|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 05/25/2004 : 10:59:37
|
Death has historically been defined as the stoppage of the heart or “clinical death”. If this definition is used, can we also say that life begins when the heartbeat begins? A human heart is formed by the 18th day after conception. Why is this not a reasonable definition of human life?
We can keep peoples bodies alive for long periods even when there is no brain activity. So a more recent definition of death has been when brain activity stops. We can reasonably use the onset of brain wave activity as a definition of human life also. Brain activity can be detected at 42 days after conception.
This seems like a more reasonable argument for when life begins than at birth. It makes no sense to me that a baby is not alive a few seconds before it exits the woman's body, but suddenly is alive after it leaves the woman's body.
These were touched on in a thread by creation88 in http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2218 But did not get elaborated on. Let me know why these definitions of life are invalid.
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2004 : 11:16:16 [Permalink]
|
To begin, a fetus cannot be reasonably viable ex-utero on either the 18th or 42nd day after conception. The body of the mother can still spontaneously abort these fetuses without the woman ever realizing she was pregnant.
As for the death issue, keeping someone 'alive' on life-support after the brain has stopped functioning, does nothing more than prolong the pain of a family. However, there are those that are incapable of accepting the death of an individual and will prolong their own pain in the false hope that 'something' can 'be done' to bring that individual back. Hence, the reason I have a living will in effect.
Edited for an addition to clarify a point. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 05/25/2004 11:17:04 |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2004 : 11:46:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
To begin, a fetus cannot be reasonably viable ex-utero on either the 18th or 42nd day after conception.
True, but there are people that cannot live without some kind of life support (such as dialysis) either and they are considered a live person.
quote:
The body of the mother can still spontaneously abort these fetuses without the woman ever realizing she was pregnant.
True again, but babies can die after birth as well. I don't see how this pertains to the question about when life begins.
quote:
As for the death issue, keeping someone 'alive' on life-support after the brain has stopped functioning, does nothing more than prolong the pain of a family. However, there are those that are incapable of accepting the death of an individual and will prolong their own pain in the false hope that 'something' can 'be done' to bring that individual back. Hence, the reason I have a living will in effect.
A living will is great to have.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2004 : 12:06:39 [Permalink]
|
Robb, the idea of "when life begins" has a large continuum to it, everything from people who'd like to perform "retroactive abortions" on their kids when they're in their teens, to people who would criminalize male masturbation for wasting potential human lives. No single point in time for a "life/no-life" decision, no matter how well-thought-out it might appear to some, will please everyone who has an opinion on the matter. And that makes it tough to reason through, or even to legislate, a definitive cut-off point before which abortion would be "acceptable."
Any reason one can give for this or that date post-conception will be seen as arbitrary (or even 'immoral') by some fraction of the population. How large that fraction is will change over time, as people's sensibilities change.
Given that, were I to have my druthers, I'd probably arbitrarily set the legal definition at that point in time at which a fetus has a 50-50 or greater chance of being born alive. If I remember a recent Discover Magazine article correctly (don't have it with me right now), that point is sometime early in the second trimester. And, given that estimates of conception carry with them possible errors, I'd subtract a number of days equal to the greatest reasonable error, just to be sure, thus pushing the cut-off date towards conception rather than away.
Or, maybe not. Perhaps I'd set the date at that point in time at which a fetus has a 50-50 or greater chance of living outside the womb, and after that point, instead of a simple abortion, the kids would be forcibly born, and if they survived, they'd become wards of the state.
Heck, either way (or any other way), setting a particular date leads to rather draconian ramifications. It's not particularly fair to deny a fetus a 45% shot at life, it's not fair to force a woman to be a mother, it's not fair to force a kid into state care for 18 years, and it's not fair to the taxpayers to foot such a bill.
And so, it now seems to me that setting any date as the cut-off between non-living and living - without regard for other circumstances (and I'm not just talking about "the health of the mother") - is the wrong thing to do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2004 : 13:00:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Robb, the idea of "when life begins" has a large continuum to it, everything from people who'd like to perform "retroactive abortions" on their kids when they're in their teens, to people who would criminalize male masturbation for wasting potential human lives. No single point in time for a "life/no-life" decision, no matter how well-thought-out it might appear to some, will please everyone who has an opinion on the matter. And that makes it tough to reason through, or even to legislate, a definitive cut-off point before which abortion would be "acceptable."
