The Moment Life Begins....

While looking for more info re the concept that new DNA = new life, I found a couple interesting and informative links worth sharing. The first looks at the science of pinpointing a point when life may be said to begin. The second looks at the points in gestation when religions say life begins.

Spoiler: There is no one point where all science and/or religions agree! It's just not that simple.

Defining when human life begins is not a question science can answer – it's a question of politics and ethical values

The article cites the following five points as options:

The first of these stages is fertilization in the egg duct, when a zygote is formed with the full human genetic material.

Basically what we commonly know as "conception."

The second plausible stage is called gastrulation, which happens about two weeks after fertilization. At that point, the embryo loses the ability to form identical twins – or triplets or more. 

FYI -- identical twins (and triplets, etc) will have the same DNA.

The third possible stage is at 24 to 27 weeks of pregnancy, when the characteristic human-specific brain-wave pattern emerges in the fetus’s brain.

These are the same brain patterns used to determine brain-death when absent.

The fourth possible stage, which is the one endorsed in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States, is viability, when a fetus typically becomes viable outside the uterus with the help of available medical technology. 

This occurs about 24 weeks-- the end of the second trimester and beginning of the third trimester.

The final possibility is birth itself.

A normal full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks.

None of these stages are definitive in determining life though. Even a full-term delivery does not promise a live birth.

The overall point is that biology does not determine when human life begins... [snip]... Perhaps biologists of the future will learn more. Until then, when human life begins during fetal developments is a question for philosophers and theologians.

The second article focuses on the point of "ensoulment" --

America’s religious communities are divided over the issue of abortion



Apparently "life" requires more than men's little swimmers to create life... God must "breathe" that sacred spark of divinity into the physical body.

Conservative Christians believe this happens at the moment of conception.

Not all Christian denominations agree... [snip]...

Christian beliefs can be any time from conception to live birth.

The majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.

This is in accordance with scripture that literally references God breathing life into the body.

Muslim scholars and clerics, for example, have a range of positions on abortion. “... [snip]... In general, classical Islamic law sees legal personhood as beginning at birth...

The fourth month (120 days) is also used by some Muslims.

“Most Hindus believe in reincarnation, which means that while one may enter bodies with birth and leave with death, life itself does not, precisely, begin or end. Rather, any given moment in a human body is seen as part of an unending cycle of life – making the question of when life begins quite different than in Abrahamic religions,” wrote Mehta.

This presumes an eternal soul with no beginning and no end, with physical "life" simply a temporary part of the soul's existence.

For Buddhists, a decision about abortion is treated with compassion and considered to be a “moral choice,” depending on the circumstances.

Interesting but not definitive.

The remainder of the article gives greater historical context to religious perspectives and abortion laws in the USA. including this factoid --

In the U.S., the first abortion restrictions were enacted only in the 1820s.

Generally speaking, prior to this legislation, abortion was commonly practiced and accepted up to "quickening " when the mother first feels movement.

There are several links in the article for further info.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. We all have to figure it out for ourselves. I only post for information, discussion and pondering.

But for what it's worth, I believe ensoulment occurs at the moment of live birth when the baby takes its first breath. Because I believe in God, I believe in Intelligent Design, and that In God's ultimate wisdom, time and opportunity for terminating pregnancy is built into the process, as with many other mammals who are capable of self-aborting.

God (and/or Mother Nature) have a divine plan. They weren't shooting craps when creating life!

In the Mosaic law there was a law that made aborting a woman and her unborn child dying punishable by death. So in the Bible the unborn child had legal rights.

And nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has to breath on every conception to make a life come into existence. It does say he did so to Adam after he formed him from the dust.

originally posted by: Boadicea


......

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. We all have to figure it out for ourselves. I only post for information, discussion and pondering.
......

I agree with you that the precise moment at which a developing fetus becomes "human" for the purpose of receiving legal protection is both scientifically and morally ambiguous.

