that can be taken by those with the power to take it.

[Jamie05rhs]

@nightdrot The slippery slope has already begun. People in comas have already lost their humanity in the eyes of popular opinion. People have been conditioned to accept the concept of "pulling the plug.". (This never sat right with me as a child. I think that is because children are inherently more moral that adults; they have not yet lost their compass of Right and Wrong.)
But the reason this is becoming more and more accepted is for purely economic reasons. The ethics of veterinary care are now being applied to humans. "If we can't afford the bill to keep them alive or make them well, well, we'll just kill them off."
But part of the problem here is the profit-driven healthcare system. No one is going to pay to try to keep someone alive. Because, let's face it: no one person's life is worth that much (from an accounting perspective.)

[nightdrot]

@Jamie05rhs Yes, there has been some of what you describe. Though it is probably not quite as common as you suggest.

That said, all life is practiced on a slippery slope. The point is to argue - as far as is possible - against taking the steps against going down the slope.

As far as your explanation for why this is happening, there is no doubt a crudely utilitarian economic explanation. Americans are prone to that kind of utilitarianism, coming as they do, culturally, out of the idea of the Enlightenment with its somewhat mechanistic view of what is called natural law.

Americans thus tend to accept a sort of crude utilitarianism and then are just as equally prone to be shocked and horrified at the consequences of that utilitarianism. These things ebb and flow and the purpose of wise statecraft is to - as Aristotle and Aquinas and Burke, among others - argued is to nurture virtue and a more complex idea of justice.

[Jamie05rhs]

No; they're prone to it because of simple economic reality. It has nothing to do with philosophy. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

[nightdrot]

@Jamie05rhs My point about utilitarianism was to suggest that it is economically driven. Americans tend to justify their actions in narrowly economic terms. They give short shrift do the larger moral issues until the consequences of their actions become apparent, at which point there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The truth is that the clear line that you are attempting to draw between the economic and the moral is not real. At an irreducible level they are intertwined and therefore Americans - and not just Americans - are routinely shocked by the results of what they mistakenly define as ONLY economic pressures and considerations.

[cute_short_nerd]

Killing babies? Pretty metal if you ask me.

[nightdrot]

@cute_short_nerd Not sure what that means. However, as you can tell from reading what I wrote, my position is hardly in favor of abortion. That was not, however, the question here.

Rather, the question is when life begins and this I attempted to answer at the nexus of basic science and moral philosophy.

[ohsheeT]

The moment that your boyfriend tells you he's allergic to condoms or it will be okay because he'll pull it out that's when it starts and that's when you have a choice to say I know you either put it on and wear it or go find somebody else because I'm not ready to have a child that's when it starts it starts with two people that want to be adults have that conversation because once that conversation is over you can't take anything back that's when Life Starts make the right choice do not listen to a guy who tries to b******* you that's when human life begins right there in there it's your choice before that choice is made for you

[lumos]

Literally nobody can define this because it's completely subjective, according to how each individual defines "human" and "life". I can't answer this question because I see all and no answers as logical. You could argue that human life begins when the egg/sperm is created and you could argue that human life begins as our first memories are actually being formed at age 2.5. It all depends on what angle you prefer according to your own beliefs. In the end, none of our opinions matter because none of it can ever be pure fact.

[Snsl153]

At conception. Next question!

[AviatorTom]

@snsl153 Medically speaking, when is that? "the moment of conception"? Is it when the sperm first penetrates the outer layer of the ovum? When the sperm penetrates the ovum's nucleus? When the sperm's chromosomes mix with the ovum's chromosomes? When the now-fertilized ovum splits into two cells? The fact that no one can definitely states exactly when conception occurs is why there are so many opinions about when human life begins. This is not an easy question to answer.

[OlderAndWiser]

This is an argument about definitions but the argument is never made explicit. Define "life" and you have made some progress on deciding when life begins. Otherwise, people simply choose an answer that is consistent with their belief on abortion.

I believe that life begins at conception. I have no opposition to any form of birth control or contraception tha prevents an egg from being fertilized. I am opposed to abortion and all forms of contraception that kill fertilized eggs.

[Cherry234]

D - at the point of viability in my opinion. Although I am pro-choice, I am against late term abortion unless it's an exceptional circumstance like if something is seriously wrong with the fetus or the mother's health or life is at risk. I even understand the validity of a late term abortion if the baby is going to die immediately or shortly after being born. In that case getting the abortion would alleviate suffering for both the mother and the baby. 24 weeks (or whatever the actual point of viability is) is plenty of time to decide if you want an abortion.

[Varanus]

Technically a human life begins at conception, but it's effectively a parasite until somewhere between 5 and 100+ years old.

