Biologically, when does human life begin?

[Gozaburo]

A ZEF is not an independent life. A baby is.

You keep sneaking in things like "independent" life. We're just talking about human life here. Even using a word like independent is obviously silly. There are many human beings who aren't any more independent than a fetus. In fact, a sufficiently developed fetus might even be *more* "independent" than some human beings with particular conditions or ailments! Same goes for circulatory and respiratory systems.

We don't need to keep going in circles here, I just think the pro-choice argument you're making is terrible even though we probably agree on the ends.

 

[BirdinHand]

You keep sneaking in things like "independent" life. We're just talking about human life here. Even using a word like independent is obviously silly. There are many human beings who aren't any more independent than a fetus.

I’m sorry you don’t seem to want to learn more about human physiology?

In fact, a sufficiently developed fetus might even be *more* "independent" than some human beings with particular conditions or ailments!

And I might be the Queen of England?

“Might” is meaningless.

Having a circulatory system and respiratory system that works - even with medical technology assistance - independently of a woman’s body is the determine factor.

Same goes for circulatory and respiratory systems.

Nope. It doesn’t. Our medical technology, for all its capabilities, can’t make a fetal circulatory and respiratory systems be able to function if it doesn’t make the changes it needs to make.

We can’t switch it from one to another yet. We don’t have the ability. We can pump a fetus full of surfactant and cross our fingers and hope it works, but we can’t MAKE it change over. (Technically, we pump the mother up with steroids and hope that once they cross through the blood and placenta they trigger the fetus to create surfactant to trigger the lungs to work and changes to happen)


The potential new human either does it or it doesn’t. The changes either happen or they don’t.

We don't need to keep going in circles here, I just think the pro-choice argument you're making is terrible even though we probably agree on the ends.

I’m not going in circles - you are just ignorant as to the physiology.

 

[Gozaburo]

I’m sorry you don’t seem to want to learn more about human physiology?

The discussion started on what is biologically constitutes "human life". The overwhelming number of biologists say human life begins at conception

And I might be the Queen of England?

“Might” is meaningless.

Having a circulatory system and respiratory system that works - even with medical technology assistance - independently of a woman’s body is the determine factor.

Well that's even more ambiguous. If a fetus can be supported outside of a mother's womb, should it be given rights by the state?

Nope. It doesn’t. Our medical technology, for all its capabilities, can’t make a fetal circulatory and respiratory systems be able to function if it doesn’t make the changes it needs to make.

We can’t switch it from one to another yet. We don’t have the ability. We can pump a fetus full of surfactant and cross our fingers and hope it works, but we can’t MAKE it change over.

The potential new human either does it or it doesn’t.

Imagine a future where we can. It seems possible. Does that really change the moral arithmetic? No, it doesn't, which is why this is a trash argument.

I’m not going in circles - you are just ignorant as to the physiology.

I'm not really interested in discussing the physiology. In fact, I don't think I've even disagreed with you in any way which isn't semantic. Where we disagree is how we articulate the argument which is very important, given that abortion is apparently up for debate.

 

[BirdinHand]

The discussion started on what is biologically constitutes "human life

The thread title says “biologically, when does human life begin”

The answer is birth.

Prior to birth, the MOTHER is the ONLY life and is carrying within her the potential for another human life.

That’s the BIOLOGY. That’s the reality.

You don’t have an offspring until you have a living offspring. In ANY species.

If a pregnant woman dies on the table in an ER - a doctor knows they have X amount of time to get the fetus out. (Minutes, FYI). Because life ends when the WOMAN dies.

It’s why they kept the woman’s body alive to grow the fetus that is now known as the HUMAN named Chance.

The MOTHER’s body was the only thing sustaining the ZEF. The ONLY life.

If that ended, so did the ZEF that became Chance.

 

[Gozaburo]

The thread title says “biologically, when does human life begin”

The answer is birth.

Prior to birth, the MOTHER is the ONLY life and is carrying within her the potential for another human life.

That’s the BIOLOGY. That’s the reality.

You don’t have an offspring until you have a living offspring. In ANY species.

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human's life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts' views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view."

It's okay that you have that view, just understand that your view is at odds with the overwhelming majority of biologists, meaning you stand in firm opposition to the scientific consensus on the matter.

 

[BirdinHand]

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human's life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts' views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view."

It's okay that you have that view, just understand that your view is at odds with the overwhelming majority of biologists, meaning you stand in firm opposition to the scientific consensus on the matter.

You providing an abstract from a journal =\= that my view is at odds with anything.

But nice try I guess?

 

[Gozaburo]

You providing an abstract from a journal =\= that my view is at odds with anything.

But nice try I guess?

I'm merely citing where the overwhelming majority of the scientific consensus is at and you happen to disagree with that consensus. I don't think there's much more to be said.

