Life Begins at Conception - Arguments against?

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=cmyk]
Of course, be that as it may, when a male and a female have sex, they are entering a contract with nature not to be too surprised when she becomes pregnant. Birth control or not (since we all know it’s never 100% safe).
[/QUOTE]

See, right here is where alarms in my head start going off. For human beings, sexual intercourse is not just about procreating. Yes, that is how we procreate, but there’s a lot more going on than that. The fact that anyone would consider birth control at all indicates that sexual contact serves a wider purpose than procreation alone. Sex is as much an emotional and social aspect of human behavior as it is a mechanical means to procreation. What does science say about sexual behavior in high-functioning mammals and the propensity to engage in behavior for reasons other than procreation? How much of our behavior is survival instinct from the standpoint of furthering our species? And how much is social instinct in creating more fulfilling lives?

Sexual contact (yes, including traditional intercourse) serves as an important social bonding mechanism that should not be left out of the equation.

182

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Twice now, once to me and once to her, you’ve said, “but no no no, I’m on YOUR side”. And frankly, I don’t care enough about it to go back and pick apart the posts again and figure out where our communication fell apart.
[/QUOTE]

If you “don’t care” enough to actually read what was written, then perhaps it would be better not to comment.

Your lack of comprehension isn’t failure of communication, my position is crystal clear to anyone actually reading this stuff.

183

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
I wasn’t being snarky, I was attempting to point out that if you are attempting to illustrate a “pro-choice” point of view, you’re arguing an extremist point that doesn’t reflect the reality of a “pro-choice” point of view.

Look, I agree with you in the “sound ethics and science” department, but waving about the “killing humans” line subverts both, in part by lending gravity to the notion that there’s a human involved.
[/QUOTE]

But I’m not “attempting to illustrate a ‘pro choice’ point of view”. I was responding to a post actually made in this thread.

I disagree that “waving about the “killing humans” line subverts both, in part by lending gravity to the notion that there’s a human involved”. Obviously at some point there is a “human involved” - which is why I was saying, in responding to a post, that aborting a fetus immediately before it is born makes no sense.

The whole point is to determine when there is “a human involved”. We agree that there is none at the point in time when the vast majority of abortions take place, because a clump of fertilized cells is not a “human”.

The best ‘pro-choice’ argument there is, is that what is generally aborted is not a “human”, but a mere clump of cells without any of the characteristics worthy of protection as a “human”. Claiming, as the poster I was responding do did, that aborting what is practically already an infant is no more problematic than the regular run of abortions does a disservice to the pro-choice side, as it undermines the logical and ethical basis for the pro-choice argument - it ignores that killing humans is wrong.

184

[QUOTE=me]
Do you believe that a sperm and egg united in the fallopian tube have rights?
Do you believe that a sperm and egg traveling down the fallopian tube have rights?
Do you believe that a sperm and egg, floating around the uterus and searching for a place to implant have rights?
Do you believe the egg has rights once implanted?
Do you believe the egg has rights once cells start to divide?
[/quote]

[QUOTE=cmyk]
I see this as part of a process. The sperm is undergoing penetration of the egg wall, on a mission to dump it’s genetic data into the egg to merge their respective genetic material into an ovum. All of this are the mechanics of cellular life, not to be confused with human-life itself. And that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? Where and when does this transformation take place

<snipped>
Der Thris points out that if you grind a painting down, all it’s constituent elements are still there, but the painting ceases to exist. He seems to argue we are a pattern of our biology. Okay, I’m down with that. But when, exactly, does that pattern emerge and deserve rights. Everyone seems biased toward the recognizable. Well, that certainly doesn’t look human. Doesn’t behave human. I hold that, regardless of appearances, it still is human.
[/QUOTE]

But you didn’t answer my question(s). All you said in regards to the above points of the spectrum are “it’s a process”. You have to have some belief about whether a sperm and egg united are enough to grant a supposition of rights, or grant that we should consider that it might have rights. So do you hold that supposition about united gametes the instant after the sperm penetrates? Or do you hold off granting the supposition of rights until the egg is on its way to the uterus? Or do you grant consideration once that egg has implanted in the endometrium? Any point prior to implantation in the process and you’re firmly in the “birth control is abortion” camp.
Which, if that’s what you believe, fine, I’m just trying to understand so that we’re discussing the same topic.

