When does life begin?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Like so many questions, this one has a false premise. Life began a long time ago. Life is a continuim from one individual person to another as they literally, physically divide. What we are really asking is “When does an individual assume the rights of an individual?” which is a far cry from "When does life begin? Logically, “individual life” begins at conception when two strands of DNA link and set into play a process that will continue, if uninterrupted, until natural death, when everything breaks down and reverts to chemical compounds. When one assumes the “rights” of an individual is an arbitrary decision. The question really is, "when is it most socially expedient for an individual life to assume the rights of an individual and the answer to this question varies culture by culture.

In the USA, we state constitutionally that "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among those rights are life . . . Our Supreme Court has abritrarily determined a time frame in which we assume the rights of an individual, in an effort to satisfy the concerns of women. The notion that men have “used” women to create offspring is as spurious as the notion that women have “used” men to fight their wars, build their houses, shield them during pregnancy and provide them with protein. The “rights of the individual” is purely a social convention and is routinely dismissed or overlooked around the world.

2

Here’s the article in question.

I didn’t read through the entire article, but I notice Cecil skips the Islamic distinction that life begins 100 days after conception. Not really relevant to scientific analysis, but neither was Artistotle’s contention in my opinion. Nor would defining differences in terms of gender be particularly useful except as a(n) historical oddity as the characteristics of gender don’t really emerge until the 11th week as far as I’m aware. I don’t think the Ancient Greeks would be able to determine the length of the tail of one of the pairs of chromosomes at any rate.

My own take on the matter from a Utilitarian perspective is that once foetuses are capable of feeling pleasure or pain, they should assume partial rights of adults in society (perhaps comparable to other dependants that cannot survive independently). That’s not the view of others taking a Utilitarian approach though: Sam Harris points out that more suffering is wreaked on the world when one swats a fly than one aborts a foetus without a central nervous system. He also points out that many zygotes autoabort (20-90% as the lower and upper figures from the few studies I could find online last time I checked). Not evidence of a particularly prescient design, if I might add.

Peter Singer takes a more extreme view, ceding that ending the life of a foetus capable of feeling pain is an abnegation of their rights, but that it weighs favourably against (what he considers) the more severe reduction in rights suffered by the mother. However, I cannot take this position since it is contrary to the principle of informed consent infleuncing arbitration in a society based on Utilitarian principles (as it is unlikely we will ever know the full extent of the pain or pleasure caused by certain actions, we have to rely on informed consent as a crutch: consent that cannot be given by a foetus). As an aside, Peter Singer’s arguments were relayed to me by a Nietzschean feminist, which was almost as strange as an argument I had with a Social Darwinist pantheist.

Some go even further. There was a clinician of some sort that was arguing with Peter Hitchens on a radio show (I can’t find the clip on youtube) that held that foetuses were not even alive, candidly discussing experimentation or autopsies he had performed on aborted foetuses as if they had belonged to any other animal. While I’m not particularly religious myself and I’d agree with the clinician on quite a few more issues than Peter Hitchens most likely, the pleasure principle (along with informed consent) prevents me from endorsing abortion or consumption of non-human animals.

3

As a sort of follow up, I notice I didn’t specify what I thought would be a reasonable cutoff. According to my biology lectures, the Central Nervous System develops at roughly the eighth week (strikingly, one website describes the foetus as about the size of a kidney bean [which shouldn’t have an influence on how much pain it can feel]). Of course, exceptions could be made for ectopic pregnancies (I don’t know how long they develop before the woman tends to realise anyway).

As a sort of schizoid measure, I can also offer a partial defence of the Catholic principle that abstentation is superior than other forms of birth control. Obviously not from an epidemiological perspective, it has inflicted vast grievances in that sense upon very poor nations, nor from a theological perspective. But it is logically self-consistent to hold that sex was created for generative purposes and that any utilisation of the sex drive for other purposes is a misappropriation of that sex drive. I only bring this up because I find it odd that some sects (or perhaps individuals in sects) may condemn homosexuality yet endorse non-generative sex in other forms. Jesus even said that for those that are asexual (euneuchs of the spirit), it’s better for them to not get married and Paul extended this, saying that it was more virtuous to remain unmarried. Jesus also said that looking at a woman with lust in one’s heart constitutes adultery, which I’m certain if Evangelical Christians took literally, they’d find it hard to not notice the planks in their own eyes and spend more time campaigning against male indescretion than gay marriage.

