Life doesn't begin at conception: it continues at conception. A living egg and a living sperm combine to form a living zygote. The real question should be "Do rights begin at conception?" (and I don't believe they do).
Until there is an individual, there are no rights. A zygote is not an individual. So, when does the individual "begin"? I don't know.
*
I know that even mentioning this subject alienates people, as does my position that even if it were objectively proven that abortion is always "murder" I don't want the State making "laws" criminalizing it (or anything else, either). The State is not legitimate, and its "legal" opinion on anything is worthless to me. But I am going to say my piece and you can take it or leave it.
.
I recognize that an abortion that takes place 1 minute after conception is a different ethical proposition to one that takes place 1 minute before labor begins. That difference gets smaller as you get further from conception and closer to labor but I'd really like to see a theory that:
ReplyDelete1. recognizes the humanity and rights of a fetus capable of surviving outside the womb without any greater care than is given to a healthy baby
2. makes a clear empirical distinction between the fetus in 1. and a pregnancy which may ethically be aborted.
"But I am going to say my piece and you can take it or leave it."
ReplyDeleteI'll gladly take it ;-)
Julioshinobi
Anon 8:24AM- I think I have addressed that in my previous abortion-related blog entries (follow the trail of links from the link on the word "abortion" in the first sentence), but if you read them and don't agree, why not tackle that yourself?
ReplyDelete"Do rights begin at conception?" No, not at conception, or at any time thereafter either. Rights are a faulty concept, a fantasy.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need a debate on abortion. We just need to recognize what virtually everyone already recognizes, that 1) It's abhorrent to throw a woman in jail for murder when she takes a morning after pill, and 2) It's abhorrent to abort (that is, kill) a baby who is just about to be born. The only question is the dividing line in the middle, and that question surely does not belong in state hands.
The whole "life begins at conception" argument is a red herring. I'm always a little embarrassed when pro-choice advocates take the bait and start pontificating on exactly when a fetus ceases to become "just a mass of cells" and starts to become "human".
ReplyDeleteThis is actually playing right into the hands of the pro-life people. It's best to end-run the entire argument and concede that yes life does begin (or if you prefer, continue) at conception, but that regardless, the choice is still solely up to the woman whose body it is.
Society will always debate where to draw the arbitrary line. My preference would be to draw it at the moment of birth. It may be as arbitrary as any other, but it is a clear, sharp moment in time. A woman has sole sovereign authority over her body and anything inside it.
This is so much easier when explicitly taking consciousness into account.
ReplyDeleteA zygote isn't conscious. A baby is. Somewhere in between, a fetus changes from a lump of cells into a sentience. Don't abort sentiences.
Moreover it should be straightforward to determine. The regions of the brain associated with consciousness are known. This can be checked by asking toddlers about the womb. (Before childhood amnesia sets in, you can get reports of what the womb was like.)
Sentience does figure into my line between when abortion is OK and when it is not. But, then you get the people who worry about euthanasia and "pulling the plug" on comatose people who "might" recover someday.
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess, personally, I have one standard for fetuses and another for previously sentient people who have lost their sentience.
I can produce that result without a double standard.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking sentiences can make their wishes known, so I don't have to guess.
Or, if they have neglected that responsibility, I can interview their closest and make the guess a pretty good one.
On the other hand, I've never heard of a suicidal baby. Their inability to speak is irrelevant.
Life doesn't continue at conception, it begins. Thus the word "conception". While an egg and sperm are living cells, they will NEVER be anything more until successfully united. Never.
ReplyDeleteA human embryo on the other hand is a human, continuously developing both before and after birth,lifelong. If a new, unique life has not begun, then there is no baby, thus nothing to abort. Uniquely comprised of DNA from both parents, the developing baby is truly more than the sum of its' parts. Can anything be more obvious than that?
Now, as conception truly begins a new life, is it your view that violence may be initiated against it, merely because it lacks the means to resist?
Who should come to your aid if you are attacked - states' law existing or not?
itor
You haven't convinced me that human conception truly begins a human being.