True. Is this then a reason not to debate the subject anymore? We don't all agree on the legal drinking age in this country, but through debate, the drinking law was changed from 18 to 21 even though not all agreed with the law. Is there anything we all agree on?
quote:
[Any reason one can give for this or that date post-conception will be seen as arbitrary (or even 'immoral') by some fraction of the population. How large that fraction is will change over time, as people's sensibilities change.
I think the idea's proposed are a more scientific reason for the beginning of life and trying to make it less arbitrary. Is science powerful enough to determine when life begins or not?
quote:
Heck, either way (or any other way), setting a particular date leads to rather draconian ramifications. It's not particularly fair to deny a fetus a 45% shot at life, it's not fair to force a woman to be a mother, it's not fair to force a kid into state care for 18 years, and it's not fair to the taxpayers to foot such a bill.
And so, it now seems to me that setting any date as the cut-off between non-living and living - without regard for other circumstances (and I'm not just talking about "the health of the mother") - is the wrong thing to do.
I am willing to debate the other circumstances of when abortion should be legal at another time. I am only debating when life begins.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 02:58:30 [Permalink]
|
Assuming that your talking about human life here....
You can (and believe me, people have) make an argument that life begins at the moment of conception. Some hard-core religious fundies will even say (as Dave pointed out) that every sperm is a viable life.
You can also make an argument that life begins with the first drawn breath (once again taken from a religious source that believes the soul enters the body with the first breath, and leaves the body with the last breath).
Neither argument would likely be accepted by any single majority of people.
Science can't offer any meaningfull definition of when life begins....(that I am aware of) but it can point with certainty as to when life becomes independently viable. You could, as I do, use the point where life becomes independently viable as a reference for decision making with regard to said life.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 05:40:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Assuming that your talking about human life here....
You can (and believe me, people have) make an argument that life begins at the moment of conception. Some hard-core religious fundies will even say (as Dave pointed out) that every sperm is a viable life.
The idea that a sperm is a viable life is extreme and not wide spread in “fundi” circles. A sperm cannot grow into a human life no matter how long we wait. The embryo, from conception, has an 80% chance of becoming a person living on its own.
quote:
Science can't offer any meaningful definition of when life begins....(that I am aware of) but it can point with certainty as to when life becomes independently viable. You could, as I do, use the point where life becomes independently viable as a reference for decision making with regard to said life.
When is it that life becomes independently viable? A baby born at 28 weeks has a 96% survival rate in the U.S. with medical care. A baby born at 24 weeks has a 50% survival rate and at 22 weeks, 2% of babies can survive. Without medical care, I suspect that the survival rate is much lower. So, is a baby that needs medical care to survive independently viable? Or can the baby be terminated? When is it safe to say that not all babies are independently viable? Also, what is the difference between a premature babies medical care to survive and a woman's body taking care of the baby until it reaches a condition that it can live on its own? The only safe point to define when a baby is viable is the time of conception.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 06:51:33 [Permalink]
|
Robb, I think your last paragraph demonstrates the interconnectedness of the "when does life begin" and "when is abortion okay" questions, since you slipped in the word "terminated."
I would like to see some support for your contention that at the moment of conception, there is an 80% chance of live birth. My wife's OB/GYN told us the odds were more like 35%, and Discover said something else (I'm in the process of moving, and many things - like that recent issue - are packed). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 10:47:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Robb, I think your last paragraph demonstrates the interconnectedness of the "when does life begin" and "when is abortion okay" questions, since you slipped in the word "terminated."
I agree the two issues are linked but can we find an objective answer to when life begins? or can science not seperate the two issues.
quote:
I would like to see some support for your contention that at the moment of conception, there is an 80% chance of live birth. My wife's OB/GYN told us the odds were more like 35%, and Discover said something else (I'm in the process of moving, and many things - like that recent issue - are packed).
