When does life begin?

[Lloyd Danforth]

That will teach you to buy the discounted cans with the lost labels!

[Caleb]

Why stop at birth?  I mean, its been proven that the baby's brain is still developing at birth.  At birth, a baby's brain is less well developed than many of the higher animals ...

So shouldn't the mother be able to kill it ... up until, say 6 months after its born?  Or a year?

Or not "kill" it, per se ... just allow it to die.  I mean, its HER body.  She doesn't HAVE to feed it.  If it wants food, it can get it itself.

For more information on this beautiful idea ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

[Lex]

Why stop at birth?  I mean, its been proven that the baby's brain is still developing at birth.  At birth, a baby's brain is less well developed than many of the higher animals ...

So shouldn't the mother be able to kill it ... up until, say 6 months after its born?  Or a year?

Or not "kill" it, per se ... just allow it to die.  I mean, its HER body.  She doesn't HAVE to feed it.  If it wants food, it can get it itself.

For more information on this beautiful idea ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

I wouldn't say that it's a "beautiful idea" but it is the most logical one. Did you read the article I posted earlier?

[Ron Helwig]

Full rights are restricted to competent adults, but we give children extra protections. Is the abortion question really a desire extend protection, not rights?
Cathleen

fetuses are human beings?or, more broadly, potential human beings?and are therefore entitled to full human rights.

In my opinion, rights are not an all or nothing package. Children certainly have some rights, but we reserve the balance for adults.

Dogs have some rights, children have more than dogs, and adults have more than children. The rights that an entity has are determined by their nature.

What rights would an AI program have? A robot? An alien?

[davemincin]

HELLO!  Life begins when you feel alive, and are prepared to do something a living being might do!

I'm alive!   How about the rest of you?

[Caleb]

Eukreign,

I think you might have missed that my earlier post was laden with sarcasm.

In the final analysis, I leave you to judge:

Does it seem honest to you to claim that an unborn fetus is a parasite, in any sense of the word?

If it does, then I seriously doubt that you and I will be able to have a conversation that will be meaningful on this issue, because our worldviews are too far apart, such that I can not even begin to understand the way you look at the matter, nor can you understand the way that I look at the matter.

Nonetheless, I will try:

Life is a beautiful gift to bestow.  The creation of life, in and of itself, is a supreme gift that we can impart to another human being.  It matters not whether an individual was planned or not, that creation fills people with awe and appreciation.  My little sister-in-law just got pregnant six months ago, and she carries a picture of the fetus around with her in her purse.  Weird?  Maybe so.  But she's filled with awe, and a sense of respect for the life she has created.  Life is sacred, to be treasured.  To me, someone aborting a child is about as senseless and shortsighted as using the Mona Lisa as toilet paper.  Do you catch my drift?

((NOTE:  Obviously, I'm talking about ELECTIVE abortion, not abortion for the sake of the mother's health.  In those instances, the mother often senses a profound sense of loss and grief, and is deserving of our utmost empathy.  I know a woman who had a tubal pregnancy over ten years ago, and still grieves at the loss of that child.)

[Lex]

Does it seem honest to you to claim that an unborn fetus is a parasite, in any sense of the word?

It is a parasite if you do not want it there. On the other hand if you want it there then what you described about your sister applies.

Think of it like this: A mother who sincerely does not want the child but is forced to bear it will most likely hate this child. The mother will likely tell the child that it ruined her life and that she did not want her/him. The child will likely be neglected in its upbringing and probably not given enough love to mature as a healthy adult. This child will be scarred for life and having been raised feeling that she ruined her mothers life she will be in permanent despair and hatred for herself and probably her mother.

There is a lot of research that supports a correlation between crime and abortion. When mothers have children which they do not want nor have the ability to care for these children are more than likely to grow up as criminals, prostitutes, etc. (due to self hatred and hatred for the world) Just as many mothers instinctively know that their baby will endanger their life they also know that they will not be able to care for this baby either because of their lifestyle or their environment or other factors in their lives.

It is also very hypocryptical to trust the mother to raise her children yet not trust her to make the decision on whether to bring them into this world or not. If a mother was forced to give birth against her will she will probably never feel comfortable raising the baby because making the decision to bring a baby into this world invovles something magical that transcends into the babies life many years after the birth. If the mother was forced to give birth it negatively affects that magical bond.

A mother has to be wanting her baby otherwise the delivery will be very difficult and the life of the child afterwards will be even worse.

