Reading through the South Dakota abortion thread, and also thinking of the Schaivo case, I began thinking that everything being said rests on how one defines life. By this I mean where a life begins. What defines a person? What makes a person, a person?

So in an effort to either find consensus, see some different view points, and maybe determine some sort of definition or distinction of where life beings I'd like to propose the following questions:



What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why?

What is your definition?

1.) The ability to reproduce, secrete, excrete, etc.

2.) Life is the capacity to understand the world around you. If you are self-aware and have the ability to use and break down energy, reproduce and interact you are alive. I think it is important for a living being to posess a natural curiosity and I hold to it that life can be anything with a thirst for knowledge in different areas.

I have the impression that you think that (under your definition of understandable capacity) retarded people aren't living, which is, of course, odd to speculate about. I'm sure you didn't mean this, but I think your definition needs clarification.

1/2. Anything with the capacity to function in the world is living. This includes fetuses, because they have the potential to be humans, and if you kill something that has the potential, you are killing a human, a la abortion.

A fetus is a living organism, so it should be treated as one. If it wasn't living, it's heart wouldn't be beating, it's skin and limbs and organs wouldn't be growing. If it was stagnant and unchanging, it could be considered not living, but this wouldn't be a (living) fetus.

Both those criteria, functioning in the world and potential to be human, are also met by a sperm cell, so clearly your definition needs work.



So is a human hand. Its skin and bones and muscles grow, it is not stagnant and unchanging, and like a foetus, if cut off from the body it dies. So that definition clearly needs work as well.


Life is simple. Reaction to stimulus, reproductivity, growth and change and self-sustainability. Biology has categorised the requirments to be considered 'alive' a long time ago.

I see no reason why that definition should not be applied to human life as well. In other words, before a foetus could survive on its own outside the womb, it cannot be considered alive. It is no different than a human hand except for its possible potential.


This is of course not getting into the moral and religious issues around abortion, The Law could choose to see the potential as being important, but that ethical decision has NOTHING to do with the science behind the facts. If we are STRICTLY concerned with definition of ALIVE, then its in biology, chapter and verse.

How exactly would you word this definition to avoid suggesting that grown humans, physically dependent on medicine or others, are not life? I'm just curious. I can very much see the difference between a fetus and a 50 year old on dialysis... I just don't know how to define that.

I think one problem we are having here is the way in which the question is asked. In the most literal sense, "human life" applies to every cell in the body of a homo sapiens which is not dead. Perhaps the real question which should be asked is "What is a living human being?"

A wide range of possible answers exist to this profound question. On one side, some persons of faith would say that a living human being is created at the moment of fertilization of the egg, and that it remains a living human being until all of the body is completely dead (even if there is no brain activity.) On the other side, we have the philosophy expressed by some devotees of Ayn Rand, which states that humanity is defined by the ability to perform abstract reasoning. By such a standard, a person with severe mental disability is not really a human being.

My own feeble effort to reach some sort of answer to this question might be expressed by this definition.

A living human being is an organism derived from the genetic material of homo sapiens which is capable of experiencing suffering.

It is this definition which leads me to believe that abortion during the very early stages of pregnancy does not present an ethical problem, as opposed to abortion during the very late stages of pregnancy. It is this definition which leads me to believe that ending the life of a person who is in a permanent vegetative state does not present an ethical problem.

(I have also worded this definition to allow for the very real possibility of cloning human beings.)

Sorry, the biological definition of life does not work that way. It does not speak about quality of life, or type of life, it just takes a point in time and defines life.

Self-sufficiency does not mean that they can survive on their own without food or water, it means can they survive on their own and an independent entity. A person on renal failure needs Dialasys every 48 hours, but they survive and grow and change in the meantime on their own.

A human hand once severed technically takes up to half an hour for the cells to die, but the process of death occurrs instantaniously, there is no point at which the organism could grow, reproduce or survive on its own.


Of course the logical extreme of your case is a human on FULL life support, in other words where machines have taken over their basic functions, including breathing, heart beating, and autonomic systems due to brain damage.

At THAT point, you are right, these people do shy away from the biological definition of 'alive'...

