Life Begins At Conception. That's Not the Point.

[redqueen]

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/01/life-begins-at-conception-thats-not-point-0

...

"Life begins at conception," is repeated incessantly by politicians such as Richard Mourdock, as though this were a revelation, something not previously known, that should inform our thinking on whether women are people with the same fundamental rights as men, or if they are essentially incubators whose ability to participate in society and the economy, and, quite literally, whose ability to live is dependent on whether they are, might be, or might become pregnant.

But the phrase is highly—and purposefully—misleading because it confuses simple biological cell division both with actual pregnancy and with actual, legal personhood, which are all very different things.

...

In the end, when you hear the phrase "life begins at conception, remember the implications. In debating the "personhood" of eggs, embryos, and fetuses prior to viability, we are also implicitly and explicity debating the personhood of women. Because if you have no choice and control over your body, you are less than an actual person in the eyes of the law. If the right is so worried about abortion the closer a pregnancy gets to viability, then anti-choicers would be making sure early, safe abortion was widely available. That really is not their actual concern.

The development of a potential human life requires conception as a first step. But that is not the same as either pregnancy or personhood. You can't reduce complex reality to a slogan, and when you try to do so, you actually minimize the personhood of women.

[OLDMDDEM]

1. personhood

What would happen if a personhood bill passed in a state and a couple in that state was pregnant and they declared the "person" as a dependent on their tax return? I would bet that personhood bills would be overturned quickly once the tax issue got into the courts.

[ismnotwasm]

5. LOL

Ok, I shouldn't laugh, but that is ironically funny as well as true.

[OLDMDDEM]

12. these people don't think beyond their body parts

Since most people in legislatures are male, we know what body part we are talking about. What is funny about this is that they haven't thought of this or they would have done something about it. Only for the purpose of seeing this happen would I want a personhood bill passed.

[ismnotwasm]

2. Exactly

Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Just as a cluster of cells, or even a fetus, is, indeed, human. It contains a full compliment of human DNA. It is human potential, just as energy starts as potential. It is NOT a person, as the author points out.

[The Wielding Truth]

3. Some biblical research as to when life begins. Not at conception.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021679299

"According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath."

Read all. It's convincing.

[ismnotwasm]

7. Or this

What the Bible says about Abortion

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6
Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.
Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.
The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.
Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

[mike_c]

4. "life" and "personhood" are not the same things....

The whole "life begins at conception" argument is fallacious, at least from a biological perspective. Sperm and ova are alive too, prior to syngamy. The organisms that produced them-- arguably persons, when we're talking about humans-- were also alive, as were the gametes that fused to produce them. So from a biological perspective, life began some 4 billion or so years ago and has continued, in an unbroken chain of reproduction, until the present.

As long as we adhere to the fallacy that any life has a recent "beginning" it's easy to confuse human life with personhood, because persons do have distinct beginnings and endings.

[gcomeau]

6. Nitpick

""Life begins at conception," is repeated incessantly by politicians such as Richard Mourdock, as though this were a revelation, something not previously known,"

I hope it was something not previously known, seeing as it's not true.

Life began a few billion years ago. Once.

Then it just kept going. Life does not in any way shape or form "begin" at conception unless the claim there is that sperm and ova are dead... which would be fantastically stupid.

New and unique genetic identities begin at conception... but that's no more relevant to personhood than "life" is.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Heh

[ladjf]

9. A zygote is not a human life. (four or less cells in 1st 24 hours.) nt

[mike_c]

11. of course it is....

On what basis would you argue that a human zygote is "not a human life?" It's alive. It contains only human DNA. What other conditions are necessary to constitute a human life?

I agree that a human zygote is not a "person," if that's what you mean. At best, it's a potential person. But arguing that it either isn't alive or isn't human is nonsense.

[ladjf]

13. You should educate yourself as to the nature of a zygote before dismissing my assertion

as "nonsense". Not only are you incorrect from a scientific standpoint, your are exceedingly rude to one of your fellow DU posters.



http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

[mike_c]

14. excuse me....

For what it's worth, I'm a full professor of zoology in my day job, and I teach this stuff to university biology majors.

I'm sorry if you perceived my comments as rude, but I assure you that they are correct. A human zygote is alive, and it is demonstrably human by the most accurate means of species determination known-- its human DNA. What's rude about pointing out the truth?

on edit: ah, your link. It's to an article published in the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, edited by Doris Gordon and John Walker of Libertarians for Life, a group that bills itself as "Presenting the pro-life case to libertarians, and the libertarian case to pro-lifers." An interesting choice to refute a biological perspective offered by an actual biologist.