Which is why it makes no sense to put the issue up to a vote. If it is put up to a vote, the majority in any location will simply vote for their hunch based on whatever religion they happen to subscribe to and impose that judgment on everyone else. That prevents the minority from doing exactly what you are advocating--figuring it out for themselves.

originally posted by: randomuser
In the Mosaic law there was a law that made aborting a woman and her unborn child dying punishable by death. So in the Bible the unborn child had legal rights.

If I recall correctly, those were laws for dealing with slaves, and those who do harm to pregnant women. These were technically property laws for slaveholders. Not about the sanctity of unborn life.

And nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has to breath on every conception to make a life come into existence. It does say he did so to Adam after he formed him from the dust.

You're probably right about that. And fair enough to question if it applied only to Adam, or to all births. But there are plenty of scriptures that describe the "breath of God", and the "spirit of God." For example, Job 23:7 --

"For as long as life is in me,
And the breath of God is in my nostrils,

Source

Jesus also spoke of the need for us to be born of water and spirit.

Everyone can interpret as they see appropriate, but believing that life begins with the breath of God is common.

a reply to: 1947boomer

You described the conflict of rights very well.

I do think Roe was a crappy ruling on tho, so I'm not surprised it was overturned. If anyone asked my opinion, I would suggest 9th Amendment grounds, based on the fact it was not illegal at the time of founding, making it a presumed unenumerated right.

And/or equal application of the law... if LEOs and homeowners and others can use lethal force "in fear for their life" then so can pregnant women.

a reply to: Boadicea

I would suggest 9th Amendment grounds, based on the fact it was not illegal at the time of founding, making it a presumed unnumbered right.

And/or equal application of the law... if LEOs and homeowners and others can use lethal force "in fear for their life" then so can pregnant women.

I agree.

Also, you did an awesome job, in your OP, outlining why it's a 1st Amendment right, as well.

Kudos for the excellent OP!

The Moment Life Begins....

Genesis 2:7

Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

a reply to: Boadicea

And/or equal application of the law... if LEOs and homeowners and others can use lethal force "in fear for their life" then so can pregnant women.

Interesting take. Self defense argument?

If so then youll also look to state laws on the subject that are varied.

a reply to: Boadicea

“If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow."-Exodus 21:22-25.

No mention of property or slaves was referred to in this passage. It is also where we get the oft misquoted "eye for eye" saying.

If the unborn child was caused to come out prematurely because of a struggle, damages were imposed by the judges, according to the damages inflicted. No where is there mention of a person being able to retaliate. Rather the husband had to appear in court and get damages imposed by the judges. And only according to the damages inflicted. So the "eye for eye" law actually prevented an abuse of power. If the woman who aborted the child because of the struggle lost the child, or she herself died, then the culprit forfeit their life. They were to be put to death.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thank you!

And thanks for quoting me so I knew to change "unnumbered" to "unenumerated". Darn autocorrect grrrr!

a reply to: JinMI

Interesting take. Self defense argument?

Perhaps "protecting" one's life until a specific condition reaches emergency life-threatening level, and at that point it would be "self-defense." I'm not sure if there's a legal difference.

If so then youll also look to state laws on the subject that are varied.

Yes, state laws vary widely, but I was thinking of Supreme Court rulings such as Tennessee v Gardner, which are binding on all states.

Republicking gets messy sometimes.

a reply to: randomuser

No mention of property or slaves was referred to in this passage. It is also where we get the oft misquoted "eye for eye" saying.

Okay. Probably technically true, but how about the preceding and succeeding verses? Context is everything.

Or, to paraphrase Edgar Cayce, we can all read whatever we want into or out of the Bible....

It's our choice.

a reply to: Boadicea

Quickly looked up the case.

Setting a self defense...defense based on precident around an authority, LEOS, doesnt quite link up.

Theres a reson why the joke/meme to the effect of "abortions with AR15s" has gone wide. Right to self defense with a firearm being a right vs abortion being an act of self defense.


Id be interested to hear a few elements of self defense regarding abortion. However built upon Gardener v Tenn doesnt seem to carry weight.

