At the Beginning, Of Course
This is the easiest question I’ve ever been asked. Life begins at the beginning. Where else does anything begin?
Ah, you say, but biologically or legally speaking, at what point along the Creation-to-Apocalypse continuum does an individual human life begin?
Asked and answered: at the beginning.
Of course, I know that with regard to moral and legal matters there’s much debate about when a person becomes a person, in the sense that he or she begins to possess rights. We squarely confront this when we consider the abortion question, and in that regard some fair-minded people will tell you the life of a person begins at conception, whereas other equally evenhanded folks will tell you it starts when a fetus becomes viable—able to survive outside the womb. There are also people who think life begins only at birth, and for them abortion is licit right up until that moment, although most opinion polls show that support for abortion drops substantially as pregnancy progresses. This is not proof of when life begins, but it is evidence that most people believe life does begin at some point and probably at a point before the start of the third trimester of pregnancy—and definitely before the “fetus” has become a “baby.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Let's face it: life began millions of years ago, and has continued more-or-less uninterrupted since then. Individual organisms succeed one another within the continuity of life, building on the genetic inheritance from their parents, and at some point these organisms began studying biology and philosophy and invented religion .
A sperm is a living entity, and therefore a life form, as is an egg, and as is any cell in our body. But we prefer to think of only entire complex organisms as living entities, and individual cells as just a part of a living thing. So when we ask the question "when does life begin?" we're not referring to the event millions of years ago. We are not referring to the beginning of life in general, but to the beginning of a particular living organism, or person. And it's tempting to answer that a person begins to exist when a sperm and egg unite, because this is when a unique genetic combination first takes shape. But there's a problem with that notion, because it's just a single cell at that point, not a complete organism. Is there really a "person" there? Or just a human body cell? That rudimentary cell has no brain, no mind, no consciousness of its existence, can feel no pain or joy, and has no more claim to real personhood than any cell in my body. Except that it has the potential of developing into a person. So it's a potential person. But does that make it a person? Or just a potential future person? What is a person, anyway? Well, I know what a person is. I can distinguish a person from a dog or a hampster. I also recognize a newborn baby as a person, even though it doesn't yet speak a language I know. But a single, mindless, almost-microscopic spherical cell that has none of the attributes of a person? That's stretching things. I'd rather wait until it has a brain and a consciousness and an ability to feel pain and pleasure and know that it exists before I call it a person.
Ah! But is it true that this single cell has no attributes of a real person? Some would argue that it has a soul, implanted by God himself, just like an adult human being! And that's what makes it different from a skin cell. That's what makes it a real human being, not just a part of a human being. It has a soul!
But does it? That's a religious belief, not supported by scientific evidence. And even our concept of a soul is difficult to distinguish from our concept of our mind, except that the soul is supposed to live forever, whereas the mind dies when the brain dies. But the soul is supposed to retain all the memories of the mind, we're told, and to succeed the mind as our own identity after our body dies. Is all that true? Or could the soul really be just the mind, but with the added attribute of eternal life? Do we even know that there is eternal life? The Bible says so, but it was written by people who thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Oh, I forgot. God wrote the Bible by manipulating the hands of the authors. So everything in the Bible is absolute truth. Or is it?
OK, let's come back to the real issue. Should we send a woman to prison because she interrupted the development of a single parasitic cell in her body that might otherwise have become a person someday? Or was it already a person? I think that depends upon whether it had a soul. If it didn't, it was just another mindless cell that might have developed into a human being some day, as might any developing egg or any sperm.
And the issue of a soul is purely a religious issue. If we rely upon the unsubstantiated religious beliefs of certain people to imprison women who take command of the health of their own bodies by refusing to submit to the growth of an unwelcome, mindless parasitic cell and a following eighteen-year sentence of parenthood, then what kind of society have we become? The objection to the abortion of a mindless cell is based upon the purely religious speculation that that cell has a soul implanted by a god. But even if you believe in a god and a soul, how do you know when that god sticks the soul into the body? That's pure speculation. We don't send people to prison for violating speculative religious beliefs, especially if they don't personally believe them. This is a democracy , for God's sake, not a cruel theocratic totalitarian regime like Iran. If you don't like a democracy, go to Iran. You'll be better off, and so will we.
The sperm and egg have only 1/2 the chromosomes so technically don't qualify as a living species. Individual cells in our body are alive but can't develop into anything else so they don't qualify. The question "When does life begin" should really be stated When does the beginning of human development start. The original question is so general as to be unanswerable and is irrelevant. When does what life begin?
Individual cells in our body do develop into something else. Some develop into cancer, some develop into hair, which is as we know "dead". Some of our cells attack foreign bodies, so one could wonder, what is consciousness and where does it begin?
None of your examples qualifies as a separate living being which is what I meant. Sorry I wasn't more specific.
What is a separate, living being?
A living thing that is a separate entity of it's own and can or has the potential to live on it's own. A fetus is a separate entity that is fed through the mothers Umbilical chord. A Baby is a separate entity that is fed through it's mouth. If you take cells from a baby and inject them into the mother's blood they will immediately be destroyed by the mother's immune system. They are NOT part of the mother. The Umbilical chord acts as a barrier between the mother and the Fetus. Cancer cells are not a separate entity but are cells growing from existing cells in the body that have no potential to develop into a viable being. None of your examples have the potential lo grow into a fully developed being. A baby develops from a fertilized egg. A female's eggs are formed during fetal development and are carried by but are not part of the female's body. I think you really know this but are simply trying to twist the wording to make the "Fetus" out to be something less than what it is. Any rational thinking person knows there's a big difference between cancer or hair and a Fetus. How many cancers do you see developing into a person?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_he_me/foot_in_brain
That was a malformed fetus forming within it's twin brother not a cancer. It happens sometimes. Besides a foot and a hand doesn't constitute a fully formed person. Man, you'll come up with anything!
For life to start at conception implies that the sperm and the egg are dead. Clearly life starts before conception. As Monty Python said: "Every sperm is sacred, Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets so irate."
The sperm and egg have only 1/2 the chromosomes so technically don't qualify as a living species. Individual cells in our body are alive but can't develop into anything else so they don't qualify. The question "When does life begin" should really be stated When does the beginning of human development start. The original question is so general as to be unanswerable and is irrelevant. When does what life begin?