[ismnotwasm]

16. Off topic but I remember taking biology 101

Many moons ago. Our instructor gave a cute little way of remembering the difference between meiosis and mitosis. Meiosis was 'me oh my'--a reference to sexual reproduction. It helped during tests actually.

I would think libertarians and the anti-choice crowd were antithetical but I learn something new everyday.

[mike_c]

17. LOL-- me oh my....

I still use the mnemonic King Phillip Came Over For Good Sex to help students remember the Linnaen ranks (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, etc).

[ladjf]

18. I based my original comment on the opinions of many scientist who specialize in the area

of human fertility. I just picked the first article on INTERNET that I saw. The consensus of
most embryologist is that a zygote is not a human life, which is what I said. I didn't say that it wasn't alive.

Your credentials as a zoologist should have at least familiarized you with the fact that my statement was in line with a majority of scientists, and therefore well clear of the
dismissive and arrogant evaluation of my term "nonsense".

In your second post you said that if I perceived you comments as rude, you were sorry.
But, since you assured me that your remarks were "correct", which leads me to conclude that you were only "sorry" if I perceived your statement to be rude.

Your circular logic of first asserting that 1. of course a human zygote is a live human and (2) that human DNA is present in the zygote that "What's rude about pointing out the truth?" Our disagreement is concerning the issue as to whether a one to four cell human zygote is a human, not about the presence of human DNA in the zygote.

What you pointed out was that (in your opinion) a human zygote is a living human and that any (opinion) that differed with that was "nonsense'.

I refer you to another article on the subject that goes into a bit more detail that my previous cite:

http://profs.sci.univr.it/~bellin/philsci/burgess.pdf

I must say that I'm surprised to hear a full professor of zoology take such a narrow view on a subject that has been widely debated for Centuries. I would have expected a teacher with your credentials to have at least informed your students that many well respected scientist did not agree with your position on the this subject.

[mike_c]

19. my friend, you will not find many biologists who agree with your assertion...

...that a human zygote "is not a human life." I think we're talking at cross purposes here, or something. We cannot possibly be understanding one another correctly.

The latest article you've cited is by John Burgess, a research fellow in English literature and philosophy at the University of Wollongong, AUS. Dr. Burgess argues a philosophical and ethical point (essentially, can something be two things at once?) that is more epistemological than biological, in a journal devoted to philosophy and ethics rather than biology. Frankly, I suspect he was polishing the apple to bolster his publication record prior to applying for promotion in his department. And that paper would NEVER appear in a respectable biological journal, IMO.

John Burgess

BA, MA (Melbourne), DPhil (Oxford)

John Burgess is a Research Fellow in the Philosophy Program and works principally in the following areas: Practical Reasoning and Formal Logic; Bioethics and Environmental Ethics; Theoretical Ethics; Philosophy of Language; Epistemology and Metaphysics. He is currently exploring modes of flexible delivery for the teaching and evaluation of practical reasoning.

John Burgess publishes in each of the areas in which he teaches but mainly in Philosophical Logic, Bioethics and Environmental Ethics, Meta-ethics and Metaphysics. He is particularly interested in drawing case studies from (especially but not exclusively) applied ethics for theoretical problems he is trying to solve in the more theoretical areas of interest. He currently has a rather large project going in which he is trying to show that various supposedly pathological features of language and thought - false theories, vagueness, ambiguity, arbitrariness in definitions, circularity in definitions - are not just tolerable but are essential tools if our language and thought are to do the jobs we want of them. (etc)

I don't think Dr. Burgess knows much about animal development!

on edit: I think it's worth pointing out that you won't find much supporting literature in actual biological journals because this is NOT a question that biologists debate to any degree AT ALL. That's why I said that you won't find many who agree with you-- and why I think we must be talking past one another somehow.

[markbark]

10. Actually Mr Mourdock,

Life on this planet began about 3.5 billion years ago and has been a continually evolving process ever since.
Far from being a "gift from god" a single human life has about as much significance as a flea fart in a hurricane in the the big picture of the cosmos.

[redqueen]

15. True. Good point.

There's no abiogenesis going on in women's bodies.

[mindwalker_i]

20. Bullshit! Life began a long fucking time ago

New cells are made by old cells splitting, but life isn't "created" any more. It's also possible to say life never was created but came out of chemical reactions that became more complex over time. There's infinitely more evidence for that than for some big dude sitting up in the sky belching out the first amoeba.

Eggs are alive, sperms are alive, hell, the skin is scratch is alive and some of those cells are killed when I scratch. That may make us all mass murders, but life still isn't created.