ReplyDeleteIt may be obvious to you, but something feels very wrong about that argument to me. That doesn't mean it IS wrong- just that I have a deep, gut feeling that there is an underlying foundational difference between a zygote and a full-term baby. I tend to believe everyone is missing some really important information that is necessary to form an informed opinion. And I don't know what it is.
If I am attacked no one is obligated to come to my defense. No one. I might hope someone would, but I can't demand or expect anyone to. What does a zygote hope?
I don't want to be wrong, whatever the truth may be. But I still feel as if the wool is being pulled over my eyes by the "pro-life" arguments. I don't get that same oily feeling when encountering the arguments that put the "pro-choice" side out there. That proves nothing of course.
I come from a very anti-abortion position. The more I thought about it, the less I was able to feel right about continuing to support that position. "Feelings" are worth what you can charge for them.
At least I am not enthusiastically pro-abortion like Francois Tremblay.
"You haven't convinced me that human conception truly begins a human being."
ReplyDeleteOK. I'll try again:
Do you agree that science through the examination of DNA indicates FROM CONCEPTION the genesis of a unique person? Yes/No?
Do you agree that a developing child aka "zygote" is distinctly different from, yet containing genetic information of both parents - as revealed through both DNA and the eventually born child?
A unique combination which is not mirrored in its siblings.
Now, the issue isn't requiring someone to come to your defense. Would you prevent someone coming to your defense, or the defense of another if attacked? Obviously if knocked senseless or otherwise incapacitated you can't hope for anything. Kinda the "good samaritan" approach.
Yet - upon further consideration, you are correct.There is a difference between the euphemistic "zygote" and and a fully formed baby.
That difference is abortion.
itor
"Do you agree that science through the examination of DNA indicates FROM CONCEPTION the genesis of a unique person? "
ReplyDeleteYes.
"Do you agree that a developing child aka "zygote" is distinctly different from, yet containing genetic information of both parents - as revealed through both DNA and the eventually born child?"
Yes.
And then you went off on an unrelated tangent rather than actually connecting the dots. Which is what I always encounter.
It seems to me that you are skipping over some things and hoping no one notices. "Human" does not necessarily mean "human being". It might mean the same, but that isn't a given.
But, off to the other part- I have prevented people from coming to my defense in the past. And, I have had someone prevent me from coming to the defense of another once (that I can think of right now). Sometimes that may be the best thing. I really don't see how it has anything at all to do with what we are discussing.
Once again, I come away feeling kind of dirty, like a soapy salesman is trying to fool me into buying a faulty product he is peddling.
Now I know how I feel: I feel manipulated.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same feeling I always get when someone is trying to get me to do something I know isn't in my best interest by misleading me. I got that feeling a lot from my second wife. I knew a familiar nagging in the back of my head kept sounding a warning, and now I finally realized what that feeling is.
Hmmm. Ok, so we agree that:
ReplyDeleteLife BEGINS at conception - Yes? - see above
That is a unique life - more than the sum of its' parts - yes?
That, just like an infant everything necessary for growth & further developement is already there - yes?
It is a human being, which if allowed will continue to grow and develop throughout its' life. The "unrelated tangent" is response to a post above, on the same subject, therefore relevant.
"So, when does the individual "begin"? I don't know."
I think this question is now answered, based on your affirmative responses above. The individual begins at conception. Do we agree?
Now, I believe the uneasy feeling might be termed cognitive dissonance; when a deeply held belief is shown irrefutably to be false. One or the other must go - there is no mental space for both. Terming a baby a "zygote" is simply an attempt to dehumanize the baby. Just as dehumanizing terms are used for other races and religions.
Do these sound right?
Oh honey, we're going to have a zygote! What will you name the zygote? What sex is your zygote?
itor
"...more than the sum of its' parts - yes?"
ReplyDeleteNot yet.
"...just like an infant everything necessary for growth & further developement is already there - yes?"
No. Most of that stuff which is "necessary for growth & further development" has to be taken from another person. Eating a pine nut is not the same as eating a Pinion tree. You have the program, but not the "thing".
"The individual begins at conception. Do we agree?"
No.
