Abortion - Moments of (Mis)Conception

The 'Limits on Abortion' thread was ended for going off topic.However there does seem to be an appetite for the wider discussion on this topic which I for one am interested in hearing.As such I would like to ask the following specific questions -1) Biologically is there a 'moment' or 'point' at which something non-human becomes something human?
2) Biologically (in the context of human development) is there a point at which something non-living becomes something living?
3) Does the argument put forward by opponents of abortion rely on defining such 'moments', 'points' or 'instantaneous boundaries' between that which should be considered human life and that which should not??The obvious answer to 1) would seem to be the 'moment' of conception. However my limited understanding of biology is that there is no such 'moment' and that, like most biological processes, this is a graduated process. Can anyone confirm or refute this on firm biological grounds??If there is no 'moment' does that mean that any decision regards abortion is therefore as arbitrary as (for example) legally classifying someone of 18 years old as an adult, with all the priveliges and responsibilities that entails, but classifying a person of 17 years and 364 days as a child in the eyes of the law???What exactly is the difference between this sort of arbitrary legal classificatiion and the decision as to what is a human life and what is not in terms of abortion?
Is there a firm firm biological premise on which the boundary between what is a human life and what is not available, or is the decision effectively as arbitrary as defining adulthood???

Well, you're not going to get it. Abortion's foes are going to roll up in here with precisely the same arguments they used last time, as though they weren't rebutted a hundred ways from sunday (which they were.)It's like Groundhog's Day, starring Bill Murray, with these people. You refute their reasoning until they cry "uncle" and admit it's all about women choosing to have and enjoy sex in ways they don't like, but the next day they're back with feigned concern about the "unborn."

It really doesn't matter about the life versus non-life part.IF we assumed that every single pregnancy was alive at the moment of conception, we still have to address the moral issue of whether its better to end the life before birth or be forced to allow a kid to come into the world with no guarantee that the life of the child and Mother is going to be necessarily better for having allowed the birth.

Well I agree but when opponents to abortion rationalise their views it seem to be almost always in terms of this life/non-life, human/non-human barrier.Presumably if there is a belief in the soul it is also at this same point/moment/barreir that this supposedly manifests itself.This is why I am interested to know whether or not such a definite biological point actually exists and if it does not what effect this has on the rationalisation of their views.

Conception is an important hudrle, but when all's said and done a fertilised ovum is still a single cell. And a significant proportion of those will fail to implant and be naturally lost. So as far as I can see it is the earliest point in the process that isn't obviously silly, and it is a clear marker and that's really all that is going for it.

But when exactly is conception??As I understand it conception itself is a process that takes a couple of days to complete. More than one sperm can pass through the outer barreier of the egg and it takes a period of time to eject those that are not the final one that will be used to combine DNA. The process of the egg and sperm combining itself takes time and then the genome is not in control of he cell for sometime after that. In total a graduated process lasting a couple of days.As far as I can see any choice as regards what is a human life and what is not is made purely arbitrarily depending on what view of abortion one wishes to rationalise.If we accept that any decision as to what is a human life and what is not is purely arbitrary (in the sense that a number of totally opposing points of view can be equally well rationalised by means of biology) then maybe the whole argument can move on from trying to answer this in terms of science and move on to trying to answer this in terms of the more answerable questions such as those relating to the effect on the mother, society etc. etc.

It's not totally arbitrary, but biology certainly offers no clear guidelines - and certainly none that would be relevant to abortion. Conception is not clearly the right choice, and there's a good case that it's the wrong choice. I can see no reason to choose it over implantation, say.I agree that the only valid choice must be a pragmatic one. It is not possible to make a truly principled choice when there is no clear basis for it.