I guess this is the perspective of a Catholic agnostic (about a 5 on Dawkin’s scale), much like Dara O’Briein is a Catholic atheist.

4

Actually, after having read the article and its follow up, I suppose you were referring to the revisit.

(The end of the first article pointed out brain wave activity first occurs at about 25 weeks, though I heard in a lecture that the foetus is capable of feeling pain at 8 weeks… At any rate, I think conception is even more arbitray than the other incidences).

It’s important to note that rape has been used as a tool of warfare and subjugation of women for centuries, if not thousands of years. The principle is that the native men, if they are not annihilated, will have to devote their resources to raising children that they are not certain are their own. It also provides a pastime for marauding soldiers that have been desensitised to the individuality of the population they are oppressing. However, I do not think those are good arguments in support of abortion.

I originally added this in to the above post, so I’ll post it here again since it furthers the argument:

Of course, since even the Pope holds that evolution is true, I figure that its a more reasonable position to hold that the sex drive evolved as a method of ensuring the propagation of the species and that our various paraphilias developed as a result of “misappropriation” of that instinct, much like charity is a “misappropriation” of the evolutionary drive towards caring for one’s offspring and kin. Evolutionary theory is even versatile enough to offer an explanation of how behaviour that is non-generative could be selected for (by increasing the genetic success of kin). Oh and a disclaimer as well, I hold that memetic inheritance rather than genetic inheritance is far more important in human societies. Passing on ideas conducive to the survival of the species is a far higher virtue than rape, for example. So whether or not one procreates doesn’t phase me… That got very tangential.

Thus I think it’s more important that children are instilled with moral values from a young age than that they happen to share about 50% of your genes, jumbled up at random. The economic argument is also not a good one: if a woman begins pregnancy in solvency and some time post-partum realises she cannot afford to continue raising the child while maintaining a decent standard of existence, she does not have the right to kil the child. I am not a woman so do not have to face pregnancy, but it seems the only moral option in both cases to put the child up for adoption (another complete tangent: there are studies like Bos’s 2007 one which show that gay parents are just as effective as other parents, so allowing gay couples to adopt would be a partial method of approaching the resulting increase in children that cannot be raised by their biological parents).

Anyway, the reason I made rather long and perhaps irrelevant posts was because I couldn’t determine your own stance. For example, I’m not entirely certain of whehter you hold a position of cultural relativism. While I believe in multiculturalism, that individuals should be free to believe in whatever they want, I don’t believe that people should be free to act however they want based on geography. I think almost all humans have the same goals (mainly wanting to be free from pain and capable of pursuing pleasure). Certain laws arising from various cultures are not conducive to that and some are particularly harmful in that regard. For example, I think any reasonable person must hold that laws enjoining the death of homosexuals or apostates are more harmful to the previously mentioned universal desires than not.

Edit: Gosh, sorry for the triple post.

5

When does life begin?

When the children leave the house and the dog dies. (RIMSHOT!)

6

of course this is about abortion;remember were not the only species to eat our young. as a male i have to ask when women decide to have a baby [not abort] men have no choice but to pay the bill for 18 years. if women can choose life or death men should be able to choose pay/no pay . a one time choice during pregnancy.

7

Point 1: because something is natural does not make it right.
Point 2: This is a bit of an unfair scenario, but consider whether the argument would hold post-partum (I can’t afford to maintain my lifestyle and give you money, it’s your own fault for not killing the baby). The solution is of course to use prophylaxis and only have intercourse with people one trusts.

8

Exactly - men have a “one-time choice” whether to have sex or not. Sex comes with risks and potential consequences. Pregnancy is one of them. If you don’t like the odds, don’t play the game.

9

Life began eons ago,even if one believes the Bible it is thousands of years ago,‘life’ is a passed on thing. We are bilogical beings, and just like a fertile chicken egg is not a chicken,an animals fertile egg(Ova) isn’t yet a horse, cow etc, nor is a pollenated apple blossom an apple. a fertile human ova(egg) is not a person, the same life that is in a man’s sperm is the same life in a human. Using life as a tool to invade a person’s private life is used to try to control other people.

