Beginning of Human Life

[Mister Emu]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

 

[Revoltingest]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

What do you think the critereon/criteria should
be for....
- The beginning of a new human life.
- The stage at which it legally gains the right to live.

There are so many stages to consider...
- Fertilized egg
- Implanted egg
- Appearance of human features
- Feeling pain
- Brain activity
- Heartbeat
- Who knows what else.

 

[YoursTrue]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

Let me put it this way, although I don't have the answer for you right now. When people kill each other in war, is that ok or not ok? Or how about people who die from insecticide poisoning?

 

[Mister Emu]

What do you think the critereon/criteria should
be for....
- The beginning of a new human life.

I defer to the sciences, thus this thread. I am looking for some reason to not look at this idea, that zygotes/fetuses are qualitatively deficient such that they can't be called human, as the completely irrational position it appears to be.

The stage at which it gains the right to live.

I cleave to the ideal of universal human rights. But that's a different topic that can begin once this is sorted out.

 

[YoursTrue]

I defer to the sciences, thus this thread. I am looking for some reason to not look at this idea, that zygotes/fetuses are qualitatively deficient such that they can't be called human, as the completely irrational position it appears to be.


I cleave to the ideal of universal human rights. But that's a different topic that can begin once this is sorted out.

Did I ask about the right of human life when one country fights another and the citizens kill one another legally, I suppose, according, of course, which country wins and sets the rules.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

I suppose you can, but it seems to me that most lifeforms are broken up into stages, when it comes to existence. Hence why, when I see a clutch of chicken eggs, I don't say that 'those are chickens,' but rather identify them with eggs. Or when I see a cloud of mosquito larvae, I think of them as larvae, or when I see caterpillars, I don't say that I am looking at butterflies.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, ..

.. and there should be sufficient reasons to end its existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a difference than a "human being" and a person. And the brain appears to be the best key. Until a brain develops it is just a body, a human body but just a body. Not a person. Later in life brain function can be lost in various ways. But in hospitals it is often due to accidents. If a person is declared brain dead his body can be used for parts if he or she agreed to that. The hospital has and will pull the plug on the brain dead even though they could keep the body alive indefinitely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.. and there should be sufficient reasons to end its existence.

The only one that can judge the reason is the woman that is pregnant.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

I am curious though, how a Christian would map that onto the creation of Adam. Adam might be the prototype that indicates where a human life actually starts, in the Bible. And the switch to 'life' is prompt - not attaining life, in the genesis account, until the organism actually breaths air. Interval stages are not mentioned, and though the preceding language indicates that a 'man is being formed,' life is not attained until he receives the 'breath of life.' It does not indicate how long that the forming took, nor does it call that life.

 

[Valjean]

If its got a human/hominin genome, it's human. But what's the purport? Why is a zygote or fœtus' species of special concern?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

Just to clarify, is it your present position that human life begins at conception?

Not being a human biologist, all I know is that a zygote is a human cell that has the potential to develop into a human given the right conditions and normal development. It is a potential human that doesn't exhibit the traits the average person associates with a description of a living human being. Technically speaking, since a zygote or developing embryo cannot exist independently, they do not fit the classic scientific definition of living thing. Though, it seems a special case when applying that to embryonic life.

Not sure if that helps at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

I think any final answer isn't to be found from a audit of a single field of study and that working answers are going to come from philosophy as much as science.

When is a human being a human being may not be an answer solely attainable from the biological sciences. A cancer cell might be human too, but not one that anyone wants to preserve.

 

[Revoltingest]

I defer to the sciences, thus this thread. I am looking for some reason to not look at this idea, that zygotes/fetuses are qualitatively deficient such that they can't be called human, as the completely irrational position it appears to be.

They're human in the sense that they have human
genes, & are capable of ultimately becoming human.
But even unfertilized eggs & sperm have human genes,
yet they aren't considered persons. A fertilized egg has
the full complement of genes, yet it isn't going to be a
human unless it's implanted in the uterus, ie, the start
of pregnancy.

Speaking of "irrational"...
I find it thus to select a particular stage, & claim that it's
singularly the only possible one to be both biologically
& legally the start of a person. And yes, the law is
relevant, given that it's the reason we're all arguing
about it.

I cleave to the ideal of universal human rights. But that's a different topic that can begin once this is sorted out.

There is no such thing as universal human rights.
Different people in different cultures at different
times disagree about which are & which aren't.

Abortion rights are complicated by the right of
bodily autonomy. Not all agree that there is such
a right. I say there is, but for the mother, not for
a mere fertilized egg. At what point does the
fetus acquire a right to live? There is no single
stage that people can agree upon....
Heartbeat? Limbs? Brain activity? Fertilization?
Pregnancy's beginning? Viability outside mom?

 

[Heyo]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

There you have your answer. The scientific consensus is that a zygote is human and alive. That isn't and never has been in question.
It has also never been in question that personhood begins at birth. (Which is a legal matter, not scientific.)
Rights, like a right to life and a right to bodily autonomy are also legal matters.

 

[sun rise]

Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

Is a fetus at 8 months with no brain a human being? (There are such).
Is a fetus that is dead a human being?
Does the presence of a soul make a fetus a human?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Whether it's a human being or not has no relevance to my position. It could be a fully adult human in there and I'd still support the mother's choice to end the pregnancy at any time, on grounds of body autonomy and self-defense.

 

[Revoltingest]

It has also never been in question that personhood begins at birth. (Which is a legal matter, not scientific.)

It appears that some say earlier.

 

[Heyo]

It appears that some say earlier.

They should try to get a passport for their foetus.

 

[SomeRandom]

With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

Science has indeed settled on when human life starts.
But that phrase “human life” is loaded and means different things depending on the context.
In science it is a literal definition and that’s fine. Human life begins at conception.
But in a religious context that term is more than loaded.
To a scientist human life beginning at such a stage is nothing more than biological fact. It just is what it is

To a religious person human life beginning at such a stage inherently means the embryo is endowed with all the legal rights of a fully fledged adult human. It is also possessing a soul, a concept that the sciences ignore entirely. Because it’s not scientific to begin with
And indeed the various religions are not in agreement about such a concept in the first place
The OT as far as I’m aware doesn’t consider ensoulment to even take place until after birth. Never mind the various other religions outside of the Abrahamics.

That human life begins at conception means totally different things to different people, depending on the specific context.