When does life start?

Jason

Posted By: The Associated PressLawmakers reviewing an Ohio bill to outlaw abortions after the first medically detectable heartbeat are hearing more testimony from bill supporters as opponents announce new efforts to support abortion rights.

The anti-abortion group Faith2Action says women from Cleveland, Dayton and Howard were among those testifying Wednesday in support of the bill during a meeting of the House Health Committee. Meanwhile, bill opponent and Democratic state Rep. Nickie Antonio of Lakewood announced she’s joining the new “Voices for Reproductive Choices” campaign launched by the National Council of Jewish Women.

We haven't really talked about this issue in a couple of years. When should abortions no longer be considered an ethical option? Is the first detectable heartbeat an acceptable marker? My unborn child has had a heartbeat since week seven of the pregnancy (Lisa's in week nine now, which is when mood swings start... hooraayyyyyyyy).

CLARIFICATION: We are not considering an abortion. We've been trying to have a child for several years. But now that Lisa's pregnant, related debates suddenly seem more important.

Cremlian

Life begins when I say it does. :-p

I go with higher brain activity.

gomidog

I go with: When the child can exist as an independent organism with its own systems. If you could put it in an incubator and it would probably survive, it would be a separate animal. As long as it still needs to be hooked up to the mom, it is basically part of her.

Also, higher brain activity.

George Patches

I go with higher brain activity.

So not until about year 20 or so?

TheWhaleShark

I can't remember where I found it, but I once found an excellent infographic regarding human embryonic development.

But anyway, I believe it's around 20 weeks that a fetus is first capable of conscious thought. Somewhere around there. So, my safe zone is within the first two trimesters. After that, it gets tricky.

Axel

I'd honestly say life starts at conception. That doesn't mean it's wrong to have an abortion, but life has begun as soon as the embryo is formed. It's a life, just not necessarily human at that point.

zehaeva

When it can have a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb. I'd like to say unaided however I'm okay with machine assisted.

Rym

So, my safe zone is within the first two trimesters. After that, it gets tricky.

Tricky and inadvisable, but it shouldn't be against the law. What if a mother's life is in danger after this point, and abortion is one of the only ways to protect her? What if a previously unknown problem with the fetus comes to light, such as extreme retardation or other massive birth defects, after this point?

We can argue the ethics of aborting a fetus after that point all day, but I see no way to legislate regulations without causing Asimovian conflicts of interest for both mothers and doctors.

WindUpBird

I go with pain response. Some extremely unethical studies conducted in the 50s (that the medical community would rather forget) show that fetuses don't show a reliable response to any outside stimuli until the onset of the third trimester. I generally prefer the humane option, and while I must accept that I indirectly cause animals pain when I eat meat and fish, I have obvious staunch moral objections to human pain (pre-med, primum non nocere, etc). As such, I consider the first signs of life to begin at the onset of the third trimester, because most higher life has an active pain system.

Rym

I have obvious staunch moral objections to human pain (pre-med, primum non nocere, etc). As such, I consider the first signs of life to begin at the onset of the third trimester, because most higher life has an active pain system.

So, what if days before birth, there is a complication that could likely result in the mother's death should she attempt to bring the fetus to term? Should there be a regulation?

Axel

So, my safe zone is within the first two trimesters. After that, it gets tricky.

Tricky and inadvisable, but it shouldn't be against the law. What if a mother's life is in danger after this point, and abortion is one of the only ways to protect her? What if a previously unknown problem with the fetus comes to light, such as extreme retardation or other massive birth defects, after this point?

We can argue the ethics of aborting a fetus after that point all day, but I see no way to legislate regulations without causing Asimovian conflicts of interest for both mothers and doctors.

I kinda have to agree with Rym. After a certain point it is proven that an abortion could be unsafe for the mother, but if after that point an abortion is still the best option, it needs to be allowed. Some women deserve abortions, some don't, no way to legislate this, so it just must be left open.

TheWhaleShark

Tricky and inadvisable, but it shouldn't be against the law. What if a mother's life is in danger after this point, and abortion is one of the only ways to protect her? What if a previously unknown problem with the fetus comes to light, such as extreme retardation or other massive birth defects, after this point?

We can argue the ethics of aborting a fetus after that point all day, but I see no way to legislate regulations without causing Asimovian conflicts of interest for both mothers and doctors.

Like I said, tricky. This is where we have to consider extenuating circumstances, like the mother's life or birth defects. Before this point, it's just a parasite as far as I'm concerned.

I'd honestly say life starts at conception. That doesn't mean it's wrong to have an abortion, but life has begun as soon as the embryo is formed. It's a life, just not necessarily human at that point.

This is a fair point, I suppose, though I wouldn't say right at conception. I'd call it "alive" once the neural tube finishes forming. It takes longer before I would consider it "sentient," but I'll agree that an embryo is "alive" well before 20 weeks.