That being said, let's look at situations that I have faced or may face and see how it fits:

1) I'm talking to a person lying in the back of my ambulance when the monitor goes flat (more precisely V-Fib). While he goes hypoxic I tell him he's going to go to sleep for a while, and that when he wakes up he will be sore and probably nauseous. After a few seconds he passes out, and would undoubtedly fail the "tests". Instead of a precordial thump and a couple shocks, is it time to turn off the red lights and head to the funeral parlor?

2) I enter a burning building and find Michael Moore laying on the floor unconscious. He can't react to stimulus (and hopefully can't reproduce ), do I just crawl past him or drag him out and resuscitate him?

Most the "pro-lifers" I know unabashedly say they do so for moral or religious reasons, no explanation necessary.

On the other hand, more "pro-choicers" point out some feat, 'it can't run the 40 in eight seconds, therefore it's a parasitic clump of cells'. First it was pain. Then after being shown that in very early stages of gestation the fetus withdraws the goalpost changed.

I'm really curious, is there some incontrovertible empirical test that a pro-choice person could be shown that, if it could be proven, would make them change their minds? The only other alternative, when reduced to it's finest terms, is 'I'm more important than the fetus, so mind your own business'. That position would at least that would be intellectually honest.

I'm sorry the question is what is two plus two and your answer is "Orange!"

The question was, what is the biological determination of life. In the case of the person in the ambulance, no they are no longer alive. Period. You can make some attempt to return them to life, and you may well succeed. That does not alter the situation.

The second situation, you have a person who is lying down. You have no idea if they are alive or not. How exactly does that silly hypothetical help your argument at all?



This is getting off topic of course, but I am curious, why do moral and religious reasons for pro-lifers require no explanation? You seem to presume that moral reasons for pro-choice people DO require explanation, why is the morality of the minority in the US more important or held to a double standard than the morality of the majority by you?



No, I cannot speak with authority on what most pro-lifers and pro-choice people in the US think. Apparently you feel you can, and I admire your obvious omniscience and mass telepathy. However I think you will find that motivations are not as easy as you try and portray them in your little diatribe.

Both sides make their choice based on their own morality, do not try and make it seem otherwise. And the fact is that for a lot of the process it IS just a lump of cells, and no argument you make can change that.



I'm really curious, is there some incontrovertible empirical test that a pro-life person could be shown that, if it could be proven, would make them change their minds? The only other alternative, when reduced to it's finest terms, is "God says so, well he never actually says so, I but I prsume he thinks so, so I am right". That position would at least that would be intellectually honest.


See? I can minimise and make fun of the beliefs of the other side too! Its a game everyone can play, though you seem unusually proficient...

Doesn't this definition imply that parasites aren't alive? Gut bacteria, tapeworms, plasmodia -- for most of their lifecycle, they can't survive outside their hosts. But surely they're still alive, right? How is that different from an embryo?

They can survive without being attached to the host, they are not created that way. And frankly, almost all parasites CAN survive quite well outside the human body, its just usually they are flushed out into a lethal environment or using drugs/chemicals etc. The fact is they are independent organisms.

OK, let's take a specific example: parasitic wasps. They reproduce sexually, and the female wasp carefully lays an egg on another insect or spider. The egg cannot develop without the host organism. In some cases, the wasp larva changes the behavior of the host in a way that is harmful to the host and beneficial to the parasite. The larva doesn't become self-sufficient until after it kills the host.

Under your definition, the wasp larva is not alive. You keep talking about "facts" and "biology, chapter and verse," but I don't think your self-sufficiency criterion is scientific. It's very convenient if your aim is to declare fetal mammals to be "not alive," but I don't think that biologists believe that either.

There are a few things to keep in mind in this thread. Firstly, I was aiming at a definition of what defines human life and when it begins. That, in my opinion, being more important than wasps. Secondly, with any rule there's an exception. The point of this thread isn't to nitpick and find the one specific place a person's definition doesn't work. Ideally the definition would work equally well everywhere but if wasp larva get left out I don't see that as being a problem; whereas if reptiles were left out I could see there being a problem. Platypus' lay eggs but they're classified as mammals.

Yes, I ought to have started by answering your questions, which clearly refer to human life. Apologies, but in my defense, I'm lazy. Defining human life is a difficult question, which involves ethics as much as biology. Whereas Vermillion's error in making self-sufficiency a necessary criterion for life was an easy thing to correct. There are many obligatory parasites (not just wasps, but all mamalian fetuses, as well as newborn marsupials), and no biologist would claim that they are "not alive." Viruses are a difficult case, but fetuses are not.