Convince me?

a reply to: JinMI

I would suggest that it's not an LEO's "authority" under the Constitution that gives him the right to protect/defend his life. Nor is it a homeowners "authority" that gives him/her the right to protect his/her life, family, and home.

Everyone has an absolute and equal right to protect and defend their lives.... and the simple truth is that every pregnancy poses risks, including life-threatening risks, up to and beyond birth.

But that's what would have to be argued by both sides and ruled on according to law.

ETA: In Tennessee v Gardner, it is the specific wording that the LEO only needs to believe that he/she is at risk that qualifies using lethal force. No specific immediate threat needs to be known or demonstrated.

a reply to: Boadicea

Wow... you found a pop-sci article that twists science. Congratulations?

How may I tear thee apart? Let me count the ways... think this one will do:

Scott Gilbert, the Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology emeritus at Swarthmore College, is the author of the standard textbook of developmental biology. He has identified as many as five developmental stages that, from a biological perspective, are all plausible beginning points for human life. Biology, as science knows it now, can tell these stages apart, but cannot determine at which one of these stages life begins.

The problem here is a shift from science to philosophy in mid-stream. Science defines "life" quite rigorously. Life

shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.

Source: Encyclopedia Brittanica

The fertilized egg cell, even before a zygote is formed, satisfies all of these requirements to be deemed "alive." It responds to external stimuli (if it did not it could never implant itself); it exhibits growth through reproduction, eventually becoming an embryo, then a fetus, then a baby; it metabolizes energy to reproduce; in doing so it transforms the energy used to reproduce, and of course it reproduces itself. The fertilized egg cell is indeed alive.

The unfertilized egg cell and the sperm do not technically meet the definition as to reproduction, but they are both required to form a fertilized egg cell. Therefore, since we have never witnessed an event where life sprang spontaneously from non-living matter, it follows that they are alive as well. They also are products of living humans.

That's the science. Philosophy can say different; philosophy is the study of thought, and thoughts can be scientific or non-scientific. In this case, it is obvious that the concept of life is being explored from a philosophical perspective rather than a scientific one, but the article presents these philosophical claims as science to promote the conclusion desired.

]The first of these stages is fertilization in the egg duct, when a zygote is formed with the full human genetic material. But almost every cell in everyone’s body contains that person’s complete DNA sequence. If genetic material alone makes a potential human being, then when we shed skin cells – as we do all the time – we are severing potential human beings.

This is actually kind of funny. Shed skin cells are not alive when they are shed. They do not have the ability to reproduce, they have stopped all metabolism, and they do not transform energy. Same thing with hair. Same thing with fingernails and toenails.

It goes farther: when a baby is born, it is born with the umbilical cord still attached and a placenta attached to the other end of it. Yet, we cut that umbilical cord. We do so because we know, based on what has happened to every single baby ever born, that the umbilical cord and placenta will die and fall off very shortly after birth. We can clip the umbilical cord and ensure that the dead cells in it do not set up an infection in the newborn child. Is it alive? Yes, but only temporarily. Does it contain the capability to grow? No, it does not. Neither a placenta nor shed skin cells have the potential to form an adult human... the zygote, embryo, and the fetus do have that potential; they can grow and develop and they will grow and develop as long as there are no defects or diseases.

This is similar to the argument that a miscarriage is an abortion. it is not, any more than someone dying of old age is a murder victim.

The main point I wish to make, however, is this: the continual attempts to refute science are only antithetical to an agenda of wanting to loosen restrictions on abortion. Science says what science says; one cannot use philosophy or religion, or even law, to dispute it. One can only dispute science using science; anything less is unscientific at the outset. Philosophy, however, can be used to attempt to justify abortions, as can legal precedents (if one can find sufficient precedent in the law). Our laws are not required by any higher power to be based on hard science; they are political in nature.

As for your religious argument, I simply do not care! We do not live in a theocracy. Laws are not necessarily religious in nature, and I believe they shouldn't be. My religious values determine how I conduct my life; your religious values determine how you conduct your life. Laws define how we all conduct our lives. The two are simply incompatible.

