You left out one other theory, and that is that life began billions of years ago and has been going on ever since. sperm cells and egg cells are just as alive before conception as the ovum is after. You can study sperm cells in a microscope and there is no doubt they are alive.
So I guess everytime I masturbate I am a mass murderer.
And when a woman has a period she is a serial killer.
And not every fertilized ovum makes it to the uterus and begins as a fetus. Many miss the chance and are flushed out of the system.
Welcome to the SDMB, pookah.
A link to the column you’re commenting on is appreciated. Providing one can be as simple as pasting the URL into your post, being sure to leave a blank space on either side of it. Like so: When does human life begin? - The Straight Dope
Note also that there was a follow-up column the next month: When does human life begin (revisited)? - The Straight Dope
pookah72450 said:
You are hung up on the word “life” rather than the intent of the question. The question was trying to determine when “personhood” begins. When does a developing embryo become entitled to the moral and legal protections of selfhood, of being considered a distinct individual human rather than a group of cells inhabiting someone else’s body?
Very few people are going to argue for the protection of sperm and unfertilized ova. That’s so preposterously silly that to do so will marginalize that person to the ignore bin. Most people are arguing where to draw the line between fertilization and birth.
I think the notion that a ball of cells is a person is also preposterously silly. If that is all it takes to dismiss an opposing view, I guess I win.
The original question in the original column was “when does a fetus get human rights”? The current answer is “when it is born alive”. This is a simple milestone that most “resaonable perosns” can see. While you can nitpick whether, say, a baby took a breath or not before dying at birth, 99.99% of the time the distinction is obvious.
Before that you CAN get into the question “what’s difference between a new bundle of cells and a fetus 1 week/ 1 month/ 3 months etc. along?” and there is no firm dividing line. Any human child capapable of drawing at least one breath is very definitely a separate, live human. the law is simple so even lawyers can understand it, i guess.
The corollary is that it is much simpler to blanket prohibit actions that may damage a fetus that has reached the point where it may be viable outside the womb. This is easier than arguing “the exact same fetus subject to X may become a person (then possibly die) and subject to treatment Y, is not born alive - unless something goes wrong.” Better to prohibit certain things rather than let people take a risk that has a serious potential to result in a murder. (I.e. very late term abortions) It doesn’t even get into the ethical questions like “if you intervene to stop a child being born alive, that otherwise would have in a few minutes - did you commit murder?”
The state prohibits all sorts of activities that may harm yourself or others, even if they can be done safely sometimes. Why should late term abortions be exempt?
This topic has already been hammered hard. See
Life Begins When You Realize that Women have Rights
Something missing form “When does life begin?”
Re abortion column
What our laws and rules show (or decided) about when life begins
Two thoughts about a woman’s right over her own body
What’s the big deal, folks?
when does life begin?
On brain waves and abortion - 25 weeks?
Something missing, alright…
Natural Abortion
And probably some others I’m ignoring. Suffice it to say this topic is contentious, and we’re not going to reach resolution here. So I’m trying not to delve too hard into the contentious zones, and avoid the whole debate.
Fear Itself said:
You’re welcome to think it preposterously silly. The issue is not about how any one person thinks. The issue is trying to come to a national or global consensus so we can enact laws and policies. For that kind of result, it is the bulk of the population that is important. The issues get aired on the marketplace of ideas and try to find traction in the population to influence attitudes, so that voting and political policy are shifted.
My point was not that I think arguing for sperm and ova rights is silly, it is that the vast majority of people in the U.S. feel the same way. That position is marginalized, in no small part because of our scientific understanding of what those cells do and don’t do, and how they have to combine before they can grow.
There is a more substantial group that feels that fertilization is significant, and scientifically they have a point that since the cells have combined, it is on the path to forming a human body. Their arguments may be based on other rationales, but because there are far greater numbers of them, they are not immediately dismissible. Their concerns have to be addressed.
**md2000 ** said:
The original question was not a factual question about how the law currently stands, it was an opinion question about when should a fetus get rights.
You are correct that birth provides a very clear delineation, an easy to tell point of difference, and that other arguments are more vague and variable. But sometimes the clearest answer isn’t the best answer, because it is way too far off and allows conditions that shouldn’t be allowed.
For example, when people are aging, their driving ability becomes impaired. One could ask, when should a person have driving privileges revoked? One answer is, “when they’re dead”. That’s an easy, clear distinction, but it certainly overlooks cases that need to be considered, such as when their eyesight fails, when their response time goes down, when they can’t see over the steering dashboard, etc.
The arguments over abortion and when a fetus should get rights is very much that kind of question for a lot of people. Birth is a clear line, but may be way too late.
Viability outside the womb is a vague and variable thing every bit as indeterminate as any other developmental state in a fetus. And medical advances push the line around.
But that really is the heart of the debate. Where do you draw the line for when to allow things and when to prohibit them? No, don’t answer that - that will just spin this thread into yet another abortion debate.
In the “revisited” version, Arcane_eye writes, “Too many men do not understand how much work and money it takes to raise children” That is the most preposterous arguement I’ve heard yet. I once had a cute cuddly kitten put to sleep because I didn’t want to pay the 2G’s for surgery (sniff, sob). That doesn’t mean it wasn’t alive or wasn’t a sentient being. College too expensive? Off the kid when he/she finishes high school.