As such, I consider the first signs of life to begin at the onset of the third trimester, because most higher life has an active pain system.

Well, considering that the CNS doesn't develop until that point, this makes sense. No real brain function or information processing happens before the third trimester.

I'm generally with WuB: I prefer to preserve life if at all possible. However, there are circumstances where a late-term abortion is the best option available, and that option needs to be available.

DevilUknow

I don't know if there is anyone purely scientific way to determine when life "starts". The argument that a fetus is just a collection of cells until some magical time when it becomes a person requires some benchmark and since sciences can't detect a "soul" any benchmark is arbitrary; a human is just a lump of cells at any point of its existence. Since there is no way to determine when a fetus becomes a person you are forced to assume that it starts being a person as soon as the egg is fertilized. Thus, I can't think of an ethical argument in favor of abortion as contraceptive (as in there is no medical reason beyond the wishes of the mother not be be pregnant); it is illegal to kill a person who is an inconvenience when they are on the outside of your body after all.

Laws, however, can't be written in a pure theoretical vacuum with nothing but ideology as a guide; laws must be written in a way that results in the least amount of harm. Drug laws are based on the idea that "drugs are bad, m'mkay?" and the result is BILLIONS of dollars wasted on enforcement, millions killed as a result violence associated with the drugs black market, the criminalization of victims of addiction, etc etc etc. Does making abortion illegal do more harm than good? Innocent babies who shouldn't be aborted will be, no matter what laws are written. Do we just take the line of "abortion is bad, m'kay?" and damn the consequences?

So, I don't support all abortion on ethical grounds but I also don't support abortion laws.

Just the ramblings of a white, middle class, athiest, male so I guess take it with a few pounds of salt.

George Patches

So, what if days before birth, there is a complication that could likely result in the mother's death should she attempt to bring the fetus to term? Should there be a regulation?

C-section.

TheWhaleShark

I don't know if there is anyone purely scientific way to determine when life "starts".

Sure there is. We just need to define our terms more strictly. What matters more for determining if something is "alive:" the heartbeat or higher brain function? We can detect both in a fetus.

dsf

I'm a guy, I don't have to carry the child. Also I don't perform abortions. So as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the girl. However, I do want to have kids and if I got someone knocked up and they asked me for my opinion, I would say keep it because I want a kid. Other than that I'm pro choice in that, it's not any of my business what is going on in a woman's uterus.

WindUpBird

I'm going to disagree with Pete on this, to my own surprise.

For something to be biologically alive, it must meet each of these requirements.

Homeostasis: An embryo cannot maintain its own body temperature.
Organization: Arguable; a blastocyst is undifferentiated and may not be considered "alive" since those cells will form a tumor in the absence of coordinated signaling.
Metabolism: Present.
Growth: Present.
Adaptation: Present.
Response to stimuli: Assuming we are not considering hormonal response, the embryo cannot respond to any stimuli from the outside world; it just hormonally mimics the mother's response.
Reproduction of the organism: No. An embryo's cells can reproduce, but it will not have defined genitalia until the 10th week or later and as such is not capable of being biologically alive.

However, I still think the first two trimesters are the safe zone. Infant introspection (if it exists; I'd rather not talk about infant metaphysics) likely doesn't start until the pain system is complete (perception takes a lot of brain power), so I'd argue for sapience and sentience at that point.

George Patches

Sure there is. We just need to define our terms more strictly. What matters more for determining if something is "alive:" the heartbeat or higher brain function? We can detect both in a fetus.

Or the replication of cells with DNA that is not the mothers.

Rym

So, what if days before birth, there is a complication that could likely result in the mother's death should she attempt to bring the fetus to term? Should there be a regulation?

C-section.

So you're OK with forcing a woman to have an invasive operation like that rather than an abortion?

Or, what if the baby is found to be severely retarded days or weeks before birth due to a previously unknown congenital defect?

WindUpBird

Sure there is. We just need to define our terms more strictly. What matters more for determining if something is "alive:" the heartbeat or higher brain function? We can detect both in a fetus.

Or the replication of cells with DNA that is not the mothers.

Life is not just one descriptor. An amoeba has no heart or brain, but it is certainly alive. Higher metazoans reach "life" at different developmental points. Pro-lifers who point to the heartbeat are just building a strawman. Yes, what is growing is immensely valuable and worth loving and has characteristics that we perceive as common to us. But until the 20th week, I wouldn't call it alive.

George Patches

So you're OK with forcing a woman to have an invasive operation like that rather than an abortion?

It's the way most doctors would respond to the situation.

Or, what if the baby is found to be severely retarded days or weeks before birth due to a previously unknown congenital defect?

Now you're just loading the question with conditions to force abortion because you don't know enough about delivering babies. :P

TheWhaleShark

Reproduction of the organism: No. An embryo's cells can reproduce, but it will not have defined genitalia until the 10th week or later and as such is not capable of being biologically alive.