What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why?

The "life" part is fairly easy. Wikipedia provides a conventional definition of life: Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to Stimuli, and Reproduction. Self-sufficiency is not included. It's clear that a fetus is alive through all stages of development. The "human" part is more difficult. One could trivially say that the fetus has human DNA, so it must be human life. It's not a dog or a fish. But somehow it goes against my moral intuitions to invest a single fertilized egg with the same rights as an independent human being.

I like Victoria Silverwolf's definition:



I don't think I can do better than that.

Your inability to understand the explanation is both our faults, perhaps mine for not explaining it well enough, and yours for not understanding. But this is not 'Vermillion's Error. Firstly, it is not an error at all. Secondly, it is not Vermillion's. Pick up a first year biology textbook in any language in any country in the first world, and this is how they define life. 'Vermillion' is a smart guy, but sadly I cannot claim credit for creating the dicipline of biology.

Your wasp example is obviously flawed, and by the way it is also incorrect in fact. The eggs do not need the spider to gestate at all, they are capable of gestating elsewhere. When the hatch however they eat the spider as it provides an immediate source of food. Spider wasps are not technoically even true parisites as they do not REQUIRE the spider for their eggs to gestate, it is possible for it to happen without.

Regardless of your erors of fact, the general issue you were trying to get at is still wrong. Parasites are independent organisms. They can live detached from their host, but they generally draw food from it and thus need it for long term survival. You could take your metaphor to the extreme and call Humans planetary parisites, because they 'Require' the living biosphere of eath to provide them with Oxygen/Nitrogen to breathe. Thus I suppose you could follow your logic and say humans are not really 'independent', as drop them in the void and they dies in about 90 seconds.

That is of course all silly. The indepndence of an organism related to its capacity to survive and prosper independently, obviously ALL living things need food, water, oxgen etc, but that does not affect their independence. This is why a person represents life, while a person's hand does not. For the vast majority of the development of a zygote then early foetus, it is no more independent, and can no more claim to be its own form of life, than a human hand. The only difference is in its potential, but that is beyond the scope of this issue.

You asked for the biological definition of life, there it is.



It is alive in exactly the same way a human hand is alive. Without referring to the 'potential', I defy you to find a diference in this definition between a zygote or early foetus and a human hand. It is not however its own form of life. Not to get all sci-fi, but I cannot think of another term but a life form or an organism.


Also please note that obviously, the strictest biological definition is not ideal. Is a Mule or other sterile bybrid alive? Of course. Yet by the strict definition above, fire could be sonsidered alive.



And I suppose its very convenient for you to ignore the biological definition if you believe a fetal mamal is its own form of life. Ah, the wonders of hypocracy.


Frankly, I have no idea what a hundred biologists would say on the matter if you asked them if a fetus is an independent form of life. Its an emotional issue, as you have amply proven here. but again, this thread started by asking what the biological definition of life is. Now don't get prissy because you don't like the answer.

It was just a question, trying to get an understanding of the mechanics of it.
As for my reasoning for pro-life not needing an explanation, it is because it is self-evident. To be more precise in it, I belive at some point I will meet my Maker, and I'd rather not have to explain taking part in infanticide.

On the other hand, if I am wrong and there is no God, then we are all just a clump of cells, and I lost nothing in taking my position. So I view it as a Win(I hope)-Draw situation for me.





I'll bite, that pretty well sums up my position (except the spelling). The test will be after I'm dead, and then it would be too late for a re-roll
And your answer was..?



Learning the cut and paste hot keys does not really equal engaging in dialog and debate, nor does answering questions with questions.

The biological definition that Vermillion provided- I will provide again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

A conventional definition
Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, the generally accepted biological manifestations are that life exhibits the following phenomena:

Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.


and of course- the exceptions:

Exceptions to the conventional definition
It is important to note that life is a definition that applies at the level of species, so even though many individuals of any given species do not reproduce, possibly because they belong to specialised sterile castes (such as ant workers), these are still considered forms of life. One could say that the property of life is inherited; hence, sterile hybrid species such as the mule are considered life although not themselves capable of reproduction. It is also worth noting that non-reproducing individuals may still help the spread of their genes through such mechanisms as kin selection.

