No. But life beginning at conception is the only logical line to draw. Every other is arbitrary. And having arbitrary set lines for who is human and who isn’t is not something we should want. But banning abortion also doesn’t work and is cruel. Life is complicated.
At the point of conception all you are is a small group of cells that are forming something. There is no brain, there is no heart, there is no anything that would be described as human other than the DNA. At some point during the endless splitting of those cells a heart is created to push blood around the body that has developed, a body I might add looks entirely the same no matter what species you’re looking at at this stage. And then, sometime long after that, a brain emerges but it’s nothing like what we have when we’re born. The human brain of a baby takes a long time to form. The question of “At what point does Life Begin?”, is not “At what point is something alive?”, it’s “At what point can it be considered human and not just a small group of cells working toward being a human one day?”
Anti-abortion groups are not pro-life as they like to claim. For one, more than a few of them are pro death penalty. And for two, they don’t actually care about children who are born because more than half of them actively work towards taking assistance away from single mothers and children and adoption services and Foster Care programs. Even if all they do is vote for the wrong party, they are guilty of this.
Tbh, “At what point does life begin?” is a pointless question and a false equivalence.
A removed appendix or a removed cancer are clearly human life too. They clearly live, and still there is no moral panic about “killing” someone’s appendix or cancer.
The actual question here is “At what point is a human a legally protected being?” or “At what point does it make sense that legal protections cover a human being?”
Claiming that the question is “At what point does life begin?” is a purposely wrong question that is used to shift the discussion from the actual question. Because life begins as sperm and egg cells, but legally protecting these would be completely crazy. But if we are talking about “At what point does life begin?” instead of about “At what point is the embryo human enough to warrant human-level protections?” the story rapidly changes.
I always thought of the question as “at what point is it a human being”. I think we could both agree that a cut of arm is living tissue and not a human being. From this point of view, the original question stand in my opinion (and could somewhat be equated to yours).
That is a much more valid question than “at what point does life begin”, and that’s pretty much the same point as “at what point is it a being covered by the legal protections of human rights?”
Yeah, I felt the same when I wrote it. I agree with what someone else said though, these movements are often not about life but about control over women.
Yeah, that’s the really infuriating part. While some people might argue in good faith on the pro-life side, a lot of them don’t.
A common scenario:
A woman who is not ready, equipped and/or willing to have a child gets pregnant and wants to abort.
She ends up not doing it (due to laws and/or social pressure) and has the kid.
Turns out, she’s not ready, equipped and/or willing to raise the child, and the child ends up neglected in some form.
Society turns on the woman telling her she’s a bad mother.
If it was actually an honest pro-life movement, the pro-lifing wouldn’t end with the birth of the child. Instead, then the movement should step in and be pro-free-school-lunch, pro-free-education, pro-free-child-care and so on.
But no, it’s all like “You gave birth to this child, so screw you, it’s your own fault, your own responsibility.”
I really liked your first paragraph. I can’t argue with you regarding the second because I’m not USAian and thus live in completley different socio-political landscape.
At what point can it be considered human and not just a small group of cells working toward being a human one day?
This is intelectually stimulating position. But this same line of thought can be traced further into extremes such as eugenics and scientific racism. Because of these historical aberrations that stem from this same principle, I reject this position and thus adopt position that life begins at conception. And trying to discriminate who/what is human is dangerous and should not be done.
Instead of trying to define a point where something is a human based on how much it has developed, because of the associated risks and historical failings, your standpoint is that life begins at conception.
But life beginning at conception is the only logical line to draw.
This is so ridiculous. Miscarriages in the first few weeks of pregnancy are fucking common. Is every one of those super early miscarriages a dead human? No, and I don’t think even you would say they are.
Or what about frozen fertilized embryos used in IVF? Is each of those frozen (but fertilized, conception has happened here!) a human? Fucking no, right?
But I’m not actually that interested in drawing the line as to when an embryo becomes a human. If such a line must be drawn, I think it should be at birth, but again, don’t try to argue with me about this because I don’t care and it doesn’t matter.
Reproductive rights for currently pregnant people are actually super easy: the pregnant person gets to decide whether they want to remain pregnant or not. That’s it, that’s the whole answer, the pregnant person is the final decider and their decision should be respected entirely.
The question of “when does life begin?” is deceptive. Life does not begin at conception with each life. Life began some 3.5 billion years ago and has never stopped. Each life continues unbroken from other lives. If the complaint is that any point we choose is arbitrary, well this is what nature gave us. The only logical point to begin from is when the new life separates from the old.