I've been a father for two months and 2 days and I can tell you that babies are not easy!

It is a miracle for anyone who wants a baby but a nightmare for someone who does not.

If it does, then I seriously doubt that you and I will be able to have a conversation that will be meaningful on this issue, because our worldviews are too far apart, such that I can not even begin to understand the way you look at the matter, nor can you understand the way that I look at the matter.

Well, I don't know :-) Apparently you understand the difference in our worldviews better than i do. Although we are both from the same planet so I'm sure there is at least something in common ;-)

Life is a beautiful gift to bestow.  The creation of life, in and of itself, is a supreme gift that we can impart to another human being.  It matters not whether an individual was planned or not, that creation fills people with awe and appreciation.  My little sister-in-law just got pregnant six months ago, and she carries a picture of the fetus around with her in her purse.  Weird?  Maybe so.  But she's filled with awe, and a sense of respect for the life she has created.  Life is sacred, to be treasured.  To me, someone aborting a child is about as senseless and shortsighted as using the Mona Lisa as toilet paper.  Do you catch my drift?

But it is not true for all people. Some really do not feel the awe or appreciation you describe. There are people who honestly cannot raise a child or do not want to raise a child and will do very poorly if forced to.

Aborting a child now may give this person the time and energy to escape any bad situation that she is in and find a better place for a future baby. This may dramatically change the lives of both mother and daughter for the better.

There are just WAY too many variables and life styles that people have in this world that to paint them all over with a single brush by saying that "aborting a child is ... senseless and shortsighted" is just not fair.

[AlanM]

To me, life begins at birth, when the child is separated from the umbilical cord. until then, IMHO, it is like another part of the mother.

So it's your position that the baby can be born, be breathing on its own, laying in its mother's arms, yet until the umbilical cord is cut, strangling it would be morally equivalent to cutting off a wart?

Just checking, to make sure I understand your position.

The question was, "When does life begin?" Not up until what point can you destroy something. Life, to me, is the point at which you become a separate, independent person, not a matter of cells that duplicate and reproduce. A fetus, to me, is not aware of life outside the womb. It is this "knowing" which is what life is. How can you be alive, if you have never experienced it? Abortion is a question left up to the mother. I wouldn't presume to make that choice, one way or the other, for her.

[Lex]

To me, life begins at birth, when the child is separated from the umbilical cord. until then, IMHO, it is like another part of the mother.

So it's your position that the baby can be born, be breathing on its own, laying in its mother's arms, yet until the umbilical cord is cut, strangling it would be morally equivalent to cutting off a wart?

Just checking, to make sure I understand your position.

The question was, "When does life begin?" Not up until what point can you destroy something. Life, to me, is the point at which you become a separate, independent person, not a matter of cells that duplicate and reproduce. A fetus, to me, is not aware of life outside the womb. It is this "knowing" which is what life is. How can you be alive, if you have never experienced it? Abortion is a question left up to the mother. I wouldn't presume to make that choice, one way or the other, for her.

In that case I agree with you. But ultimately it depends on the definition of life. Your definition of life is more practical while some people use a more scientific definition.

[KBCraig]

To me, life begins at birth, when the child is separated from the umbilical cord. until then, IMHO, it is like another part of the mother.

So it's your position that the baby can be born, be breathing on its own, laying in its mother's arms, yet until the umbilical cord is cut, strangling it would be morally equivalent to cutting off a wart?

Just checking, to make sure I understand your position.

The question was, "When does life begin?" Not up until what point can you destroy something. Life, to me, is the point at which you become a separate, independent person, not a matter of cells that duplicate and reproduce. A fetus, to me, is not aware of life outside the womb. It is this "knowing" which is what life is. How can you be alive, if you have never experienced it? Abortion is a question left up to the mother. I wouldn't presume to make that choice, one way or the other, for her.

I could not disagree more strongly that "knowing" is what defines life. I try to avoid "slippery slope" arguments, but your position is an icy cliff!

Just how aware, how "knowing", would you require someone to be before deeming them worthy of the right to not be killed? By your definition of life, an Alzheimer's victim, a comatose patient, the severely mentally retarded, or even a newborn infant, is not alive, and therefore has no rights. Late-term babies still in utero are indisputably aware of what goes on around them, reacting to sounds and motion.

If they're not "living" by your definition, are they free game? Fire at will? But, wait... that would be killing them. How do you kill something that's not living?