You ask “where and when does this transformation take place?” I’d assert that, at the very least, it does not take place before pregnancy is established, that is to say, prior to implantation. So to answer the OP’s question, in my point of view, the greatest argument against the start point of human life being conception, is that a united egg and sperm mean nothing in and of themselves prior to tapping into the maternal life-support system.

If you grant the same consideration of rights to a blastocyst as you do a live infant, then you’re effectively arguing that hormonal contraception, along with several forms of non-hormonal contraception, are akin to murder.

185

[QUOTE=cmyk]
Despite a lot of the assertions on this board regarding the “humanness” of a zygote, I still remain cautious.
[/quote]
But there’s no need to be that cautious. An early term fetus is grossly towards the not-a-person end of the spectrum.

[QUOTE=cmyk]
The reason I’m so reluctant to offer a point where we may offer rights, is because I don’t think we can find one that will satisfy the convictions of the religious, agnostic, and atheist.
[/quote]
The religious viewpoint on abortion should be dismissed. It is irrational, based on falsehoods, and typically malignant towards women. You might as well be trying to appease the KKK. You won’t succeed, and trying will just hurt innocents.

[QUOTE=cmyk]
Well, that certainly doesn’t look human. Doesn’t behave human. I hold that, regardless of appearances, it still is human.
[/quote]
All that argument does is denigrate the term human. A clump of cells by any other name remains a clump of cells. Calling it human doesn’t make it of any greater moral stature. And in terms of rights, it’s personhood, not humanity that matters. I used tumors as an example because tumors in humans ARE human tissue; that’s why the immune system doesn’t just kill them. They are not, however, people, which is why it’s perfectly all right to destroy them.

[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
See, right here is where alarms in my head start going off. For human beings, sexual intercourse is not just about procreating. Yes, that is how we procreate, but there’s a lot more going on than that. The fact that anyone would consider birth control at all indicates that sexual contact serves a wider purpose than procreation alone. Sex is as much an emotional and social aspect of human behavior as it is a mechanical means to procreation. What does science say about sexual behavior in high-functioning mammals and the propensity to engage in behavior for reasons other than procreation? How much of our behavior is survival instinct from the standpoint of furthering our species? And how much is social instinct in creating more fulfilling lives?

Sexual contact (yes, including traditional intercourse) serves as an important social bonding mechanism that should not be left out of the equation.
[/QUOTE]
All true. The “sex is for breeding” arguments holds true for creatures like cattle ( and in fact, as I recall studies of cattle were at one point used to “prove” that sex was only for procreation ), but humans just don’t fit that pattern, even without birth control. Humans, male and female, are interested is sex at all times, often even while pregnant, and have a quite low fertility rate. We’ve evolved to have sex far more often than necessary for reproduction.

186

[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
See, right here is where alarms in my head start going off. For human beings, sexual intercourse is not just about procreating. Yes, that is how we procreate, but there’s a lot more going on than that. The fact that anyone would consider birth control at all indicates that sexual contact serves a wider purpose than procreation alone. Sex is as much an emotional and social aspect of human behavior as it is a mechanical means to procreation. What does science say about sexual behavior in high-functioning mammals and the propensity to engage in behavior for reasons other than procreation? How much of our behavior is survival instinct from the standpoint of furthering our species? And how much is social instinct in creating more fulfilling lives?

Sexual contact (yes, including traditional intercourse) serves as an important social bonding mechanism that should not be left out of the equation.
[/QUOTE]

Who are you, or any of us, to question the way nature and evolution have constructed our physiology? It’s just the way it is. Nature made sex pleasurable, so that life would proliferate. You say you want to dabble with only the pleasurable side-effects of sex, and have nothing to do with the actual function… knock yourself out. Doesn’t change the fact you’re playing with fire, if you do not want children, for whatever reason.

No one’s taking sex away from you. But deal with the reality of the situation, for Og’s sake. I love sex as much as the next guy, but I don’t fool myself into thinking that nature somehow sees a difference in the fact you or I dig the motions, more than you do the consequences.

