Ask A Scientist: When does life begin?

NEWTON -- Argonne National Laboratory, Division of Educational Programs ^ | November 1991- May 2000 | US Dept of Energy

[potlatch]

BUMP!

[beavus]

even more when a sperm fertilizes an egg to form a fetus, it is a UNIQUE human. Biologically, this fetus has a gender, hair color, a face, a height, a risk of future diseases, eye color and depending on who you ask, personality. I think that is enough to answer all questions.

Usually the stage before fetus is called "embryo". I assure you, an embryo does not have a face, hair, or eyes. But even if it did, is it face, hair, and eyes that possess rights? Surely that is not where the notion of rights comes from, or our beef-eating days will have to come to a fast end.

[minus_273]

If you don't what that means, just read the warning label on your next can of beer.

sorry, don't drink..

[potlatch]

Nothing in the article was about WHEN you were able to master algebra or WHEN you have 'rights'. The article is about WHEN does human life begin!

Were you a 'nothing' before the age of 3yrs? Your Mother didn't think so!

[Publius6961]

All absolutists on both sides of the issue will agree that these "scientists" all dodged the question. Tapdancing is a necessary art in a lot more disciplines than we care to admit.

All the more proof that the subject is is a profoundly individual struggle one way or the other. Of necessity then, all the more reason not to allow "government" authority to answer it, or to compel one view or another, or compel unaffected parties to fund, via taxes, one view or the other.

As an aside, I agree completely that this question is the central one. All other discussion is meaningless unless and until this first principle is answered or somehow established.

[beavus]

Hmm...if I were God, when would I put the soul into the newly created human? From a Christian viewpoint, if we could answer that question, then I think we would have the answer to "when does human life begin?" and/or "when does a person attain rights?" I don't think we'll ever have that answer, although I seem to recall hearing about some crazy doctor doing experiments to determine when and if the soul leaves the dying.

That is one of the clearest responses I've seen to this question yet.

Is there any reason to believe the soul is not deposited into the sperm? Or into each egg at the birth of the mother? Or into a 3 month old infant? Is there any reason to believe the soul is not built-up slowly by God over some period of weeks or months, rather than instantly placed?

If there is no way to answer these questions, then how do we determine, for practical reasons, rights?

[Publius6961]

If a human sperm enters a human egg it creates a HUMAN!

That is an opinion, by way of assertion, and hence meaningless.

A perfect example of the delusional "I am the emperor of the universe" school of argumentation.

To me, your opinion is meaningless. Where do we go from here?

[mc6809e]

Nothing in the article was about WHEN you were able to master algebra or WHEN you have 'rights'. The article is about WHEN does human life begin!

Were you a 'nothing' before the age of 3yrs? Your Mother didn't think so!

I'm saying it takes time and interaction with the world for human cells to grow and become a human person. Human persons have rights. Human cells do not.

[Publius6961]

Have you any studies that support the idea that rapists intend to get women pregnant as the prime motive--or even a secondary one--in performing a rape?

My personal belief about the subject makes your question irrelevant.

Bear in mind that you have no more right to impose your view on me than I do to impose mine on you.

Otherwise the "truth" becomes who has the biggest rock.

I think being human demands a better standard than that.

[MarineBrat]

A cluster of cells isn't a human. Example: an amputated finger.

But you and I are both clusters of cells. If you chop off my finger, I'll live and my finger will die. If you chop off a fetus' finger the situation is the same.

I'm not looking for a big argument. I'm just saying that if a sperm and an egg coming together doesn't make a "new human", then what does it make. If it's something other than a human then you are saying that it changes from a non-human into a human at some point. It seems to me that the person making the claim that it's not a human is the one who is carrying the weight of defining at exactly which point does a "cluster of cells" become a human. In other words, you must play God.

I don't care how sophisticated I feel, I'll never pretend I can play God. To me, Occam's Razor makes it an easy answer.

[potlatch]

Where do we go from here?

I know where I'm going, don't know about you.

[mc6809e]

Is there any reason to believe the soul is not deposited into the sperm? Or into each egg at the birth of the mother? Or into a 3 month old infant? Is there any reason to believe the soul is not built-up slowly by God over some period of weeks or months, rather than instantly placed?

Most Christians believe it's at conception because that's what the pope or their preacher or their minister or Jerry Fawell or Pat Robertson said.

[Generic_Login_1787]

I'm saying it takes time and interaction with the world for human cells to grow and become a human person. Human persons have rights. Human cells do not.

OK. So what's the point at which "bunch of cells" becomes "human being"?

And if you or anyone else would answer that you don't know, then please explain what's flawed with my argument that since nothing magical happens between conception and birth, you have to conclude that a human is a human from the first cell.

[Publius6961]

That, in my book knocks out all late term, mid term and most 1st term abortions right there.

But you studiously tap danced around the question.

Is your answer 7 weeks and 6 days?

[Originalist]

It seems to me that the person making the claim that it's not a human is the one who is carrying the weight of defining at exactly which point does a "cluster of cells" become a human. In other words, you must play God.

But don't you see, playing God is exactly what people want to do. I mean, come on, who wants to be accountable to a God who actually expects you to live a moral, God-fearing life. /sarc off

[potlatch]

Human persons have rights. Human cells do not.

A cell from parts of my body may not have rights but a human embryo should and does.

[jwh_Denver]

Conception is the beginning of a human life.

So if I eat a fertilized chicken egg am I eating a chicken?

 

[Pointblank]

"knowingly bearing a genetically compromised child."

My sister had a tri-somy 13 baby with spinabiphida(sp), cleff palate and many more complications. She knowingly carried that baby full term and refused anesthetics so she could be coherent during the few hours the baby lived outside of her womb. She could have aborted the baby when they found it was "genetically compromised", but she chose to carry the baby rather than have it pitched into a waste receptacle in the local clinic.
Around that time, I was in the Marine Corps helping with the local Special Olympics in Craven County, NC. where I met a remarkable young man with Down Syndrome and a gleaming personality. That experience gave me insight into The Lords perfection of imperfection. His life is a testament against the arrogance and self serving lifestyle people like you adopt to relieve yourself of responsibilities that are laid upon you. If you want to raise something that does not require an extra effort, get your tubes tied and buy a chia pet. As for children of rape, I understand the desire a mother may have to rid herself of a baby conceived in that way, and while I strongly appose abortion, I do not pretend to have an answer other than sterilizing the sub-human vermin that commit such heinous acts.

[mc6809e]

It seems to me that the person making the claim that it's not a human is the one who is carrying the weight of defining at exactly which point does a "cluster of cells" become a human. In other words, you must play God.

No, it doesn't mean I must play God. Just like I don't need to play God in order to declare that an acorn is not a tree.

It's a matter of observation.

When I look at a fetus, I don't see those things I associate with personhood - things like self-awareness or consciousness. They just aren't there yet.

Again, an acorn is not a tree.

[Originalist]

Most Christians believe it's at conception because that's what the pope or their preacher or their minister or Jerry Fawell or Pat Robertson said.

Exactly where is the problem with choosing to err on the side of life? If my view that life begins at conception is wrong, then no one is harmed, if your view is wrong, you are countenancing murder. Help me out here.