And frankly, nature eats way more babies than adults.
Ok, let’s take “life begins at conception”. And let’s say that means “life that should be legally and ethically be protected like a human being begins at conception”, because if we don’t add that, it doesn’t actually mean anything.
At conception, we have a single cell, nothing more or less. If we logically extend that, that would mean every single cell is a protected human. If you get your appendix removed, it’s a protected human that was removed and thus killed. If you remove cancer, that’s a protected human.
What about the HeLa cell line? That’s a line of cells derived from the cancer of Henrietta Lacks in the early 50s. These are human cells that have mutated so that they can multiply and live as single-celled organisms. Each of them are protected humans. In fact, there are more HeLa humans (by that definition) than there are actual humans.
So you are talking about potential personhood here or currently active personhood?
I guess it’s more about potential, because otherwise we wouldn’t have the debate.
Sperm and egg cells could develop into a full human. There’s potential personhood here. If you follow that train of thought, it would be a requirement for every woman to get pregnant constantly and every man to never “waste” sperm or something crazy like that. Doesn’t make sense.
Yeah, because the discussion is about legal consequences and ommitting them in favour of some nebuous “when life begins” is just a misdirection, nothing else.
Life begins when the sperm and egg are created. Or actually life begins as the parents, or as their ancestors, millions of generations ago, when they weren’t even multi-cell organisms.
None of that matters at all to the discussion.
The only point relevant to the discussion is “When does this cross from being a ‘thing’ to being a ‘human’ worthy of legal protections?”
Sperm and egg cells don’t have legal protection, they are firmly in the ‘thing’ category. A baby that survived birth is firmly in the ‘human’ category. The question is not “when does life begin”, because that’s an absurd thing to ask.
No. But life beginning at conception is the only logical line to draw. Every other is arbitrary. And having arbitrary set lines for who is human and who isn’t is not something we should want. But banning abortion also doesn’t work and is cruel. Life is complicated.
No it’s not, conception is just as arbitrary. Just because it’s the logic you adopted doesn’t mean it’s the only logical choice.
At the point of conception all you are is a small group of cells that are forming something. There is no brain, there is no heart, there is no anything that would be described as human other than the DNA. At some point during the endless splitting of those cells a heart is created to push blood around the body that has developed, a body I might add looks entirely the same no matter what species you’re looking at at this stage. And then, sometime long after that, a brain emerges but it’s nothing like what we have when we’re born. The human brain of a baby takes a long time to form. The question of “At what point does Life Begin?”, is not “At what point is something alive?”, it’s “At what point can it be considered human and not just a small group of cells working toward being a human one day?”
Anti-abortion groups are not pro-life as they like to claim. For one, more than a few of them are pro death penalty. And for two, they don’t actually care about children who are born because more than half of them actively work towards taking assistance away from single mothers and children and adoption services and Foster Care programs. Even if all they do is vote for the wrong party, they are guilty of this.
Tbh, “At what point does life begin?” is a pointless question and a false equivalence.
A removed appendix or a removed cancer are clearly human life too. They clearly live, and still there is no moral panic about “killing” someone’s appendix or cancer.
The actual question here is “At what point is a human a legally protected being?” or “At what point does it make sense that legal protections cover a human being?”
Claiming that the question is “At what point does life begin?” is a purposely wrong question that is used to shift the discussion from the actual question. Because life begins as sperm and egg cells, but legally protecting these would be completely crazy. But if we are talking about “At what point does life begin?” instead of about “At what point is the embryo human enough to warrant human-level protections?” the story rapidly changes.
I always thought of the question as “at what point is it a human being”. I think we could both agree that a cut of arm is living tissue and not a human being. From this point of view, the original question stand in my opinion (and could somewhat be equated to yours).
That is a much more valid question than “at what point does life begin”, and that’s pretty much the same point as “at what point is it a being covered by the legal protections of human rights?”
Yeah, I felt the same when I wrote it. I agree with what someone else said though, these movements are often not about life but about control over women.
Yeah, that’s the really infuriating part. While some people might argue in good faith on the pro-life side, a lot of them don’t.
A common scenario:
If it was actually an honest pro-life movement, the pro-lifing wouldn’t end with the birth of the child. Instead, then the movement should step in and be pro-free-school-lunch, pro-free-education, pro-free-child-care and so on.