187

[QUOTE=cmyk]
Who are you, or any of us, to question the way nature and evolution have constructed our physiology? It’s just the way it is. Nature made sex pleasurable, so that life would proliferate.
[/QUOTE]

How can you say that for sure? It sure doesn’t look all that pleasurable for female cats, and yet they tend to breed like rabbits!

188

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
But you didn’t answer my question(s). All you said in regards to the above points of the spectrum are “it’s a process”. You have to have some belief about whether a sperm and egg united are enough to grant a supposition of rights, or grant that we should consider that it might have rights. So do you hold that supposition about united gametes the instant after the sperm penetrates? Or do you hold off granting the supposition of rights until the egg is on its way to the uterus? Or do you grant consideration once that egg has implanted in the endometrium? Any point prior to implantation in the process and you’re firmly in the “birth control is abortion” camp.
Which, if that’s what you believe, fine, I’m just trying to understand so that we’re discussing the same topic.

You ask “where and when does this transformation take place?” I’d assert that, at the very least, it does not take place before pregnancy is established, that is to say, prior to implantation. So to answer the OP’s question, in my point of view, the greatest argument against the start point of human life being conception, is that a united egg and sperm mean nothing in and of themselves prior to tapping into the maternal life-support system.

If you grant the same consideration of rights to a blastocyst as you do a live infant, then you’re effectively arguing that hormonal contraception, along with several forms of non-hormonal contraception, are akin to murder.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t really have to form a belief, one way or the other. If I offer a point in the gestation, it will be contended, no matter where. No one realizes this more than I. All I’m saying is that, we really can’t know. Although Der Trihs seems to have all the answers. This is a controversial area for these reasons. As I said, I’m torn on the issue and remain agnostic because of the lack of data. I concede to the pro-choice stance because it’s the best we have for now. If someday, science is able to offer incontrovertible proof as to when a person becomes a person, then I can make a firm decision. You and others are apparently able to look at the evidence we do have, and rest the case. I still think the jury is out, and don’t have the luxury to decide.

189

[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
How can you say that for sure? It sure doesn’t look all that pleasurable for female cats, and yet they tend to breed like rabbits!
[/QUOTE]

:wink: :smiley:

190

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Claiming, as the poster I was responding do did, that aborting what is practically already an infant is no more problematic than the regular run of abortions does a disservice to the pro-choice side, as it undermines the logical and ethical basis for the pro-choice argument - it ignores that killing humans is wrong.
[/QUOTE]

I think this is where our disconnect is coming in. Maybe Bryan Ekers would be willing to clarify? I didn’t read his run of posts as arguing in favor of last-second abortions per se, simply that 1) there is a difference between an infant and a 40 week fetus in that one is on a life-support system and the other is not, and 2) that he’s okay with the legality of late-term “convenience” abortions because they’re so ridiculously unlikely to occur that it’s a specious argument in the first place.

191

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
But there’s no need to be that cautious. An early term fetus is grossly towards the not-a-person end of the spectrum.
[/quote]

:smack: So sayeth you.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The religious viewpoint on abortion should be dismissed. It is irrational, based on falsehoods, and typically malignant towards women. You might as well be trying to appease the KKK. You won’t succeed, and trying will just hurt innocents.
[/quote]

:smack: I wouldn’t have excepted any less of an argument coming from you, my friend. Good to see you’re at least consistent. :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
All that argument does is denigrate the term human. A clump of cells by any other name remains a clump of cells. Calling it human doesn’t make it of any greater moral stature. And in terms of rights, it’s personhood, not humanity that matters. I used tumors as an example because tumors in humans ARE human tissue; that’s why the immune system doesn’t just kill them. They are not, however, people, which is why it’s perfectly all right to destroy them.
[/quote]

:smack: I beg to differ. When it comes to physiology, there is no denigration. Nature doesn’t care how you feel about it. I’m surprised to hear these arguments coming from such a devout atheist. What matters is how we feel about each other… and I’m looking for the point when that matters from one person to the next. Taking out the tumor, or pulling a wisdom tooth, does not destroy the human. The question you should be asking, is what kills a human? Not which parts are human.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
All true. The “sex is for breeding” arguments holds true for creatures like cattle ( and in fact, as I recall studies of cattle were at one point used to “prove” that sex was only for procreation ), but humans just don’t fit that pattern, even without birth control. Humans, male and female, are interested is sex at all times, often even while pregnant, and have a quite low fertility rate. We’ve evolved to have sex far more often than necessary for reproduction.
[/QUOTE]