My Bible says, in Genesis 1:26,

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Why did God spend so much time specifying what man would have dominion over if He gave man dominion over all life on the earth? Because He didn't give man dominion over all life on the earth. There is one thing missing from that list: each other. God never gave man dominion over other men. That means that I am forbidden from enforcing religious beliefs on you or anyone else.

Law, now... that's man's creation and it does force dominion over others, by definition. Laws are necessary as long as there are those who do not follow God faithfully. So while I do not want to sit in judgement over anyone, i find myself forced to accept that laws are necessary.

Do not mix man's laws with God's perfection. They cannot stand as one.

All excerpts from the original article can be found here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm glad you found another opportunity to express your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks for contributing to the thread.

a reply to: Boadicea

I would suggest that it's not an LEO's "authority" under the Constitution that gives him the right to protect/defend his life. Nor is it a homeowners "authority" that gives him/her the right to protect his/her life, family, and home.

I would agree but then how does the Gardener v Tenn case fit?

Everyone has an absolute and equal right to protect and defend their lives.... and the simple truth is that every pregnancy poses risks, including life-threatening risks, up to and beyond birth.

Again, agreed however not every state has exact self defense laws. Even if you attempted to bring the case, youd play hell trying to get around any would be abortion statutes, but not impossible.

ETA: In Tennessee v Gardner, it is the specific wording that the LEO only needs to believe that he/she is at risk that qualifies using lethal force. No specific immediate threat needs to be known or demonstrated.

Again, although your premise, I think, may have merit, the qualifier of being a LEO, assumably under the employ of govt or as an elected sheriff, precludes a private woman citizen of the precident.

a reply to: JinMI

I'm glad you saw my edit

I know this wouldn't be a slam dunk. As I said, Republicking gets messy. And it's real messy right now. The laws and the courts find plenty of reasons for "justifying" taking a life -- an existing life with all the rights thereof -- and sooner or later we're going to have to nail some basic guiding principles down.

When I step back and look at the big grand scheme of things, the repeal of Roe on top of the BLM riots and the Coronapocalypse Vax is creating the perfect a storm, forcing us to examine are guiding principles and core values.

If it's not always "my body my choice" then when? And why? Who decides?

Do we all have a right to protect our lives from threats? If not, why not? Why are some lives valued more than others? Who gets to decide who's better? Or expendable?

a reply to: JinMI

Darn -- a couple of things I forgot...

Again, although your premise, I think, may have merit, the qualifier of being a LEO, assumably under the employ of govt or as an elected sheriff, precludes a private woman citizen of the precident.

I find it chilling to think the court would rule that anyone's life "precludes" our lives. I can see a court ruling that generally speaking an LEO faces risks others do not-- that's fair enough and true enough.

But the same is true of pregnant women.

a reply to: Boadicea

We had a general consensus. Safe. Legal and rare. All the inclusions of rape, incest and critical danger to the mother.

Lately, those boundaries were broken and pushed even past birth. To me, nobody from nowhere, it only makes me think its all a bad idea and on it goes.

Now, and the reason im interested in your perspective, is the self defense argument which is a priority to me. Malice and intent plays a part in a lot of swlf defense laws but by no meaaure all of them. As i stated, state by state. Which is also why abortion being a states rights issue makes sense.

All that absent of a philisophical argument of my body my choice and the right to defend yourself.

If were to value life. Value the individual we need to prioritize the most defenseless among our society. I dont think theres an argument there.

In doing so, advocation for prophylactics and even abstinence should be the issue greater than abortion, IMO.

I stand on the same side with say firearms. Education paramount and training secondary.

I find it chilling to think the court would rule that anyone's life "precludes" our lives. I can see a court ruling that generally speaking an LEO faces risks others do not-- that's fair enough and true enough.

But the same is true of pregnant women.

Thats the stance i have with firearms. Why do LEOs have guns like ar15s and M4s? Becauae bad guys do and they need them. Well, so doea the non criminal elwment of the population!

I think youre on a roll, just not using that particular case.