For similar reasons, viruses and aberrant prion proteins are often considered replicators rather than forms of life: they cannot reproduce without very specialised substrates such as host cells or proteins, respectively. However, most forms of life rely on foods produced by other species, or at least the specific chemistry of the Earth.

Viruses reproduce, flames grow, some software programs mutate and evolve, future software programs will probably evince (even high-order) behavior, machines move, and some form of proto-life consisting of metabolizing cells without the ability to reproduce presumably existed. Still, some would not call these entities alive. Generally, all six characteristics are required for a population to be considered a life form.

Okay- now for human life- first, you have to decide what sentience is


Sentience is a capacity for basic consciousness — the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

Sentience is the ability to perceive. It is separate from, and not dependent on, the other aspects of consciousness; because of this, some have suggested the possibility of philosophical zombies, beings which are not sentient but nonetheless behave exactly as you would expect a human to behave.

Now- prior to the abortion movement- philosophers have been trying to define the "soul"- why does the anti-abortion movement think they have a lock on it now?

Ah the old Pascal's wager. Except of course that the second option, it turns out there is no God and nothing is wrong, ignores that fact that in the MEANTIME, you may have been imposing morality and actions on others for no reason, causing problems and misery.

See, I have no problem with your position. You believe in God, you believe that abortion is infanticide, and you want no part of it. Cool, power to you, so don't have or perform abortions. If you';re male, then obviously only the second one is a problem.

The problem is when you use your belief system to impose actions on others who have a different belief system. If you don't like something because you think your God told you not to like it, thats fine. But if you try and dictate what others cannot do who do not share your belief, based only on what you think your God told you to do, thats a problem for me.

I (and I assume all pro-choicers) am not saying abortions should be MANDATORY, if you don't want one, if your principles prevent you from having one, then don't. But for people who do not share that religious belief system, they have the option.



It does when your question is obviously silly and hypocritical, and I can amply demonstrate that by using the same question with the positions reversed.

But if you want an answer to your question, I will repeat what I said earlier, I do not share your impresive omniscient ability to speak intelligently about the speciic desires and ambitions of all pro-lifers or pro-choicers, but in my opinion, the rights of an actual existing person are more important than the maybe rights of the not really but maybe someday posible potential proto-person. Its that simple.

The phrase you should look up in your biology textbook is "obligate parasite." They exist. There are many examples, including many species of parasitic wasps. They are still considered living organisms, despite their lack of independence.



The fetus has different DNA, different organs, different blood. Of course it's not the same organism as the mother.



I don't think I was being emotional at all. (And "prissy"?) I just think your definition of life is in error. Can you find me a single biologist who agrees with you that independence or self-sufficiency is a necessary feature of all living organisms?

I am sorry, are we having a language problem here?

THEY ARE STILL INDEPENDENT ORGANISMS. They fuction, grow, breathe on their own. I DEALT with all this in the part of my post qou decided NOT to quote or deal with. The fact that they require a specific environment to reproduce in no way alters their independence as biological organisms, any more than the human need to breathe in an Oxtgen/Nitrogen environment in no way alters its independence.




Actually (again , PLEASE Read before posting) I have stated several times that in LATE preganancy when the fetus could survive on its own, the definition no longer applies. I said that several times you know... However in early pregnancy, when it is still a zygote or early fetus, as it happens it does NOT have its own blood, and its organs are no more different than the mucles and tendons and veins in a human hand.




G. Karp, 'Cell and Molecular Biology'. Its a basic university textbook for Biology, and an excellent place for you to start. Thats the only one I have handy, so its the only one I cen refer you to. I could suggest talking to a few of my colleagues in the College, if you were near the city...

Let me ask you this, so YOU believ that self-sufficiency in any form is NOT required for something to be a life form? So please explain to me how my liver is not a life form. Or my brain. Both are infinitely more complex than a zygote, both contain incredibly specialised and complicated sub-forms and sub-organs. Both grow and adapt and respond to stimuli, both metabolise chemicals.


