When life begins: legal argument or scientific one?

Question

Science has NEVER asserted anything less than life does indeed begin at conception. Even a small amount of research refutes the "clump of cells" argument put forth by many pro-choice people.

Science shows us that at 6 weeks (when most women find out they are pregnant), a fetus has a beating heart, a brain, arms, legs, a face and responds to touch. If a 6 week fetus is poked with a probe, it will move. That means it can feel it, does it not?

If you want to be pro-choice, that is certainly up to you. If you think abortion is not wrong, that is up to you, too. However, using science to try and support your argument is a fail, because science has always maintained that life begins at conception. When life begins is a LEGAL argument, not a scientific one.

True or false?

*If false, please provide an example of science concluding life does NOT begin at conception.

Answer 1

In my opinion neither it is a moral one as life begins at conception legally or scientifically matters not it just does, and in my belief abortion is murder

Answer 2

Actually I believe it is a religious one.



It should not be in politics but the right has involved religion into politics.



As for when something is alive, a egg before conception is alive.

What people really want to know but just don't say is, when does the soul actually enter the body. Some religions believe at conception and some believe at birth and others do not believe that people have souls.



I am not pro choice because I believe in Abortions. I am pro choice because I believe that all Americans should have the right to choose what to do with there body.



I am pro choice because I do not want more freedoms taken away from Americans.



I am pro choice because I believe all Americans should have the right to have or not have religion.



No one group should be able force you into believing in something because its what they believe.



Each and every person has the right to believe when a soul enters the body and when it actually becomes a human or just cells developing.



We might not always agree but we should have the right to choose.



You stated..If a 6 week fetus is poked with a probe, it will move. That means it can feel it, does it not?

Frog legs will jump in a hot skillet, that means they are alive, does it not?



If your trying to make this about science.. In the USA we have always started life at birth, our birthdays start at the time we are born.

In some other country's life is at conception and it is reflected in the birthday and age.

I know people that calculate there age on all legal documents including birth certificate by the date of conception.

Answer 3

It depends on the criteria the law uses to define what human life is. In this country any human life has basic rights. A murderer can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. This posthumously infers the right to life on a fetus. By my reasoning, if it did not there would be no basis for the charge of murder. If that same fetus is killed or aborted (depending on your point of view) by a doctor preforming an abortion, rather than be charged, he is allowed to charge for the procedure.No judgment on my part but I am just pointing out that the law seems a bit ambiguous on this matter.



Some argue that human life begins when a fetus is viable outside the womb. Others argue that some level of brain activity is required. Still others argue from the stand point of the potential of what the fetus could become. On this last one I am unsure of their reasoning, perhaps it is to distinguish between the potential of a chicken egg and human fetus or perhaps to provide leeway in the event that an ultra sound reveals a fetus lacking anatomy necessary to sustain life of a quality of life defined elsewhere.



This seems to be a question for philosophy in a secular society. Think of me what you will, but I do not care to pass judgment on it.



@ Jared

Why does this topic trigger such an emotional and abusive response? I could perhaps understand if you were a female who felt defensive about having an abortion. Your profile instead reveals a child that is overly impressed with himself and has not learned the self control necessary for rational discourse.

Answer 4

Playing devil's advocate here, one could say that the fetus is reliant on the mother for life and therefore the mother has the right to do what she wants, conversely you can't kill a 1 year old or the person later in life because they don't directly depend on the mother for life. But this being said I agree with you completely, the fetus is undeniably a living human in a stage of development not all that different from the type of development after birth, and therefore is entitled to the right to live.

Answer 5

"Science has NEVER asserted anything less than life does indeed begin at conception. Even a small amount of research refutes the "clump of cells" argument put forth by many pro-choice people."



is a non-argument. You could argue the same about trees or pineapples. They do not have developed brains or any higher brain function.



"That means it can feel it, does it not?"

No it does not, the movement is a result of a motor-neurone reflex connected to the spine via nerves with nodes of ranvier with a protein coat to increase conductivity. Higher brain functions do not develop until much later (Legally, a human. Mentally, a coconut). Only subconscious vital processes are functioning at this stage. It IS human and it IS alive, but it would be comparable to someone in a coma.



"using science to try and support your argument is a fail"

I believe I just did a WIN



When life begins is a LEGAL argument, not a scientific one.

Doesn't that just seem stupid? You don't see a lawyer saying to a foetus "You shall not live for another three weeks! Get back in there you slacker!"



Of course, you will have anti-abortion sources to refute me. Let me remind you - all those sources are biased, whether it is pro or against. I have recieved an impartial medical education in this subject area, and at this moment, I am probably more qualified and will hold more credibility.



You can use 'feel' in two different contexts. What you are referring to is the receptors on the skin - the physical act of feeling. What I'm referring to is higher brain function feeling - emotions, that stuff. You said that the foetus in the question was at 6 weeks - this enables it to feel physically but subconsciously. The feeling registers - but the foetus is not consciously aware of it at this stage.



You have to remember at this stage - the foetus is still part of the mother. It is not a seperate entity yet (the line is blurry where, but its after 6 weeks). The foetus is for all pretenses and purposes (excluding physical depiction), not a foetus, if that make sense. It's effectively still part of the mother and should not be classed as a seperate organism (medically, anyways, but ethically, here's where we have the trouble).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I WILL repost the same thing over and over until you get it:



No it does not, the movement is a result of a motor-neurone reflex connected to the spine via nerves with nodes of ranvier with a protein coat to increase conductivity. Higher brain functions do not develop until much later (Legally, a human. Mentally, a coconut). Only subconscious vital processes are functioning at this stage. It IS human and it IS alive, but it would be comparable to someone in a coma.