If you're asking the question I know you're asking: when should a human life be granted legal rights and protections, my vote is when it starts school. That's when society at large begins expending significant effort toward its success, and it's developed sufficient intelligence to have a meaningful personality.

Sane arguments could be made for "when it's been born and is viable", but only if we also have robust systems in place to care for unwanted children and to provide financial assistance for those in need.

It is absolutely and completely unacceptable to force breed a human being, for ANY reason. A human being must always have the right to abort at ANY stage, for ANY reason. Anything less is to place the rights of a blob of cells leeching off its host above the rights of a living, sapient being.

[TheorionMage]

'Human' life is when a fetus begins viable to 'house' a human Sentience (Soul)...
PRIOR to that, a developing fetus is nothing MORE than an evolved benign parasitic growth! Deriving nutrients and oxygen and secreting biological waste through the placenta...
'Miscarriages' are when that parasitic growth becomes harmful/cancerous to its 'host' due to mutation. Think of it as a human 'Soul' loitering in the viewing area of an automotive manufacturer's factory, watching and awaiting for their 'vehicle' to be completed along their assembly line... numerous benchmarks and quality tests must be completed. While irreconcilable organic physical defects can necessitate a rejection ALSO 'procedural' irregularities can also 'cancel' completion of the physical host 'animus'.

[shaysh87]

why would it matter when human life begins? when you can't guarantee this innocent being a decent childhood, a good education, a good home. its better off not being born. When innocent defenseless kids get into the hands of the wrong people looking to adopt, its only the kid that suffer the most. Poor upbringing is how criminals are usually made.

[cute_short_nerd]

Exactly

[WhiteSteve]

I’d say it would be at conception, technically. But you’re not a person until you’re born. “Don’t count your eggs before they hatch”, right? Obviously, as mammals, the womb is our “egg”, and we are birthed rather than hatched. But I think the analogy still applies.

[WhiteSteve]

“Don’t count your CHICKENS before they hatch”, that is. Whoops😂

[Anonymous]

I think when there is a fully developed brain and the ability for a pain response, before that time I think it could be an elective procedure but after that time it should be for medical reason such as the fetus is impatible with life, or the it would be a risk to the mother to give birth.

[Anonymous]

The Bible says "at first breath" and actually gives direction for abortions... So my vote is "at first breath"

That said, the government's job is to protect people's human rights, not to legislate one groups morality to be imposed upon another so "when life begins" is less of the question than "when legal personhood begins".

[Emii_Urashima]

In many countries, if a person kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with 2 deaths

[Opinion Owner]

@Emii_Urashima this is true, but they are entitled to their logic... Every country is different.

[AviatorTom]

Difficult question that has been asked for centuries. There is no right or wrong answer, everyone has their own opinion. I tend to go with a variant of D... when the fetus is viable outside the womb on its own, without external help.

[abc3643]

H
When all your debts are paid-off and you can retire without financial worries.
Until then, you are just a piece of meat for the wealthy to consume as they wish.

[cute_short_nerd]

Smart

[Anonymous]

There is no doubt that life begins at conception. Of that there is literally no question. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise for the purpose of justifying abortion simply loses any credibility because they are showing their ignorance and/or dishonesty.

But the real question here is whether there is adequate justification for ending that human life before a certain point it its development. That is the ONLY question, and I personally believe there is adequate justification in many cases.

[LazerBean]

Science is very clear that it starts at conception.

https://evolutionnews. org/2020/02/when-does-human-life-begin/

[Aiko_E_Lara]

That's just a way for pro life to monopolize that discussion and use the words "because science said do" to invalidate anyone having a different point of view. They gather scientific data about the facts that makes them consider a fetus a human life but also ignore the other facts science also say about a fetus that pro choice can use to invalidate their point of view. You can say human life starts at conception because science said so but it's not really different if we say human life don't start at conception because science said so.

[WhitneySnow]

I voted C cause that sounds logical and it gives the woman a reasonable time to have an abortion, but I’m far from a doctor so please don’t rely on my opinion

[Blackcosmo]

As soon as the fetus is given a soul. That's when it starts life.

[KelleyNice]

When the mother was a fetus and her eggs were being created.

[SamIam96]

There's an elegance to your argument. We should value each one as if it were a VIP having a heart attack. Keep it viable at all cost. Ambulance transportation to an ICU.

[John_Doesnt]

Abortions for all!

Vote for Kang

[cute_short_nerd]

Fax I hate kids fr I wish I was aborted. Killing babies is pretty metal if you think about it 🤟

[saffoler]

When the DNA from the sperm fuses with the DNA from the egg.

[imjustadude]

In my balls. Women, please come help me give all my babies a chance.

[TommyMountainFigure]

I don't care what anyone else says.. there is a reason it is called your 'birthday'

[BeMuse]

A single cell is alive. If it has human DNA, then it is human life...