I have had cognitive dissonance before. This isn't it. A zygote is a definitively-defined scientific term. "Baby" is not. Yes, it is defined, but not in scientific terms, and it is mainly an emotional term. Calling a zygote a "baby" is an attempt to tie an emotional response to something that doesn't naturally elicit one.
Now, for some people to call their own zygote a baby before it has become one is fine, for them. They can name it and discuss it if it makes them happy. But to pass and enforce "laws" based upon their emotional response to their own zygote is wrong.
OK,it looks to me as if you're backstepping.
ReplyDelete"Do you agree that science through the examination of DNA indicates FROM CONCEPTION the genesis of a unique person? "
your response:
"Yes."
"Do you agree that a developing child aka "zygote" is distinctly different from, yet containing genetic information of both parents - as revealed through both DNA and the eventually born child?"
your response"
"Yes."
Again, referring to a baby as a "zygote" is an attempt to strip the baby of its' humanity.
Just as with a nursing baby nutrition comes from someone else. Agreed?
The pine nut vs tree is a non starter for argument - the pine nut is not growing - but a baby is. Yes?
Claiming to not know is a pretty weak defense - "I didn't know the gun was loaded"
Shouldn't a professed lack of knowledge engender a cautious approach, one that allows for the distinct possibility that, why yes indeed that might be a living human?
Would you end the concept of murder? Or merely say that its OK for some folks, but you don't normally practice it?
Now, it has been demostrated clearly that: a new life begins at conception - it doesn't "continue" any more than a blood cell or fingernail or hair continues - those things are all they will ever be. The word "conception" has a clear & distinct meaning, one that pro-abortionists try to dance away from.
The idea of life beginning at conception is not a recent developement- the Chinese added nine months to a persons age, to arrive at an accurate age accounting for LIFE in utero. Now we have the scientific tools to prove that is the beginning of life.
If its' not a baby - there is no pregnancy.
itor
"Just as with a nursing baby nutrition comes from someone else. Agreed?'
ReplyDeleteYes, but in this case it comes from someone else voluntarily. If the other person doesn't want to feed the baby (or hand the baby over to someone else who does), they don't feed it. The person might feel guilt if they refuse to nourish the baby, but in the end they either choose to feed it, or they choose not to. The baby doesn't come with stealth to drink from their body by dark of night like some vampire.
"...the pine nut is not growing - but a baby is. Yes?"
If the pine nut has been planted where the conditions for it to grow are being met, it is growing. Unless the zygote is placed where it receives the conditions it needs to grow, then will not grow (as probably happens with the vast majority of zygotes). A seed is the fertilized ovum of the plant just as a zygote is the fertilized ovum of a human. How is that a "non starter"? Now, I personally value a baby over a seedling, but that is simply my value judgement. On a planet where there was nothing to eat, and where oxygen was depleted to the point it was causing a horrendous loss of life, I might value the seedling more.
"Claiming to not know is a pretty weak defense..."
Claiming to not know isn't a defense at all. It is telling the truth rather than proclaiming that God injected his thoughts into my mind. Thoughts which apparently have changed in recent history. Claiming to not know what I don't know is simply not being an arrogant jerk. In the case of the gun accident, it doesn't absolve one of the consequences, but it can still be the absolute truth.
"Would you end the concept of murder?"
Not exactly, but... I don't believe The State should be involved in any way in the prosecution of murder cases. Murder shouldn't be "illegal". It is wrong to commit murder, and if you do I believe you have burdened yourself with a debt that is impossible to pay, and I think you are a justified target of shunning. Some people would probably even feel justified in seeking vengence or "a life for a life". So I don't believe abortion should be criminalized by The State even if I were convinced it is "murder".
"The word 'conception' has a clear & distinct meaning..."
Yep. The fertilization of the egg, resulting in a zygote. That isn't the end of it, though. There is still not even a pregnancy unless implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall occurs. Each step requires another step to be completed before a human being comes into existence.
"If its' not a baby - there is no pregnancy."
How do you figure that? If you don't die from it, it wasn't really cancer?
