Talk:Human life begins at conception

24 Oct 2003
On the other hand, pro-choice advocates acknowledge that the living biological tissue of a fetus is "human"

Actually you'd better be careful with this Ed. I might say that but others might not. :-) Evercat 14:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * See my edit. Yes, an embryo consists of human tissue--so do a white blood cell, a finger, and the HeLa culture, none of which are people. At this point, I am sorely tempted to write an equally biased entry under Slogan: A woman's life is a human life, but that wouldn't advance our goal of creating a useful encyclopedia. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How does the United States Constitution come into this, either legally or politically. That is, (1) where in the constitution (Supreme Court rulings are fine here) is this claimed right found, and is the slogan used only in the US?Vicki Rosenzweig 15:40, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Vicki, the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are Jeffersonian ideals found in the US Declaration of Independence -- not the constitution. (Oops, wrong "founding document"). Let's correct this reference.


 * We also need an article on the "right to life" - either as a slogan or a movement. And we definitely have to have an article on "a woman's right to choose" to balance "human life begins at conception". --Uncle Ed 16:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think this article is becoming too complex and in-depth for a piece on just one slogan. Most of this probably exists at Abortion, legal and moral issues. Isn't it enough to note here that the scale exists and there are a wide range of views? Evercat 15:54, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I would just delete current paragraphs 4 through 6, sorry Ed. :-) Evercat 15:56, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hrmm? Why am I supposed to wait a day? We're both here, let's sort this out now. Do you agree that those paragraphs are largely irrelevant? Evercat 16:06, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Never mind, I do see the relevance (though not of partial-birth) and have restored some of what you wrote, with particular emphasis on how the blurriness of the pro-choice position is a problem that makes the "at conception" slogan attractive. Evercat 17:07, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, there's nothing like blurriness to make a concept attractive. That's why all us "cult" members are "brainwashed" -- we couldn't possibly have made an "informed choice"... --Uncle Ed 16:59, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eh? I think the point was that in the abscence of an obvious cut-off point in the development of the fetus, the point at which it comes into existence becomes an attractive one. This is irrelevant to "cults" and "brainwashing". Evercat 17:02, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is an Egg a Person?
The article begins:


 * ...the fertilized egg is a person

Yet I feel this is not a fair statement of the pro-life position. I guess they might say the fertilized egg is the body of a person, and that there's a soul involved too. The idea of an "egg" being a "person" sounds ridiculous.

So, do we attribute this reformulation to anti-pro-life forces, like this?


 * Femmy Nyst of NARAL says, "The anti-choice position is sheer nonsense. Why, they claim that a fertilized egg is a person! What's next? Prosecuting women for murder if they have a miscarriage?"

Or,


 * ...upon fertilization the egg becomes the first cell of a human being's body

Or what? --Uncle Ed 16:46, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you want to say that the pro-life position is that a human soul is magically created upon conception, that sounds even more ridiculous to me. :-) Evercat 16:57, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Good! Now we're getting somewhere --Uncle Ed 17:00, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think we need an actual pro-lifer to explain this to us. Failing that, I'll try a websearch later; going out for dinner now. Evercat 17:03, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just read the pro-life literature. It is not confusing; they are very open and clear about their beliefs. Most Protestant Chrisitans, and a great many Catholics, believe that when a sperm fertilizes an egg, the resulting zygote (fertilized egg) does gain a soul, from God, and does immediately become a human being. Their ideology gives them little other choice, because if they admit that it takes time for the zygote to become human, this gives a person time to have an abortion. Even the Catholic Church itself forbids any birth control technology which prevents the implantation of a zygote, because they view that as murder. For Catholics who follow Church doctrine, a zygote is a human being with a soul. The same is true of many Protestants. RK 17:05, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that, RK. Now I know why I fought to keep you around :-) --Uncle Ed 18:35, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can I add something like this then? :


 * For many pro-life advocates, the view that personhood begins at conception is related to the religious concept of a soul. Since having a soul is taken to be an all-or-nothing state, gaining a soul must therefore happen suddenly (rather than gradually). Since fertilization is the only point in the development of the fetus where its characteristics change very suddenly, fertilization is taken to be the point at which the soul comes into being.