Once the Child is formed and born , too many forget their “Life” stand and let the already born die a slow death as happens in many third world countries. Everyone is pro life,so the wording means very little if the already born do not have the necessities to live a good life, and that includes the woman who may not be able to care for the child or other children she may have, because she is over whelmed. I think a woman had a right to her life, and it should not be someone else’s religion that dictates to her what she can or can’t do. Other wise there would be no justification for war, or selfdefense!

10

The rest of the argument struck me as semantic, this struck me as patriarchical and with a Biblical basis. I think the Bible only ever mentions women as being infertile (or “barren”), the issue never affected men. This sort of influenced the concept of primogeniture (which is a little odd, since one can always tell the queen’s child is hers…)

I accept that the process of development is contiguous, but “life” and “rights” need to be defined. If life is a continual strand, then can an entity live within another? Or is the child only alive once it is separate from the mother? What of the premature child? Does their life only officially begin once its official term ends? Should mothers be permitted to abort their children after birth, since the child is still technically dependant on them?

While pregnancy is a special instance because the dependance is physical and vital for the development of life for several months, there are other instances where a mother’s right to do what she wishes with her body is hampered. For example, it would be illegal (and probably very tricky to manoeuvre) for a woman to insert a blade into her vagina and omit that fact when engaging in sexual intercourse. It’d also be illegal for her to sequester explosives in her body, in each case because they violate the pleasure principle for another individual.

I know it’s a fallacy of origins, but I was pro-choice before and I didn’t see why it was such a big deal: I thought basic issues of survival for others was more important and abortion rates would significantly drop off given enough education, comfortable surroundings and access to prophyaxis. I still hold those positions to an extent, but if one holds that abortion is a form of murder then abortion would make up a sizeable proportion of all children that die (one would also have to hold that miscarriage is the death of a child for consistency). 15m children starve to death each year, while 50m foetuses are aborted (according to one pro-life site I just googled). Even assuming that the majority (say, 75%) of aborted children wouldn’t survive into adulthood, that’s a significant proportion.

11

At 40? <RIMSHOT>

12

Once a child can be recognized as a human being it is against the law to abort except in the case of a woman’s health or death… Most abortions are perfromed in the early trimester. Some do not want a woman to take a morning after pill becasue she :MAY: have conceived! Too many who call them selves pro-life do not want to take on the responsibility of supporting the born child until adulthood, or pay for the costs of bringing a child into the world.or for it’s life once born. All the mone and time spent in traveling to different places to hollar at a woman going onto a clinic could better be spent toward supporting the child, They could offer free child care, educaton, and supply the necessary things necessary for a good life, too many do not want the taxes raised to help or support the families already born. They do not either supply the woman or girl, with good birthcontrol or the morning after pill. Bearing a child is the right of the parents, not the business of some other busybody who spend so much time trying to make others follow their beliefs.

How many children live in this world without proper nutrition, medical aid,education or good parenting? I don’t like abortion,becasue it is also hard on the woman,but a pill taken after intercourse or proper birth control would prevent a need in most cases for an abortion. Since I never had to go through the hardships many womaen do,because of health, financial ot mental problems that come up in their lives I let the woman and her doctor decide what is best.

13

The Bible was written by human beings, and called inspired and the word of God by humans so it is a human’s word for what is moral or not. I have studied the Bible and noticed through studying History and seeing evidence that there were many abortions during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived on earth and he is not quoted any where that he was against it,but there is a place in the OT where God was said to close the womb of the Jews enemies as a punishment. Strange that a supreme being would allow a woman that didn’t want a child to conceive, but let many who do not want one to conceive, and in many cases kill all her children (as was reported on the news media) because she thought that was what God wanted.

14

That could be considerd 50 more million are not going through a long suffering and slow death because of lack of food,etc. .