GOOGLE MOTOR NEURONE REFLEX IF ITS TL;DR

I said comparable, not exactly the same. Stop putting words in my mouth. And can we just stop arguing about this please. I'm a med student - you're someone who thinks you're intelligent because you googled a bunch of articles (which by the way, is not a source. A medical journal is a source). I'd be happy to have this conversation if you weren't so damn stupid. This 'lecture' has been about the differentiation about when the bunch of cells becomes a person. I'm just arguing consciousness because that's one aspect of it.



Btw thewellspring is NOT a credible source of information

It looks as if it's been written by a mother's care association. Quote it off something else like a scientific biology journal.



@someone below who posted at me

If she was a credible biologist or experienced in medical science, I wouldn't bash. The people in your list are educated. That's like saying I should believe the hobos who are warning me about aliens. Whether we discover them is another story, but I'm sure as hell not gonna believe someone who has no basis for the subject matter.

Answer 6

Even the legal system is confounded by this paradox, as is evidenced by the passage of "fetal protection" laws.

"Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws.

At least 21 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization")."

Members of Congress approved the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004.The law makes it so criminals are held accountable for killing both mother and child in an attack on the pregnant mother.



http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx



http://www.lifenews.com/state3726.html

Answer 7

"When life begins is a LEGAL argument, not a scientific one."



Yep.



Gotta love the "first in a series of exponentially complex chemical reactions which eventually leads to a baby begins at conception", because that would mean that Jared is nothing but a chemical reaction, and that his thoughts are entirely mechanical in nature, similar to brownian motion.



Watch out for those intellectual cow patties! They get all over your socks and shoes, damn hard to wash the smell out.



~

Answer 8

Should be Science all the way! Life obviously begins at conception..Any Scientist will tell you that. Life has to start somewhere right?? Life begins the minute the egg is federalized, then grows and grows..Not Rocket science! If you get an abortion you have just murdered a human life period. There is no way to justify that. If your Christian you know that God knew you in the womb. If your not then you will just have to roll with the fact that life starts at conception.

Answer 9

Snolax brings up a good point. If someone is in a coma, are they alive? (I think they are)



As for Jared's Denialismm, I think he's in it (Denial); either that or Webster owes him a cappuccino





From Webster



denialism

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.



1.hedonism

2.Hegelianism

3.ad nauseam

4.Italianism

5.Denison

6.delineation

7.dean's list

8.taeniasis



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denialism





For Snorlax I present:



In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions.



THE LIST: scroll down



To add: Gilbert Ling, John C. Lilly



Arrhenius (ion chemistry)

Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)

Baird, John L. (television camera)

Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)

Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)

Bretz J Harlen (ice age geology)

Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)

Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)

Crick & Watson (DNA)

Doppler (optical Doppler effect)

Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)

Galvani (bioelectricity)

Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)

Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)

Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)

Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)

Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)

Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)

Goethe (Land color theory)

Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)

Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)

Lister, J (sterilizing)

T Maiman (Laser)



"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein





Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)

Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)

Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)

McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)

Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)

Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)

Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)

Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)

Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)

Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)

Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)

Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )

Steen-McIntyre, Virginia (southwest US indians villiage , 300,000BC)

Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)

Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)

J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)

Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)

Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)

Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)

Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)

Zweig, George (quark theory)







Snorlax never ridule anyones theory, because your "facts" may be (and often are) proven wrong.

Answer 10

Two women find out on the same day that they're pregnant. One woman doesn't want to be so she's carrying a clump of meaningless cells. The other woman is thrilled so she's carrying a baby. It doesn't depend on science. It depends on if the mother is selfish or selfless.

Answer 11

Nobody argues that cells are not alive. Why not join the real argument instead of clouding it with pages upon pages of response to strawman arguments.



Actually for that matter - you guys lost this one 40 years ago. Why not argue something meaningful, relevant and current?

Answer 12

if life begins at conception, can we claim a IRS tax exemption for the same period? the IRS says life begins at birth and they can put you in jail if you claim otherwise.

Answer 13

SinDelle Morte ,

I see the mind twisters have a new recruit Ta Da!

Look you're using a leading question that i will say to you do what you believe and stay the heck out of other peoples lives.

You'RE a back STABBING SELF RIGHTEOUS, new recruit being used by the fanatic force to screw with peoples heads to win people over so you can gain brownie points.

Bye!

Answer 14

hey, Jared's in here too???... so personally I think life begins when the kids move out. lol

Answer 15

Plutocratic argument.



Rich class hi-tech doctors and pharmas only qualify to terminate natural process. Without them, there is no argument.



Easy answer. Easy.

Answer 16

Abortion is a travesty.



Anyone who thinks they are justified in defending it is suffering from "denialism". lol

Answer 17

None



It is up to the woman, her doctor and her maker.



That is all I will say about it.

Answer 18

This should remove all doubt about abortion



Beware very graphic video and if you are not 18 do not watch it.



http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8fvlp_graphic-truth-about-abortion-over-1_news



Jared I doubt you are old enough to watch the video but if you are over 18. I recommend you watch it then tell me its just tissue.