Evercat 19:01, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Evercat, it sounds like you're on the right track. We'd just have to be sure if the "only point" argument is attributable to pro-lifers, lest we be imputing more logic to the argument than it really has. On the other hand, what if Catholics are right, and millions of Americans are blithely committing murder? (What a scary thought) Oops, I went off on a tangent; I've been doing that a lot, lately...

Let's follow RK's advice and see if we can dig up the "point at which the soul joins the body" from some religious sources. Also, I might be able to dig up a website which explains why a zygote *is* a human being with personhood at the moment of conception. (Thank God my church doesn't have a position on this!) --Uncle Ed 19:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

'Is', 'Isn't'... It's an endless debate. It is neither a person nor not a person. It's both--but nonsimultaneously. It depends wholly on perception at the moment. Therefore government has no right to get involved in the matter. It's a matter of personal choice simply because any argument for or against it is so incredibly subjective. Khranus

---If you write that fertilization is the point at which the soul comes into being, you should probably consider the fact that the zygote can take as long as long as 12 days or more to split into twins. If the soul instantaneously enters the zygote at fertilization, then what about identical twins? Do they share a soul when the zygote splits? Or does a 2nd soul miraculously appear to enter the 2nd twin? Also, what about chimeras? Very rare, but they do happen. That's when two zygotes merge into one, with DNA from both. How many souls does the chimera have? The original two? One?

Another thing to consider in this entry is the high percentage of zygotes or embryos that fail to implant on the uterus. Some medical estimates are as high as 80%. Does God really invest souls in every single zygote, only to have up to 80% of them die within days? This topic raises lots of questions. Shrewsy 23:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Personhood Debate
To ask what the moral status of the fetus is, is to ask not simply when it starts to live but when it becomes a person. The question "When during gestation does 'human life' begin?" says philosopher Frederick Jaffe, needs to be restated as the question "When does a fetus become a 'person' who merits protection equal to or greater than the woman in whose body it is located and without whose body it would cease to exist?" Like many other philosophers, Jaffe suggests that a human being is not necessarily a human person. Biological existence, the kind of existence associated with human life, is to be distinguished from fully human existence, the kind of existence associated with personal life. The abortion debate is not so much an argument about when human life begins--presumably it begins at conception--as an argument about when personal life begins--that is, the kind of human life that merits "the value, rights, and protection due the human person as such." 

Conservative View Of Personhood
Although most theories believe that there is a distinction between having human life on the one hand and being a human person on the other, extreme conservatives insist that, from the moment of conception, the fetus is like an adult human person in most, if not all, morally relevant respects. This view is sometimes expressed as the opinion that human life begins at conception, though, to avoid confusion, it should probably be expressed as the opinion that human personhood begins at conception. There are two types of arguments for this position: theological and philosophical. Conservative theologians begin their arguments on behalf of the fetus' personhood with premises about God's and the soul's existence, identifying conception as the time at which a developing member of the human species acquires a soul.

Links

 * The Personhood Debate in Abortion: Toward a Reconciliation

LIFE BEGINS AT BIRTH BUT BIOLOGICAL IT BEGINS AT CONCEPTION YET WE DEALING WITH THE HUMAN BEING NOT A FUTILE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.236.145 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Human life begins at conception

Untitled 2
Why bring categories into article titles? This is a destructive trend (and confusing as it looks like namespaces), I don't want to see Book:your mama, Album:Black&White etc. &mdash; Sverdrup 12:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In Need of a NPV
Is this article really NPV? I mean, the majority of the article is about what the pro-choice position thinks about the slogan. I mean, if this article were about chocolate ice cream, would we expect 85% of the article to say what the vanilla ice cream fans' opinion is, what vanilla fans argue, why vanilla is better...and the one "bone thrown" to the chocolate fans is done by saying a "moderate" chocolate fan will agree that vanilla is OK, etc., etc..

merging.
The VfD consensus was a clear merge. Why wasn't that done? I'll merge it in a couple days if no one objects. --AK7 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And this article still exists? I'll merge this article with pro-life in the next few days.--Andrew c 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)