15

I agree with most of this and I think the Liberal government in the UK during its brief tenure did quite a lot to address the systemic problems affecting the downtrodden in society. Free schooling would be one example. It faced steep opposition from manufacturers that contended that public education would reverse the trend of industrialisation since an educated working class woud be an emancipated working class and would naturally adopt creative pursuits rather than mechanistic ones… Another would be free healthcare and you quite rightly point out that the principle is oppposed by Social Darwinists today. I’d contend that it’d be somewhat inconsistent to hold that the downtrodden in society should have the right to live, but only if their existence is miserable and they don’t reproduce. Strangely enough though, it’s the one instance where right wing libertarians don’t hold that government should only intervene in another’s life in order to end it. Marie Stopes, to her credit, thought that abortion would be a sufficient form of eugenics since those with less reproductive fidelity would be able to terminate their mistakes.

Of course, taking a holistic view (oh dear, holons…) one still needs to address abortion qua abortion. Just as one can discuss whether children are safer in houses with guns than not (I’d argue they’re less safe, as more children die as a result of gun accidents or sucides in houses with guns than are saved as a result from averted home invasion from what I can tell), one can still support the idea that murderers ought to be removed from society. Though I’d say that the biggest killers that ought to be removed from US society are David Novak, James Skinner, Mike Duke, etc: the individuals that ensure the smooth operation of the machine that produces propaganda to entice American consumers into buying high fat food, resulting in 41* as many deaths from heart disease a year in America as murders (precisely the opposite problem affects something like 20% of the world). Of course, the fact that advertising funds corporate news and the incapacity to make a sensationalist news story about somebody’s aunt, mother or sister dying of heart disease mean that very few people make the connection or identify the culprits (of course, isolating an individual “culprit” may be an attribution error, the systemic issue may lie in corporate personhood).

Anyway, on topic: if one holds that the existence of individuals that were going to be aborted would be on the whole not worth living at any contiguous stage of their life, the only moral action would be to kill them or aid them in killing themselves. If it is impossible to make that judgement, then one ought not to do either of those things, but rather aim to improve their life. While I’ve never been truly hungry, from what I know about pain, starving to death would be far worse than being aborted. However, this method of ending the capacity to feel pain also removes the ability of an organism to feel pleasure.

In some instances (perhaps the majority, but I don’t have any statistics into the motivators for abortion to hand), the reason for aborting a child may be based on an interaction of poverty and the strictures of culture. While inability to raise a child may be a mitgating factor, I don’t think that the economic excuse (sons more capable for proviidng for parents) for gender based infanticide (in some instances, post-partum) in India and China holds.

16

I think the already born and recognized as a person have more rights than a fertile egg. And I believe that if a person who say’s they are for the right to life were in a room with several frozen embryos and the room caught fire and they could only save them selves,and a person already born who had passed out, and they had the choice of choosing to save the life of the already born, or many embryos they would chose the person already born.

I personally would like to see the need for abortion stopped by helping the woman to have a good and safe birth control method, and have on hand the morning after pill. I would let her choose to have a child or not. Nor would I force her to have an abortin if she were pregnant. I do think people should teach people the importance of responsible parenthood before they become the age when they can get pregnant.

Even in the animal world it is up to the female if she chooses to conceive, there may be exceptions,but I don’t know of any. I know some birds have 2 young so if times are bad one can eat the other. I know humans would not or should not adopt such a practice because they have reason and science to help them out.

17

Well I don’t have any issue with stem cell research or unimplanted blastocysts. When a foetus can feel, it should be protected, even in cold storage. Likewise if the room were full of toddlers it’d probably be easier to get adults out since they can walk themselves (unless they were all knocked out, in which case toddlers are lighter).

In some cases in the animal world autoabortion actually occurs and it isn’t really up to the mother. For example if a female rat smells the scent of a rat that isn’t the father rat while pregnant, the foetus aborts since the male rat would either kill the baby at birth or not share resources with it, meaning the whole pregnancy would be a waste of resources anyway.

18

I have never heard of a foetus being kept in a cold room, embryos can be frozen for many years. Now, there is the problem of: does the soul freeze too, does it jump in when implanted in a womb,does it jump out when it is being frozen? We do know that animals can hibernate, and even some small children that have fallen into freezing water can go into a state where they can be revived.

How does one tell the difference of life and soul? We call it death when life leaves the body, but some say a souls goes to a heaven, but then if there is a difference where does life go?