You seem so convinced that self-sufficiency has NOTHING to do with wheither something is a life form unto itself, well then justify it. Without referring to its 'potential', which is irelevant as a point-in-time debate, explain to me how a zygote is a life form and my liver is not.

Have you looked up obligate parasites? Can you explain how their situation differs from a gestating mammal? Both are completely dependent on their host. They're separate organisms, but they are not independent. Do I really need to explain the difference between that kind of dependency and the universal need for air and water?



The zygote has a different genome. It may have a Y chromosome, making it male, while the mother is obviously female. You can call it a part of the mother's body, like a hand, but that doesn't make it so. It's a different creature.



Your liver and your brain are certainly more complex than a zygote, but they're also part of you in a way that a zygote is not part of its mother. Most obviously, they have your genome, and share a history with the rest of your organs that goes back to your own early fetal development. And though you dismiss "potential," I think it's actually very relevant. Just as your brain and liver were born with you, they will also die with you. The zygote's situation couldn't be more different.

Thanks for the textbook recommendation. If I recall correctly, Karp was my biology textbook in college, but that was 15 years ago. I don't remember it addressing the specific question we're debating here (when a new life form comes into existence), but I'd welcome a quote or citation. I might even still have my copy -- I'll check at home tonight.

Good job with the rhetorical statements, but frankly, the question is pertinent.

Life, and when it begins, is a controversial topic.

A large portion of Pro-life Americans don't even approach religion as their reasoning. It has nothing to do with the argument. Moreover, it has to do with the notion that the fetus could turn into a doctor, a professional athlete, or God forbid... even a cynical liberal!

The real question would be, if the fetus isn't alive, is it dead? If it's not dead, what is it?

If life doesn't begin until self-sufficiency, then why is it murder for me to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and "abort" the fetus? Consider the fetal protection act. It seems like a governmental double standard.

If a woman is 11 weeks pregnant, and I punch her in the stomach and "abort" the fetus, I'm subject to murdering the fetus. However, even if the father of said fetus, I have no rights to stop a woman from going to an abortion clinic...

Yes, I have. They are independent organisms which can survive without a host, though they use the host for food and sustenance. In that fact they are depending on its biosphere, just as we are on ours. If you separate a parasite from its host (in an environment it can survive) it goes and looks fo another host, and an independant organism. If you separate a zygote from its womb, it dies, period.


AEvans With regards to your post, I would also like to point out that in this Jobius says:



While in the other thread on exactly the same topic you say:



Interesting direct contradiction there, considering you are both debating the same side of the same argument. However, that more of an interesting observation than anything else.

Regardless, I am not going to debate the same person on the same topic in two different threads. I'll confine myself to answering you in the other one, and Jobius (if he continues) here.

I think there's a problem in your parenthetical "(in environment it can survive)". Some parasites would require an elaborate artificial environment to survive, and I don't think it's true that they could all "go look for another host" and have any chance of success. And of course, zygotes are routinely created in laboratories, and implanted into women. I don't see any fundamental obstacles to embryo transplantation from one mother to another -- though I also don't see why anyone would want to do it.



Actually, on abortion policy, I'm far closer to you than I am to AEvans. I would not criminalize early abortions (which are the vast majority). But I don't think that policy can be justified by saying "science tells us that pre-viability fetuses aren't even life forms." It's a tempting argument, but I don't think it's good science.

I actually didn't realise about your position my bad.

And I need to say gain, I never tried to use the efinition of an organism to justify abortion. I am very pro-choice and it has nothing to do with this biological definition. As I said in my very first post, I was answering the question of what is a life, thats all.

What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why?

When I think about people and what qualities a person has to make them a person I find myself thinking along the line of CruisingRam's post. The idea of sentience and perception is to me the defining quality that makes a human; otherwise it would seem to me that there would just a clump of cells.

What is your definition?

My definition would be something along the lines of: A person is defined as being able to perceive and is a person when there is neurological activity (or a significant chance of regaining neurological activity). The last part is in there due to the coma patient which might come out of a coma. But my definition also defines a person at the point when the CNS/PNS begin to function, thus excluding the zygote, blastula, embryo, etc. but also forbid the abortion past a specific defined amount of development (which seems to be around week 6-7).

I feel that since the states in the first 6 weeks exist without neurological activity one is not aborting a person. One is aborting that which will become, but is not yet, a person (according to my def.)