They are living, and like all living people, they have the most fundamental right of all: to not have their life taken from them.

Kevin

[AlanM]

To me, life begins at birth, when the child is separated from the umbilical cord. until then, IMHO, it is like another part of the mother.

So it's your position that the baby can be born, be breathing on its own, laying in its mother's arms, yet until the umbilical cord is cut, strangling it would be morally equivalent to cutting off a wart?

Just checking, to make sure I understand your position.

The question was, "When does life begin?" Not up until what point can you destroy something. Life, to me, is the point at which you become a separate, independent person, not a matter of cells that duplicate and reproduce. A fetus, to me, is not aware of life outside the womb. It is this "knowing" which is what life is. How can you be alive, if you have never experienced it? Abortion is a question left up to the mother. I wouldn't presume to make that choice, one way or the other, for her.

I could not disagree more strongly that "knowing" is what defines life. I try to avoid "slippery slope" arguments, but your position is an icy cliff!

Just how aware, how "knowing", would you require someone to be before deeming them worthy of the right to not be killed? By your definition of life, an Alzheimer's victim, a comatose patient, the severely mentally retarded, or even a newborn infant, is not alive, and therefore has no rights. Late-term babies still in utero are indisputably aware of what goes on around them, reacting to sounds and motion.

If they're not "living" by your definition, are they free game? Fire at will? But, wait... that would be killing them. How do you kill something that's not living?

They are living, and like all living people, they have the most fundamental right of all: to not have their life taken from them.

Kevin

You seem to be looking at this issue from a legal definition. I could care less about that. You are the one talking about killing, not me. I don't want to kill anyone, unless in self defense. I do not believe in the use of force.
To me "life" is different from "existence".

[KBCraig]

You seem to be looking at this issue from a legal definition. I could care less about that.

I'm looking at this issue not from a position of legal definiton, but from the moral position of right, wrong, and the right of each human being to live a life free from any initiation of force that threatens that life.

You are the one talking about killing, not me. I don't want to kill anyone, unless in self defense. I do not believe in the use of force.

The question was, "when does life begin?" You took the position that until an infant was born and the umbilical cord was cut, then killing it was perfectly acceptable. Please present your "self defense" argument for ending a life that is no threat to your own (or the mother's, as it were). Please tell us how surgical mutilation or chemical poisoning of a genetically distinct, individual human being squares with "I do not believe in the use of force."

To me "life" is different from "existence".

Where, then, will you draw the line? Millions of workaday Americans "exist" in drudgery, without truly "living", and without any awareness or knowing (your words) of anything beyond the narrow confines of their tiny world. They are comfortable in their confinement, fed umbilicaly via government programs, only vaguely aware that something bigger pulses outside their cage. If forced out into the harsh light of reality, they are likely to scream at being forced to breath on their own and participate actively in taking sustenance.

Do they truly "live", or merely "exist"? Once you begin defining which life is worth living, you automatically define which lives deserve defense, and which are disposable. We've seen many previous eras of disposable lives. Your argument supports such pogroms, because certain people aren't really "living", are something less than human, so to dispose of them is not a crime.

I do not know at what point a fertilized egg changes into a living human being. Therefore, I must err on the side of caution, and avoid taking any innocent human life.

Kevin

[cathleeninnh]

The relationship between crime and abortion is explored in Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner

Cathleen

[AlanM]

The question was, "when does life begin?" You took the position that until an infant was born and the umbilical cord was cut, then killing it was perfectly acceptable. Please present your "self defense" argument for ending a life that is no threat to your own (or the mother's, as it were). Please tell us how surgical mutilation or chemical poisoning of a genetically distinct, individual human being squares with "I do not believe in the use of force."

I never took any such position. Please don't make assumptions.
As far as abortion is concerned, I said it was up to the mother, that I, as a man, had no right to make that decision, for, or against.

[Dreepa]

The question was, "when does life begin?" You took the position that until an infant was born and the umbilical cord was cut, then killing it was perfectly acceptable. Please present your "self defense" argument for ending a life that is no threat to your own (or the mother's, as it were). Please tell us how surgical mutilation or chemical poisoning of a genetically distinct, individual human being squares with "I do not believe in the use of force."

I never took any such position. Please don't make assumptions.
As far as abortion is concerned, I said it was up to the mother, that I, as a man, had no right to make that decision, for, or against.

just that if she keeps it you pay for the next 18 years.