This is from adoption.com but is data from the NCHS National Center for Health Statistics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/.
http://library.adoption.com/Pregnancy/US-Pregnancy-Rate-Lowest-in-Two-Decades/article/4764/1.html
quote:
The 6 million-plus pregnancies in 1996 in the U.S. resulted in 3.9 million births, 1.3 million induced abortions, and almost a million fetal deaths. This means that 62 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth, 22 percent ended in abortion, and 16 percent ended in a miscarriage or stillbirth.
If we assume these statistics have not changed much the total births are 6,290,322 in1996. 62% ended in live births (3,899,999), 22% ended in abortion (1,383,870) and 16% ended in miscarriage or stillbirth (1,006,451). We can assume that out of the 22% that were aborted 62% would have ended in live births .62*1,383,870 = 301,451 + 3,899,999 = 4,201,450 live births. Live birth rate from conception would be about 67%. I will concede that this is lower than I quoted. I saw the 80% number on some websites but could not verify the source.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 11:19:35 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
I agree the two issues are linked but can we find an objective answer to when life begins? or can science not seperate the two issues.
Let's try to formulate a definition of 'life' first.
One definition of 'life' is that which takes in energy, produces waste, and has the potential for self-replication (either with a partner or not). By this definition, I believe sperm would indeed be living, all on their own, so I suspect such a simple definition is not something you'd like to use.
As for the pregnancy-to-birth ratios, the U.S. only represents about 4% of the human beings on the planet. I'm not sure one can generalize from that small a sample, especially when the relevant factors noted in the article vary widely from country to country. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 11:22:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Robb, I think your last paragraph demonstrates the interconnectedness of the "when does life begin" and "when is abortion okay" questions, since you slipped in the word "terminated."
I agree the two issues are linked but can we find an objective answer to when life begins? or can science not seperate the two issues.
quote:
I would like to see some support for your contention that at the moment of conception, there is an 80% chance of live birth. My wife's OB/GYN told us the odds were more like 35%, and Discover said something else (I'm in the process of moving, and many things - like that recent issue - are packed).
This is from adoption.com but is data from the NCHS National Center for Health Statistics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/.
http://library.adoption.com/Pregnancy/US-Pregnancy-Rate-Lowest-in-Two-Decades/article/4764/1.html
quote:
The 6 million-plus pregnancies in 1996 in the U.S. resulted in 3.9 million births, 1.3 million induced abortions, and almost a million fetal deaths. This means that 62 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth, 22 percent ended in abortion, and 16 percent ended in a miscarriage or stillbirth.
If we assume these statistics have not changed much the total births are 6,290,322 in1996. 62% ended in live births (3,899,999), 22% ended in abortion (1,383,870) and 16% ended in miscarriage or stillbirth (1,006,451). We can assume that out of the 22% that were aborted 62% would have ended in live births .62*1,383,870 = 301,451 + 3,899,999 = 4,201,450 live births. Live birth rate from conception would be about 67%. I will concede that this is lower than I quoted. I saw the 80% number on some websites but could not verify the source.
It appears that a possible explaination of the 80% number comes from assuming that all fetuses which were aborted would have survived minus those pregnancies terminated in the second trimester due to health issues. It seems to be a common assumption by staunch abortion foes. Like Dave remarks, it does not take into account the higher still born rates/spontaneous abortion rates in less developed countries than the US.
On the subject of clinical life, it only refers to the body, not necessarily the soul. A shell (brain dead individual whose bodily functions are wholly controlled by machine) can be clinically alive while being spiritually dead in several faiths. Dialysis patients only have one system which is wholly controlled by machine but the ability of the body to regulate itself by means of respiration, higher mental functions, and elimination of solid waste indicates the clinical (and arguably spiritual) life of the human. A zygote has no brain functions and all other functions of respiration, elimination, and brain functions are preformed by the host. The thing that lawmakers have grasped upon for the determination of clinical life which has rights to survive barring serious problems is the presence of independant brain waves. Although brain waves can be detected in the first 42 days after conception, they are under the control and are synchonized with the brain waves of the host. Near the end of the third month of gestation, these brain waves are no longer synchronous and rights are granted to the fetus.
The definition of spiritual life is a question where no concensus exists universally. There are extremes on both sides of the abortion issue. One says life begins at conception. One says life begins at birth. The majority feel that somewhere in the middle is more reasonable. This is what the law reflects. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 05/26/2004 11:25:42 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 12:28:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Robb wrote:quote:
I agree the two issues are linked but can we find an objective answer to when life begins? or can science not seperate the two issues.