:smack: Still doesn’t change why sex is necessary, or what our “equipment” is for. Nature doesn’t care we find the actions more interesting than the results. Every method we have for contraception is man-devised. If we were truly evolving to become a sexual species in the prospects for something out side of reproduction, then there’d be a natural off switch somewhere. Maybe someday we’ll get that, but last I checked with “the man”, we’re still considered Homo sapiens sapiens. Moooo.

192

[QUOTE=cmyk]
I don’t really have to form a belief, one way or the other. If I offer a point in the gestation, it will be contended, no matter where. No one realizes this more than I. All I’m saying is that, we really can’t know. Although Der Trihs seems to have all the answers. This is a controversial area for these reasons.
[/QUOTE]
Not, it’s controversial because irrational and/or malignant people make it that way. As I said, there’s no rational reason at all to consider an early term fetus even remotely a person. It’s not that I “have all the answers”; it’s just that in this case, the answers aren’t all that hard.

193

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not, it’s controversial because irrational and/or malignant people make it that way. As I said, there’s no rational reason at all to consider an early term fetus even remotely a person. It’s not that I “have all the answers”; it’s just that in this case, the answers aren’t all that hard.
[/QUOTE]

Uh-huh. Nodding and smiling over here.

194

if the end result of the conception is a human being than it only makes sense that life begins at conception. Where am I wrong?

195

There are a few things I think not being addressed here, to wit:

The claim that ‘most’ abortions are performed on blastocysts or undifferentiated clumps of cells is very unlikely to be realistic or accurate: by the time the woman realises she is pregnant beyond question, makes a decision, and gets an appointment scheduled, she is likely 6-8 weeks along. By which point development is well past the ‘blastocyst’ or ‘undifferentiated’ stage. Naturally, the whole brain and nervous system is not yet developed. Continuum. But not ‘blob’ either. Blobs do not have beating hearts, circulatory systems, nervous systems. They are not developing and refining.

The human infant’s mind is not a *tabula rasa * at birth, a thing scientists have known for about 40 years now. The difference between an ‘infant’ and a late-term ‘fetus’ is exactly and precisely 1 thing: whether the umbilical cord has been severed. Other things follow: whether fetal circulation shifts to post-birth circulation, and whether the tiny human is breathing air and ingesting food, plus things that follow, like excretion. But the brain is surely the same.

Babies are born knowing remarkable things, including how to acquire information. The brain continues to change, naturally - some changes happen rapidly until about the age of 3, another big change happens at puberty, some continue right up until the mid-20s, and a few things continue to change until the 40s. The ability for rational thought doesn’t develop until about 8. Some might say ‘after the teen years’. Surely there is a point before which one can say ‘here is a human brain’ but that point is well before birth. It is not the fault of the pre-birth human that it still requires specialized care, and it is not less human because of it. I might concede that it is less a person…in the same way that a newborn is less a person than a 3 year old, and a 3 year old, than a 30 year old PhD: the experience and the brain development that goes with those experiences is lacking. Yet, a newborn comes pre-loaded with certain kinds of knowledge…all of which is put in place before birth happens.

Find the point when the brain is not yet developed enough to be a human brain, and I will concede ‘not a person yet’. 6 weeks? Surely. 8 weeks? Surely. 12? I’m not so sure. 14? I’m really not sure.

196

[QUOTE=cmyk]
:smack: So sayeth you.
[/quote]
So says any semi-sensible definition of person.

[QUOTE=cmyk]
:smack: I wouldn’t have excepted any less of an argument coming from you, my friend. Good to see you’re at least consistent. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]
It’s called “paying attention”. The anti-abortion groups have been consistently indifferent or worse towards women and children, often to horrendous degrees. And religion isn’t a good justification for anything.