OK, well then, you're not alive until after puberty.

Organization: Arguable; a blastocyst is undifferentiated and may not be considered "alive" since those cells will form a tumor in the absence of coordinated signaling.

Very early on, yes. However, differentiation happens really fucking quickly.

Homeostasis: An embryo cannot maintain its own body temperature.

Neither can lizards. Are they not alive?

Response to stimuli: Assuming we are not considering hormonal response, the embryo cannot respond to any stimuli from the outside world; it just hormonally mimics the mother's response.

This is also not true. Refer to your previously discussed studies on fetal pain tolerance. CNS develops in the third trimester and begins processing information from inside the womb. Also, the womb is the outside world. And technically, hormonal responses would count anyway.

The old "parameters of life" business is not really a set-in-stone thing. They're really more guidelines for discussion in biology. See the ages-old "are viruses alive" debate.

Apreche

When Princess Celestia raises the god damned sun.

TheWhaleShark

So you're OK with forcing a woman to have an invasive operation like that rather than an abortion?

Um, a late-term abortion is a risky and invasive operation, too. It's not like the doctor just gives the mother a Falcon Punch and leaves it at that.

Either operation carries risk, and the risks of each procedure are assessed by a professional. There are so many variables that go into determining which is "better" that it's really useless to discuss it.

Both options have to be available, and either one could be a viable solution to the problem.

George Patches

Life is not just one descriptor. An amoeba has no heart or brain, but it is certainly alive. Higher metazoans reach "life" at different developmental points. Pro-lifers who point to the heartbeat are just building a strawman. Yes, what is growing is immensely valuable and worth loving and has characteristics that we perceive as common to us. But until the 20th week, I wouldn't call it alive.

That's one argument. I'm going to pose the question, at what point is it a separate entity that is entitled to living as much as the mother is?

Cremlian

It's not like the doctor just gives the mother a Falcon Punch and leaves it at that.

This thread is officially off the hook!

WindUpBird

OK, well then, you're not alive until after puberty.

You've got the gear and it's getting ready. Embryos don't until week 10.

Very early on, yes. However, differentiation happens really fucking quickly.

I'll give you that.

Neither can lizards. Are they not alive?

Humans are endotherms, lizards are ectotherms. That's just a difference in homeostatic mechanisms.

I'll buy your argument on responses. Let's throw the guidelines out. I'm still not entirely convinced of the embryo being alive, but that argument could continue forever.

I'm going to pose the question, at what point is it a separate entity that is entitled to living as much as the mother is?

To my mind? General sentience, which likely starts around 20-24 weeks.

Omnutia

I'd honestly say life starts at conception. That doesn't mean it's wrong to have an abortion, but life has begun as soon as the embryo is formed. It's a life, just not necessarily human at that point.

Technically yes, but on the same level as algeegeegeegeegee.

I'm going with brain activity until further notice though I expect I'd need to know more to make a more specific choice.

TheWhaleShark

Also, the presence of a heartbeat is a silly metric, as cardiac tissue is naturally contractile. You can grow a sheet of heart tissue in a petri dish, and it will beat.

EDIT: And yes, it's both really fucking cool and really fucking weird to watch.

Humans are endotherms, lizards are ectotherms. That's just a difference in homeostatic mechanisms.

Sure, but then, what do you mean about embryos being "unable" to regulate their body temperature? That it's dependent upon the environment of the womb? That would be precisely the same thing as an ectotherm, except that the embryo can't shade itself.

Basically, ecotherms and fetuses both lack an independent thermal regulation mechanism. The only reason a fetus can't warm or cool itself is that it's physically trapped.

You've got the gear and it's getting ready. Embryos don't until week 10.

How is that really different than just having cells which will differentiate into genital tissue? You've just arbitrarily picked a point in the "getting ready" timeline. The whole process of cell division is "getting ready" to become a fetus.

I mean, I could make a case that a toddler is not an independent organism. It's just a detached parasite. Throw one outside and see how long it survives.

This is why the guideline about "reproduction" is kind of stupid. What about sterile intersex humans? Are they not alive?

Rochelle

I'm pretty much on the same agreement with Emi.

I wonder how this topic would ever fare if men were able to have children. Things would be vastly different.

On a similar note, while many people think it unethical, I think it's ok for parents to have a baby aborted if it's known to have congenital disorders even during the third trimester.

Axel

I'd honestly say life starts at conception. That doesn't mean it's wrong to have an abortion, but life has begun as soon as the embryo is formed. It's a life, just not necessarily human at that point.

Technically yes, but on the same level as algeegeegeegeegee.

I'm going with brain activity until further notice though I expect I'd need to know more to make a more specific choice.

That was sorta my point. It's alive like algee is alive. Which is why I have no problem with abortions at that point.