Let's try to formulate a definition of 'life' first.
One definition of 'life' is that which takes in energy, produces waste, and has the potential for self-replication (either with a partner or not). By this definition, I believe sperm would indeed be living, all on their own, so I suspect such a simple definition is not something you'd like to use.
I don't think that your definition is valid for all forms of life. I am only talking about human life. Sperm are living organisms but are not human life. I claim that human life is unique and laws should be made accordingly. Our country recognizes the difference. Killing people is breaking the law but killing fish is a sport.
quote:
As for the pregnancy-to-birth ratios, the U.S. only represents about 4% of the human beings on the planet. I'm not sure one can generalize from that small a sample, especially when the relevant factors noted in the article vary widely from country to country.
I agree with you, but since each country must decide for themselves what life is and make laws accordingly, and being an American, I have a say in our lawmaking. In the U.S. about 67% of the embryos will grow into human beings if not aborted.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 12:29:48 [Permalink]
|
As Dave says.... we need to agree upon a definition for "life" before this can be continued in any meaningfull fasion.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dave W.
Robb, I think your last paragraph demonstrates the interconnectedness of the "when does life begin" and "when is abortion okay" questions, since you slipped in the word "terminated."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree the two issues are linked but can we find an objective answer to when life begins? or can science not seperate the two issues.
These two issues are easily seperated. The issue is, that the answer to the second question is (for many people) dependent on the answer to the first question. And, as there isn't a solid answer to the first, there can't yet be a solid answer to the second. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 12:45:33 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
I don't think that your definition is valid for all forms of life. I am only talking about human life.
And human life fits the definition I supplied. We eat, excrete, and procreate.quote:
Sperm are living organisms but are not human life.
I think if you can articulate the difference(s) between the two, regarding why one is 'life' and the other not, we might be well on our way to resolving the issue at hand.quote:
I claim that human life is unique and laws should be made accordingly. Our country recognizes the difference. Killing people is breaking the law but killing fish is a sport.
Every species of fish is unique, and laws are made accordingly. Killing endangered fish is also illegal.
The law, however, is irrelevant, as you want a scientific answer. A scientific answer for human beings demands - at least as a follow-up - an answer for every other sexual species on the planet. And then asexual species. From a purely biological viewpoint, there's no reason to hold Homo sapiens sapiens to a different standard than any other creature in the universe.quote:
I agree with you, but since each country must decide for themselves what life is and make laws accordingly, and being an American, I have a say in our lawmaking. In the U.S. about 67% of the embryos will grow into human beings if not aborted.
Again, you asked for a scientific answer, and not a political one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 13:00:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
As Dave says.... we need to agree upon a definition for "life" before this can be continued in any meaningfull fasion.
What do you think of the definitions in my initial post?
quote:
These two issues are easily seperated. The issue is, that the answer to the second question is (for many people) dependent on the answer to the first question. And, as there isn't a solid answer to the first, there can't yet be a solid answer to the second.
I agree.
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 13:41:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And human life fits the definition I supplied. We eat, excrete, and procreate.
Yes it does, but it does not go far enough. Thinking, reasoning and emotions are all a part of human life that cannot be removed. As far as I know, plants and sperm do not have the capacity to have these qualities.
quote:
I think if you can articulate the difference(s) between the two, regarding why one is 'life' and the other not, we might be well on our way to resolving the issue at hand.
They are both life but human life should be defined by different criteria. Refer to previous answer.
quote:
Every species of fish is unique, and laws are made accordingly. Killing endangered fish is also illegal.
Killing certain fish is not illegal. Certain humans are Ok to kill (Soldiers, Death Row inmates, etc.) but only with reason. I can yank any fish out of the water and kill it without any justification as long as it is not endangered.
quote:
From a purely biological viewpoint, there's no reason to hold Homo sapiens sapiens to a different standard than any other creature in the universe.
I disagree. Refer to previous answers.
quote:
Again, you asked for a scientific answer, and not a political one.
Okay then, lets go with the 35% number worldwide. I trust your doctor. This translates into many people that should have the chance at life.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