[QUOTE=cmyk]
:smack: I beg to differ. When it comes to physiology, there is no denigration. Nature doesn’t care how you feel about it.
[/quote]
But this isn’t about nature; nature doesn’t care about the difference between people and not-people, or human and nonhuman.

[QUOTE=cmyk]
:smack: Still doesn’t change why sex is necessary, or what our “equipment” is for. Nature doesn’t care we find the actions more interesting than the results.
[/quote]
And, as I and others have pointed out, sex for humans isn’t just about procreation. Sex just for procreation is what’s un-natural for humans.

197

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Yet they can be reconciled, by attempting, as much as is within our scientific abilities, to determine when a fetus becomes a “human”. Before that point, fact #1 is paramount; after that point, fact #2 becomes paramount.
[/QUOTE]

That only works in the same sense that communism works; by making a number of broad and unrealistic assumptions about human behaviour. Has there ever been legislation passed in the manner you describe - after much scientific study, to come up with the most reasonable, equitable and logical decision? Isn’t it hugely more likely that, on this issue in particular, laws will be written for political reasons, not scientific ones? In practice in the U.S., many state abortion laws made exceptions for rape or incest. Why? What was the scientific rationale behind that? Incest has a small chance of causing genetic defects; a scientific approach would be to screen for these defects before permitting the abortion. Rape doesn’t have any particular scientific aspect. How is a fetus created in a rape different than one created by consenting sex? Allowing rape and incest exceptions were political compromises.

If you honestly believe elected officials to pass controversial legislation on purely scientific merit, you’re far more idealistic than me. In any case, Canada has been completely without federal abortion legislation since 1988 (some minor provincial medical regulations apply) and I’m kind of curious what terrible doom was supposed to have happened; babies being ripped up by chainsaws or fed into wood-chippers or something.

198

[QUOTE=cmyk]
All I’m saying is that, we really can’t know. Although Der Trihs seems to have all the answers. This is a controversial area for these reasons.
[/QUOTE]

I think we can know. I also think that if we can’t get rid of the non-ethical, non-scientific arguments against abortion, I think we can at least narrow it down using the scope of both science and ethics and get away from both the “birth control is murder” end and the “it’s okay to voluntarily abort out of convenience at 39.5 weeks gestation” end.
I also disagree on reasons for why this is a controversial area. :wink:

But, you know, my real answer to all of this is: for one damn moment, let’s stop quibbling over abortion, and target prevention. As Voyager pointed out:

Like I said, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the topic. In being immersed in the fight to make pregnancy prevention accessible and possible and spending so much of my time fighting those who would, simultaneously, block people from knowing how to prevent pregnancy, removing the ability to make responsible decisions in regards to pregnancy prevention and make abortions illegal, it’s hard to remember that there are even thoughtful folks on that side.

Thanks again for your input.

199

[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
if the end result of the conception is a human being than it only makes sense that life begins at conception. Where am I wrong?
[/QUOTE]
As was pointed out right at the start, life began billions of years ago.

[QUOTE=Chotii]
Find the point when the brain is not yet developed enough to be a human brain, and I will concede ‘not a person yet’. 6 weeks? Surely. 8 weeks? Surely. 12? I’m not so sure. 14? I’m really not sure.
[/QUOTE]
Last I heard, the brain of a fetus doesn’t even produce human brainwaves before about six months. And also, as I recall, early brain tissue doesn’t survive to birth anyway; it’s just scaffolding, essentially.

200

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
So says any semi-sensible definition of person.

It’s called “paying attention”. The anti-abortion groups have been consistently indifferent or worse towards women and children, often to horrendous degrees. And religion isn’t a good justification for anything.

But this isn’t about nature; nature doesn’t care about the difference between people and not-people, or human and nonhuman.

And, as I and others have pointed out, sex for humans isn’t just about procreation. Sex just for procreation is what’s un-natural for humans.
[/QUOTE]

Okay, assertion does not an argument make. And this is all about nature, and how we decide to deal with it (when it doesn’t conform to our desires).

As to that which I have bolded, doesn’t change the fact that nature doesn’t give a damn about whether or not you think sex shouldn’t lead to children. It does. Sorry dude. (how many times do I have to repeat myself?)