And, again, I tell you I am not, nor have I ever been, a "pro-abortionist". I used to be very firmly in the anti-abortion camp. Then I started getting uncomfortable with that rigid position as the cognitive dissonance you earlier spoke of kicked in. I kept seeing the pro-life side lie about the science and make absurd connections where none existed. So, instead of listening to what the "experts" said, I began to really think things through for myself. And take the thoughts and implications to their logical conclusions. The more I thought about it, the less I was able to justify to myself the anti-abortion position. The behavior of pro-life advocates (many in my own family, included) has pushed me ever farther from the anti-abortion position I once held.
"...the Chinese added nine months to a persons age, to arrive at an accurate age accounting for LIFE in utero."
The ancient Chinese also believed in astrology. That doesn't make it true. Or, does it?
A baby in utero doesn't require any voluntary act on the mothers' part to continue life - it grows on its' own.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, your central issue is you believe that, at some distant point after conception your "zygote" becomes a baby - today a "zygote", tomorrow a baby. Perhaps you believe that status is acquired after birth, as do the post birth abortion crowd. Truly, conception is a miracle - we don't know the mechanics of how it occurs, nor can the precise characteristics of the baby be ascertained before birth - a unique & individual human from conception.
The facts remain - immediately upon conception a new life begins - a unique individual - surely a libertarian can appreciate that. Your pine nut approach does not involve a life - until it begins to grow. As with a baby. I don't consider plants to have the same value as humans - one pine tree is pretty much the same as any other. Perhaps your experience is different.
Abortion IS a rigid position - there is life, then there isn't. What "lies" do you refer to promulgated by pro-life people? The "its' only tissue" lie is from pro-abortionists.
Astrology is not a science. Genetics & biology are - provable, repeatable, and able to be replicated worldwide. The Chinese simply observed that a persons' true age would include the nine months in utero. I doubt they would add to a trees age the unspecified time that a pine nut lay dormant, awaiting the right circumstances to sprout.
I don't believe that you are impervious to reason, obstinate perhaps. No matter - while convincing you is a worthwhile (maybe unachievable) goal, perhaps I can convince others reading this that human life begins at conception and if un-interrupted that baby continues to grow and develope throughout its' lifetime.
itor
"A baby in utero doesn't require any voluntary act on the mothers' part to continue life - it grows on its' own."
ReplyDeleteReally? Detach the placenta from the uterine wall, but otherwise do not touch the zygote or baby, and see what happens. Perhaps your definition of "on its own" differs from mine.
"...you believe that, at some distant point after conception your "zygote" becomes a baby - today a "zygote", tomorrow a baby."
Not at all. I think there is a gradual growth process, not a bolt from the blue that changes the status from zygote to baby. And I think it qualifies as a baby at least a few months before birth. But not 9 months before, nor 8- but still, before.
"Truly, conception is a miracle..."
No. It is a natural process that occurs constantly. It would be a miracle if it stopped happening while all the conditions that cause it to happen went unaltered.
"...we don't know the mechanics of how [conception] occurs..."
I recommend some basic biology studies for you and your compatriots in that case. (Why am I picturing Bill O'Reilly's "You can't explain that" tirade? LOL) Just because you don't understand (or even if no one understands) the reason or the way something happens in precise detail, that doesn't make it a "miracle". That's magical thinking and isn't based upon reality
"...nor can the precise characteristics of the baby be ascertained before birth"
Because you are talking about a very complex process that is subject to chaos and because DNA isn't the only factor that determines characteristics. Environment and random events also factor in. Just as the charcteristics of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms determine the shape and behavior of water molecules, which determines the way snowflakes form, there is no way to take all the factors into account that will determine the final shape of any particular snowflake- but you can know the parameters. The same is true of humans.
"a unique & individual human from conception."
Well, a potential unique and individual human from conception, anyway.
"The facts remain - immediately upon conception a new life begins - a unique individual"
You haven't show that to be a fact, only that it is your opinion, apparently based upon magical thinking. Something can be an "individual" without being an individual human being. Is a "new" life, even one based upon human DNA, necessarily an individual? What happens in the case of an ovum beginning to divide without a sperm? It does happen in some animals and I don't think it would be impossible (though unlikely) in humans. Since that individual would be an identical genetic copy of the mother, is it not a "new life"? That seems to be the implication of some of your earlier arguments. If a bacterium divides, has a "new life" begun? Which of the daughter cells is the "new life" and which is the "old life"? Or, are they both the "new life"? Would an individual human being have to be unique to be worth saving in your eyes?