All the cells in a female's and a male's body are human and (almost all) alive. A female forms all of her eggs during the seventh and eighth month of her conception and they are alive and human from the moment they form. Males generate sperm on a daily basis and they are human and alive even before being ejaculated. Thus, any form of contraception can be said to destroy POTENTIAL human life. Anyone who accepts any form of contraception as a woman's right should have absolutely no problem with the use of RU-486, the 'morning after' pillYou are quite correct when you state in post 6 that the 'moment' of conception, the time from when the sperm first contacts the egg to when the sperm's and egg's chromosomes combine in the nucleus takes from hours to days. For many centuries, many religion's dogmas, including the RCC, stated that the soul didn't enter the fetus until it 'quickened' in the womb, which I believe is about six weeks after conception. Before this time, the embryo is frequently rejected by the womb's nurse cells in an act of natural abortion. In fact, about two-thirds of all human conceptions abort naturally. In (very approximate) numbers, in the U. S., there are 16.5 million conceptions each year of which 11 million abort naturally (miscarriages), 1.5 are aborted clinically, and 4 million result in live births. So, it would seem that nature (or god) is really the biggest abortionist. If the 11 million number seems too large, remember that many (most?) women trying to conceive will have several 'missed' or late periods, which are really pregnancies that fail in the very early stages, before they successfully conceive. Most times, the woman won't even realize that she had a conception that failed.If those religions whose dogma insists that the soul enters the fetus at the time of conception are correct, than there is an easy test for the existence of the soul. In the case of identical twins, only one of the twins is actually a conceptus (the result of a sperm and egg conjugating), the second twin results from the budding off of a clone from the first twin when that first twin is in a many cell phase. One twin is a clone of his/her brother, and is not 'conceived' and thus has no soul. Thus, in examining the lives of identical twins, it should be found (if the above dogma is correct) that one of the pair leads an exemplary moral life, while the other, soulless twin is morally bereft and leads a life of craven criminality. Or, perhaps this argument just amplifies how arbitrary the standards for a fetus 'becoming human' really are.

Isn't there also a case of chimera twins where two fraternal blastocysts merge and produce 1 embryo? Would this person then have 2 souls?Not related to abortion but more about this issue of a soul, there was an interesting case presented in the Beyond Belief series that Percy introduced the board to awhile back where a scientist described a case of a man who had some kind of split brain disorder. Basically each half of his brain acted independently and could communicate using various means almost like a split personality but physically rather than psychologically. Asking one 'side' if he believed in personal savior and he said yes. Asking the same question to the other 'side' he said no. Now, is half of this person going to heaven?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

i don't know about joining blastocytes, but there are all kinds of biforcation (the splitting of twins). one of my aunts had an extra set of uterus and ovaries which didn't match her dna. she had part of a conjoined twin inside her. weird shit.anyways. the argument is about whether abortion kills a soul. but it's such a stupid argument. conservatives defend the killing of criminals in order to protect the rights of others. it's really the same. no, they aren't criminals (you know, unless they're black.), but the idea is a question whether the rights of the woman can override the rights of the baby just as the rights of society override the rights of the criminal.but. i know full well that this thread will eventually devolve into "irresponsible slut" bashing and get closed. it never ends, because we're not really arguing the same things.

If a zygote is not human and not life, then why use stem cells from this supposedly non-human life, to give life to others? MY OPINION is that it does not matter. Time should not be an issue, just like in statiscs 101. With no intervention, a zygote will eventually become a child in a healthy pregnancy. I have always looked at it as " with awesome power, comes awesome responsibility". Whatever it is that gives us the privilage to create life, we should respect it, and not abuse it. Each and everyone that debates in this thread owes their existance to this process, you would think there would be more respect for it.Gentlemen, start your engines!

it seems to me there is plenty of respect for the process. but, it is a waste of time if the child is not going to be loved and cared for properly. no one should be forced to parent a child, because that creates abused and neglected children.it is amazing that i grow hair at an inch a month. but i still cut it. it's alive. it grows.but the important thing is that we make double sure that people don't NEED abortions. it is absolutely vital that we institute very real and very good education and prevention programs. but, it is also vital that women have the chance to protect and control their lives. what do babies have to live for if they can't control their own destinies?

I admit I only knew the term by watching an episode of 'House' but a casual google search seems to show that the idea is not totally insane.Chimera - Wikipedia(genetics) So what is the soul audit on this one then? I guess nem is taking a vacation but maybe another person can take up the cause.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

it seems to me that c.s. lewis had it right. we are not bodies with souls, but souls with bodies.you don't need a body to have a soul.

If those against abortion are correct that the fetus becomes a person with a soul at conception that would mean that 12.5 million souls would go to heaven to be with God. That would leave the 4 million souls to grow up and have to make a decision where they would spend eternity. That would mean God has reaped a harvest of over 75% of the possible souls born in the U.S in a year. So why fuss?