What are the argument against the idea that life begins at conception? It seems self evident that life begins at the point of conception, but this point gets argued about in the abortion debate - for example, Senator Obama, the other day, said that he did not know when life began.
So what are the arguments that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is not life? If a zygote is not a form of life, what is it? Why is this even a point to be argued? I do not see why it matters when life begins. The more important questions are:
What type of life do we want to value and protect?
When does personhood begin?
Sperm cells are alive.
Egg cells are alive.
When you combine the two, the result is still alive.
Life doesn’t begin at conception, it continues at conception.
When does personhood begin? I would say outside the womb. However I agree there’s a distinct separate life from the mother from from the moment the first cells divide.
In the context of abortion debates, when people talk about “life” beginning they’re not talking about whether cells are alive or dead. They’re talking about when a life (of a person) begins. If they were being intellectually rigourous, they’d be asking, “When do the characteristics of a person which make its life worthy of respect attach to the zygote?” And this question, of course, admits of many possible answers about which there can be endless disagreement.
“Life begins” over a billion years ago. The genetically distinct existence of an embryo begins at conception. Personhood begins to emerge much later, as the brain develops. And it’s personhood that matters; that’s why, for example, people whose bodies are brain dead but are still breathing can be legally dismantled for their organs; the body lives, but THEY are dead. That’s also why I’m not prosecuted for murder if I scratch myself, killing millions of cells.
Defining life as beginning at conception doesn’t fit how we use the term legally elsewhere, and if taken seriously leads to absurdities.
Life began once, about two billion years ago. Conception does not begin life, it continues it, by the merger of two living things, the egg and the sperm – neither of which is considered a human being with rights, so why should that change the moment they come together?
It’s up to you; there’s no set boundary, you get to choose how you use your words. And, clearly, people disagree about how they’d like to use their words. But the idea that there’s some objective sharp cut-off point or fixed specific criteria for personhood is about as silly as the idea that there’s a particular sharp cut-off point at which N many grains of sand make a heap.
Incidentally, you may want to ask yourself why you care about what labels to apply; it may turn out that what you’re really getting at is orthogonal to the question of what labels are appropriate. E.g., lurking in the background is, of course, the issue of when it is appropriate to terminate a pregnancy. And whether or not you call the fetus a person, the issue remains; one has to appeal to something other than simply “Oh, I prefer to use this label” in order to settle the matter as to what are appropriate actions. One could just as plausibly say "Sure, I’m ok calling the fetus a ‘person’ if you insist, but termination of pregnancies is still morally acceptable to me. With this usage of the term ‘person’, I don’t accept that it is always wrong to end the life of a ‘person’ " as anything else. The issues stand on their own, apart from the labels.
A zygote at the time of conception is alive in the same sense that your appendix is - it’s composed of living cells. But like your appendix, a newly conceived zygote is incapable of independent existence. It’s alive but not a life.
To my mind, the answer is that a “life” worthy of legal protections begins when the developing embryo develops the capacity for human conciousness - I believe somewhere around the third trimester.
Sperm cell, eggs, immediately fertilized eggs - all are alive, but none yet possess that which is worthy of legal defence.
There is no single point in time when personhood begins. Becoming a person is a process, not an event. So any time we pick is going to be arbitrary, to some degree. If we were to look at brain function, one might argue that personhood doesn’t happen until well after birth, or one might argue that personhood begins with the first synapse. Personally, I think we should start with the premise that we, as a society, aren’t going to allow babies to be killed once they are born. Then, I think it makes sense not to kill a fetus in the womb that could be viable outside the womb. Then I’d back up a few weeks just to be safe. That probably puts it at about 5-6 months into pregnancy.
Without invoking a religious argument, though, I can’t see calling an embryo or a fetus without brain function a person.
If the life or health of the mother is danger, then another analysis needs to take place.
With regard to abortion, when life begins is IMHO irrelevant. If a woman wants an abortion badly enough, I’d rather she got it in a proper hospital than in a back room in some house.
From a philosophical standpoint Life (not just living cells but a living organism) begins at the same time Death begins. At some point just beyond zygote I believe, excess cells begin to die and be replaced (as opposed to just cellular division). When death is possible, life is possible and vice versa.
Ok… so where do chimeras fit into this? Do they get two or more souls then?
If not, which one dies? Or does it go away? How’s all that work within a life-at-conception framework. Which seems often to be more a theistic position… hence my invocation of “soul.”
I think your questions are out of order. It’s easier to remove/kill what isn’t a person…
And I’m not sure others are inclined to consider fetuses as persons - not until a certain point. And at that point they aren’t likely to argue that its without rights.