 

[BirdinHand]

I'm merely citing where the overwhelming majority of the scientific consensus is at and you happen to disagree with that consensus. I don't think there's much more to be said.

No, you’re citing a partial quotation from an abstract from a journal article.

 

[Gozaburo]

No, you’re citing a partial quotation from an abstract from a journal article.

... which includes a large sample size, conducted in highly reputable academic institutions, taken from highly reputable professionals in their field, who overwhelmingly conclude that human life begins at conception.

I think you should just be comfortable with your position and understand it goes against the grain of the overwhelming consensus. No need to gaslight me about it. You can go explore the paper (which isn't the only one of its kind, by the way) if you like.

 

[BirdinHand]

... which includes a large sample size, conducted in highly reputable academic institutions, taken from highly reputable professionals in their field, who overwhelmingly conclude that human life begins at conception.

I think you should just be comfortable with your position and understand it goes against the grain of the overwhelming consensus. No need to gaslight me about it. You can go explore the paper (which isn't the only one of its kind, by the way) if you like.

Does it?

You didn’t link the study, you linked an abstract.

RFK Jr and kooks put out abstracts claiming vaccines cause autism. Doesn’t mean they do, doesn’t mean the studies show that.

 

[Gozaburo]

Does it?

You didn’t link the study, you linked an abstract.

RFK Jr and kooks put out abstracts claiming vaccines cause autism. Doesn’t mean they do, doesn’t mean the studies show that.

The link to the full paper is literally at the bottom lol.

https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Jacobs_36n2.pdf

 

[BirdinHand]

The link to the full paper is literally at the bottom lol.

https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Jacobs_36n2.pdf

Look at you out here waving a “study” sent via email to tens of thousands of people that received a 12% response rate and touting it like RFK would tout a report about thermisol.

Were you incapable of reading the slant in the questions presented and conclusions reached in the study?

I’m merely skimming it quickly and the slant is immediately apparent.

 

[BirdinHand]

And…I suggest you go and also search the author and his @study”.

I was able to pick up the slant in the study immediately - then a quick google and ChatGPT search quickly affirmed my suspicions.

I suggest you go read more prior to suggesting this guy as a frame of reference.

In the end, just 70 of those 60,000-plus biologists supported Jacobs’ legal argument enough to sign the amicus brief, which makes a companion argument to the main case. That may well be because there is neither scientific consensus on the matter of when human life actually begins nor agreement that it is a question that biologists can answer using their science

When human life begins is a question of politics – not biology • Ohio Capital Journal

A Texas law that aims to eliminate almost all abortions in the state is part of a long-standing nationwide movement to restrict the right to abortion. The Texas law went into effect on Sept. 1, 2021, and severely limits the right to have an abortion in that state.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

His “study” isn’t something I’d be waving around as evidence of anything.

And truly…I saw the slant in the abstract…and then when you gave me the study, it was glaring.

It’s really disappointing that people don’t immediately see the red flags and bullshit.

 

[Gozaburo]

Look at you out here waving a “study” sent via email to tens of thousands of people that received a 12% response rate and touting it like RFK would tout a report about thermisol.

Email and online survey, yes. How else would a study like this be conducted with such a large sample size?

Were you incapable of reading the slant in the questions presented and conclusions reached in the study?

I’m merely skimming it quickly and the slant is immediately apparent.

What slant? 89% of the responders identified as liberal. 85% identified as pro-choice. If anything, the slant is heavily in favor of the pro-choice and liberal position, which is consistent with where most academics are.

And…I suggest you go and also search the author and his @study”.

I was able to pick up the slant in the study immediately - then a quick google and ChatGPT search quickly affirmed my suspicions.

I suggest you go read more prior to suggesting this guy as a frame of reference.

Whether or not biologists agree with the legal/moral conclusions of the author is an entirely separate matter.

His “study” isn’t something I’d be waving around as evidence of anything.

And truly…I saw the slant in the abstract…and then when you gave me the study, it was glaring.

It’s really disappointing that people don’t immediately see the red flags and bullshit.

I don't think an opinion piece by a guest author at the *squints* "Ohio Capital Journal" really refutes the survey or the available literature. You can go read any biology white paper on this subject and nearly all of them agree that life begins at conception on a continuum. Now, whether or not that life should be under the jurisdiction of the state or be subject to the same moral scrutiny as a newborn baby is a totally separate conversation.

 

[Lursa]

The thread title is "Biologically, when does human life begin?"

“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm…unites with a female gamete or oocyte…to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia



“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.” From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller.



Diane Irving, M.A., Ph.D, sums up much of the scientific consensus in her research at Princeton University:

“That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.”



Only proper understanding of the process of human embryogenesis enables answering scientifically the question when the life cycle of human individual starts. Therefore, in the following text the main steps of the human developmental process are going to be briefly described, primarily during the first 15 days after fertilization.