But no, it’s all like “You gave birth to this child, so screw you, it’s your own fault, your own responsibility.”
Cue running to an anti-abortion with a ball of human hair and screaming, “BEHOLD, A MAN!”
I really liked your first paragraph. I can’t argue with you regarding the second because I’m not USAian and thus live in completley different socio-political landscape.
This is intelectually stimulating position. But this same line of thought can be traced further into extremes such as eugenics and scientific racism. Because of these historical aberrations that stem from this same principle, I reject this position and thus adopt position that life begins at conception. And trying to discriminate who/what is human is dangerous and should not be done.
By that logic, cancer treatments should be illegal.
I do not find much logic in your reply. But fear not, to me you are still human! Have a great day!
Cancer is made of a living human cells growing to its own means. Killing it is killing a human by your logic.
Instead of trying to define a point where something is a human based on how much it has developed, because of the associated risks and historical failings, your standpoint is that life begins at conception.
Did I understand correctly?
Correct
👍
People who eat meat and eggs already make this distinction. You want to get rough and stupid? Then let’s get rough and stupid.
What if the question of life or non-life is irrelevant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion_and_euthanasia
This is so ridiculous. Miscarriages in the first few weeks of pregnancy are fucking common. Is every one of those super early miscarriages a dead human? No, and I don’t think even you would say they are.
Or what about frozen fertilized embryos used in IVF? Is each of those frozen (but fertilized, conception has happened here!) a human? Fucking no, right?
But I’m not actually that interested in drawing the line as to when an embryo becomes a human. If such a line must be drawn, I think it should be at birth, but again, don’t try to argue with me about this because I don’t care and it doesn’t matter.
Reproductive rights for currently pregnant people are actually super easy: the pregnant person gets to decide whether they want to remain pregnant or not. That’s it, that’s the whole answer, the pregnant person is the final decider and their decision should be respected entirely.
The question of “when does life begin?” is deceptive. Life does not begin at conception with each life. Life began some 3.5 billion years ago and has never stopped. Each life continues unbroken from other lives. If the complaint is that any point we choose is arbitrary, well this is what nature gave us. The only logical point to begin from is when the new life separates from the old.
And frankly, nature eats way more babies than adults.
deleted by creator
Ok, let’s take “life begins at conception”. And let’s say that means “life that should be legally and ethically be protected like a human being begins at conception”, because if we don’t add that, it doesn’t actually mean anything.
At conception, we have a single cell, nothing more or less. If we logically extend that, that would mean every single cell is a protected human. If you get your appendix removed, it’s a protected human that was removed and thus killed. If you remove cancer, that’s a protected human.
What about the HeLa cell line? That’s a line of cells derived from the cancer of Henrietta Lacks in the early 50s. These are human cells that have mutated so that they can multiply and live as single-celled organisms. Each of them are protected humans. In fact, there are more HeLa humans (by that definition) than there are actual humans.
So does this definition make any sense?
If my appendix could develop into a full human, I wouldnt get it removed. How many cells we have is irrevelant, personhood matters.
So you are talking about potential personhood here or currently active personhood?
I guess it’s more about potential, because otherwise we wouldn’t have the debate.
Sperm and egg cells could develop into a full human. There’s potential personhood here. If you follow that train of thought, it would be a requirement for every woman to get pregnant constantly and every man to never “waste” sperm or something crazy like that. Doesn’t make sense.
Life begins at conception. Then it’s active personhood
So your definition of “personhood” does not depend on the existence of a person?
What is your definition then? I’m sensing a circular definition incoming.
when they are conceived and given their rational soul.
Circular reasoning.
how is it circular reasoning?
embryos exist?
In your first paragraph you are directly attaching legal consequences which I explicitly did not propose in my original comment.
Yeah, because the discussion is about legal consequences and ommitting them in favour of some nebuous “when life begins” is just a misdirection, nothing else.
Life begins when the sperm and egg are created. Or actually life begins as the parents, or as their ancestors, millions of generations ago, when they weren’t even multi-cell organisms.
None of that matters at all to the discussion.
The only point relevant to the discussion is “When does this cross from being a ‘thing’ to being a ‘human’ worthy of legal protections?”
Sperm and egg cells don’t have legal protection, they are firmly in the ‘thing’ category. A baby that survived birth is firmly in the ‘human’ category. The question is not “when does life begin”, because that’s an absurd thing to ask.