The whole "what if" argument doesn't seem like the best one because the baby could also grow up to be another Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, or god forbid another Bush (). The point is, we can't use the what if because it can go either way and thus wouldn't we be doing a good thing if it's possible to abort another Stalin or Pinochet?

I just found a very impressive overview of the history, law, religion, and science of when human life begins. It's either from Scott Gilbert's textbook Developmental Biology, or it's a web-only feature for the book's companion website. Way too much to cover here, but if you're interested in this topic, it's worth at least skimming.

Using the Gilbert's terminology, Vermillion has been arguing the "Ecological / Technological view" on this question, while I've had the "Genetic view." Kind of. Mostly I was arguing against the ecological/technological view, but I saw the genetic view as the safe fallback position. Gilbert pokes some holes in it, though:



Turns out there are plenty of other options, though: the Metabolic view (even sperm and egg are human life), the Embryological view (gastrulation as the beginning), the Neurological view, etc.

Gilbert's conclusion:

I've been watching this with more than a little interest and though many are working on the basis of personal views, in my own opinion Vermillion's approach seems to me to be the closest.

The question, after all, asks:
What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why?
Now it would be easy to come up with a whole range of thoroughly romanticized and yea even "deep" responses.

...but it the most basic sense this is a question of science, basic biology.

That said, I take issue with the proposed criteria.


That is close to what I believe is the scientific basis for life, but I stick with the criteria listed in last year's "What is life?" debate.

The differences in our criteria are (surprise, surprise ) we're I feel you are going wrong.


1. Reproduction is not really necessary to be considered a life form, there are whole groups of animals, (male mules for instance) that are sterile. They are also very much alive.

Reproduction is a criteria for being a member of a species not simply for being alive.

2. Self-sustainability is not a criteria for life either. A previous poster mentioned parasites which are, by definition, not self-sustaining. You argued that many parasites can sustain life while traveling between hosts but this is not really the point. Even a zygote can remain alive outside the womb for a short time (In vitro fertilization shows that quite nicely) but if an organism cannot sustain all criteria of life without a host that's not self-sustaining as I see it.

My definition of human life is a discrete organism which operates (transcribes and translates) based upon the human genome and obeys the criteria for life.

What is your definition?

I’m going to take your questions out of order. My definition of life is simple: the period of time between birth and death.

What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why?

The moment an infant takes its first independent breath outside its mother’s body.

Sorry for the brevity, but that is what I believe. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are, respectively, a cell formed by the union of two gametes, a pre-fetal organism in early stages of development, and the unborn, developing offspring of a human after the 8 weeks development (embryonic) stage.

That is precisely correct but all of that implies that they are, by necessity, alive. An organism cannot develop if it is not alive.

..and it cannot be called anything but human if it operates on the human genome.

The issue is rather concrete, "personal" definitions of life are merely avoidance of the objective nature of the concept.

This is true turnea, that since an embryo, zygote, fetus, etc. is based on the human genome it is "human." But what I'm getting at here is what makes the organism distinctly human. If I have a kidney on ice waiting to be transplanted it's still viable and "alive," but I don't think many would consider it human though it has cells which contain human genes. So what makes a whole person different from the kidney? Are they both human because they both contain the same genome?

As I posted my definition earlier I wont rewrite it, but as I feel the developing stages in the womb (to a point as I noted earlier) are just that, development.

Is a car a car if it's just a chasie?



Yes, these are what defines a living thing, but not what separates human from dolphin. Again, what I'm trying to get at in this thread is what make a human, a human. If we find that we can state when one becomes a human and thus discuss abortion in a different manner.

My question is whether it would really matter to people. For the people that see this as moral/emotional issue would it really change their opinion if science came in and defined the point when a fetus could be considered human? Somehow I doubt that would be the case.

The people that typically hold this position ignore far less complex facts and don't buy into science anyway so I'm not sure this would do anything to dissaude them.

That isn't to say that we can't discuss it, I just think you might be hoping for something that won't happen

A excellent question.

The difference in layman's terms is the difference between a part and a whole. A kidney is a part of a person. It is a mixture of differentiated tissues that form an organ. That is to say that only a portion of the genetic material in the cells will ever be used, because a kidney cell will only create the proteins a kidney cell needs.