A human being originates from two living cells: the oocyte and the spermatozoon transmitting the torch of life to the next generation.

THE FACTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN LIFE AND PERSONALITY - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins
Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

When Human Life Begins - American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.

When Human Life Begins - American College of Pediatricians

acpeds.org

Does science define life as "beginning at conception"?
Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).

Does science define life as "beginning at conception"?

The following link makes such a claim https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a

skeptics.stackexchange.com

 

[Loulit01]

If human life begins at conception, then all abortions are the murder of a human, are they not?

 

[Gozaburo]

If human life begins at conception, then all abortions are the murder of a human, are they not?

"Murder" has a particular legal definition and legal definitions like this can only be applied to people under the jurisdiction of the US government. If that jurisdiction determines a fetus doesn't have the same legal rights as a living child, then it doesn't.

Now given that we live in a liberal society, I'd grant you that if human life begins at conception (vast majority of the professional class agrees it does), then there might be compelling arguments for why the fetus deserves the same natural rights as any other person. This is why some posters feel compelled to incoherently defend the position of a fetus not being a human life, even if it contradicts the overwhelming consensus.

This is why I'm generally an advocate for circumventing that conversation altogether. This isn't a debate which can be realistically reconciled in a liberal society because it pokes at obvious paradoxes within the liberal paradigm. Instead, we should take a pragmatic political approach to the question: is more humans being born to households which are generally dysfunctional, poor, and stupid better or worse for society?

The answer and solution (in abortion - which is both humane and consensual) is obvious.

 

[maquiscat]

A fetus does not have a self sustaining circulatory system nor a respiratory system that breathes air.

Isn't that the point of viability, that the fetus does have that possibility, even if it does have several more weeks inside the woman?

There are physiological changes that MUST happen AT BIRTH for that to happen.

Therefore, the threshold is birth.

Explain these physiological changes and how they also occur during a c-section as well as natural birth.

 

[maquiscat]

Does a zygote approach the status of a grown human when you parse it thusly?

I am just trying to understand your use of the term "social rights" in a debate that usually focuses in on "legal rights". At this point I am not assigning the zygote any status with regards to "social rights" until I have that information.

 

[maquiscat]

Not necessarily, yet we generally treat the killing of animals kept as pets differently than the killing of farm or game animals.

True enough. I was trying t determine if you were a person who limits personhood to only humans, or see the potential that other lifeforms could also possess such.

 

[maquiscat]

Not always. Abortions occur naturally. Sometimes fertilized eggs fail to implant. That happens regularly. Sometimes implanted eggs are rejected.

Adding on to this; abortions are also used when the ZEF dies (usually in the fetal stage) but for some reason is not expelled from the body. IOW, the offspring is already dead prior to deciding to have an abortion.

 

[The Brad Dad]

You keep sneaking in things like "independent" life. We're just talking about human life here. Even using a word like independent is obviously silly. There are many human beings who aren't any more independent than a fetus. In fact, a sufficiently developed fetus might even be *more* "independent" than some human beings with particular conditions or ailments! Same goes for circulatory and respiratory systems.

We don't need to keep going in circles here, I just think the pro-choice argument you're making is terrible even though we probably agree on the ends.

You're describing outlier scenarios for persons here and pretending that's a 1:1 with fetuses. Its a disingenuous argument.

 

[maquiscat]

At the point where it is no longer part of the mother's body.

Any other conclusion infringes upon the rights of the mother to her own body.

The definition of life and when it starts, human or otherwise, does not automatically bestow upon it any given rights per se. Further, one can also argue that certain rights can override the rights of others in specific circumstances.

 

[The Brad Dad]

This is why some posters feel compelled to incoherently defend the position of a fetus not being a human life, even if it contradicts the overwhelming consensus.

You're either misunderstanding the argument or misquoting it on purpose. No one has stated a fetus isn't human, it isn't a person.

 

[maquiscat]

The discussion started on what is biologically constitutes "human life". The overwhelming number of biologists say human life begins at conception

The problem arises is that many who argue against life starting at conception suffer from a conflation fallacy that if it is life, therefore it must have rights, at least in the context of being human. Further they also automatically conflate the position that life begins at conception is a pr-life/anti-abortion position, and that no pro-choice person can hold such a position.

Well that's even more ambiguous. If a fetus can be supported outside of a mother's womb, should it be given rights by the state?

Imagine a future where we can. It seems possible. Does that really change the moral arithmetic? No, it doesn't, which is why this is a trash argument.

Given the advancements in artificial womb(AW) technology, it's a discussion that is going to have to come up soon. And if an offspring is inside an AW, there is no bodily autonomy argument to be had to say that either parent can abort it, if abortion as a term could even be applied to that.