To be continued...
"Your pine nut approach does not involve a life - until it begins to grow."
ReplyDeleteHow can you claim that? Have you ever planted a dead seed? It will not grow. The seed that has potential to grow is a life. And if it is not still alive you can't make it grow no matter how carefully you nurture it. And, I agree that I value human beings more than pine trees, and (other than aesthetically) consider pine trees to be interchangeable.
"Abortion IS a rigid position - there is life, then there isn't."
That isn't the argument. The argument is whether early-term abortion is murder- the killing of an innocent human being. Plus, life doesn't ever end quite that abruptly, unless you and all your cells were instantly incinerated (Pyroclastic flow? Asteroid strike?). After you die, most of your cells live on for a while- each dying on its own at some later time. Yes, there is a point of no return, and your sapience is probably the first thing to be irretrievably lost, but after your sapience is lost, what happens to the rest of you is of no consequence to you. Just like what happens to you before you ever have sapience. Hmmm.
"The Chinese simply observed that a persons' true age would include the nine months in utero."
I've heard other cultures added a full year to a person's age. It doesn't matter either way. Age is just a number. And some cultures didn't name the kids for a while after they were born since so many died young. It seems that after birth you can retroactively go back and refer to the unborn as "he" or "she", or call it by name, or calculate age by your estimation of the date of conception. Why not? But that doesn't add anything to the current discussion.
"I don't believe that you are impervious to reason..."
No, that's why I stopped being anti-abortion several years ago.
"obstinate perhaps"
No "perhaps" about it. I don't buy into arguments that rely on magical thinking. Not even when that magical thinking is very popular. Bringing "miracles" into this is the fastest way to lose me. Seriously.
"...while convincing you is a worthwhile (maybe unachievable) goal..."
Unless you can come up with something completely different than all the arguments I have heard dozens of times before, it is unachievable.
"...perhaps I can convince others reading this that human life begins at conception and if un-interrupted that baby continues to grow and develope throughout its' lifetime."
Perhaps. And I certainly don't mind giving you the soapbox. I have said before I'd rather be right, even if it means I have to change my mind. It has happened before and will probably happen again.
"You haven't convinced me that human conception truly begins a human being."
ReplyDeleteIf you're not convinced of a tautology, you've got a problem.
By definition, what is created at conception is a "human being."
Whether or not it's a "person" with "rights" (and if so what those rights might be and how they might interrelate with the rights of others) are entirely separate questions.
Lots of things are "human" that are not "human beings". Human corpses, human tumors, human organs, human hair, etc.
ReplyDeleteBut, if you consider human to be the same as human being (rather than "human being" to be the same as "person", as I do), then I agree.
Not everything that is human has rights. If rights exist. If rights do not exist, as Paul asserts, then there is no problem since that means no one could have the right to tell you what to do anyway. And I agree with Paul's conclusion, too.
-----
ReplyDeleteLots of things are "human" that are not "human beings."
-----
True. But by definition, what comes into existence at conception IS a "human being."
It is "human" (i.e. of species homo sapiens sapiens), and it is a "being" ("a living thing that has or can develop the ability to act or function independently; organism").
It's not a matter of what I "consider," or whether or not you agree. It's a matter of words actually meaning things instead of just being completely fuzzy and malleable toys with which we comfort ourselves and bedevil others.
Unfortunately for pro-lifers who want the issue to end with that fact, it doesn't. Unfortunately for pro-choicers who find that fact inconvenient, it will remain a fact no matter how inconvenient they find it.
So, how do you determine when a "person" begins? Can it even be determined? Is it when sapience develops? Is it when the fetus takes more-or-less human form? Is it at birth? Or, does it even matter?
ReplyDeleteFood for thought: Man Alive! A Survival Manual for the Human Mind
ReplyDelete