On the other hand a zygote, from the moment the gametes recombine DNA is a discrete, whole organism. Scientifically it is a person, albeit one at the very first stage of development.

It is totipotent, that is to say a zygote is built to go on and form every tissue used in the human body.


You are treating the matter as though it is a matter of romanticism. The question of the "essence of man" is a dead end, there can be no objective answer.

If we are to remain grounded in the facts then biology dictates the essence of man, what makes a human different than a dolphin as you put it, is our genetic material.

No more, no less.


I agree that it is entirely unlikely to change conclusion on the matter. The fact is judgment on the absolute value of fetal human life is purely irrational as are all value judgments.

However, that does not change the fact that is is human life.

Some people have a problem with creationism being taught in schools because it is not rooted in science.

I have the exact problem with the ridiculous idea that a fetus isn't a human.

It is biologically unsound and misinformation never aids a debate.

What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why?

Life is self multiplying organic matter. Human life is self replicating organic matter with human DNA. Therefore, human life is any cell or group of cells, containing human DNA. If your trying to get into an abortion debate here, this isn't a good question to set me off, because for me its not a matter of life, its a matter of value denomination, and because value (and for that matter morality) is subjective, it is my belief that the abortion issue has no right or wrong answers, and cannot be debated as decisively as some moral debates can be, because there simply aren't enough pertinent shared moral axioms between a pro-lifer and pro-choicer.

What is your definition?

Any cell containing human DNA in its nucleus.

(emphasis mine) Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.
What bugs me the most about the anti-choice group is the extreme hubris of their absolute certainty of the "rightness" of their position and their reflexive condemnation of the "wrongness" of anyone who happens to disagree. I've always found it vaguely insulting that anyone would presume to assert their "moral" authority over a complete stranger.

The problem is, it isn’t a whole organism by then, turnea. As Jobius points out:


Every zygote has an increasingly remote chance of splitting into twins, triplets, and quadruplets. The twinning process looks very much like cell division. The monozygous “individual persons” aren’t whole organisms until the period where the zygote can twin elapses, or once the twinning process begins, it is finished. The twinning process can take as long as two weeks, although if twinning begins late in the second week there is a chance the result will be conjoined twins.

Rarer still are instances of embryonic abnormalities resulting in conjoined twins “living inside” one another. The mass removed from the seven year-old boy’s stomach had its own DNA and limited development to include growing hair. Ironically, though it contained muscle, bone, and hair tissue, there’s nothing in the article to indicate a rudimentary nervous system. Yet one doctor says: “It was remarkable. For seven years it lived like a parasite inside the boy's body.”

What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why? What is your definition?

I’m having a hard time separating the questions, so I’ll offer a muddled response.

A unique DNA fingerprint doesn’t cut it due to the biological and religious problem twinning poses, but at the end of the two week period neutral stem cells and the commencement of cellular differentiation (endocardial muscle cells that will eventually form a heart), are precursors to human life. A person who loses his legs is still a person, but one’s legs alone are not enough to give one life.

Human DNA is a genetic imprint of human life, but a characteristic that can’t process biological functions on its own. Questions of viability aside, personhood requires distinction from within the developing embryo, not just human DNA, for the embryo to qualify as an “individual” life.

For a cut off date on when I believe personhood is achieved: “Stage 23 (approximately 56-57 postovular days) Essential internal and external structures complete.”

What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why?

What is your definition?

The interesting thing about definitions is that they are completely subjective. Let me give this a try:

Human life is defined by ego. Until the ego can be expressed in the form of vocalizing the particular language's form of declaration, i.e., hollering "NO NO NO NO NO!", the life cannot be differentiated from any other form of life. Simply eating and pooping is living, but it's not living like a human.

I might go farther and define human life as being an individual who differentiates self from the masses. That is, you have to try to do something unique to be human. This extends the age from around two years of age upwards to perhaps 80 years of age, depending on circumstances.

When do we become fully human? It might be when we first realize that there are things beyond our understanding, or it might be when we discover that we are not islands or rocks. It might be when we dance as if no one is watching or sing as if no one is listening.

Or we might be just bundles of organic molecules, meaningless in the void of existence, living on an accidental spec of dust in the incomprehensible vastness of the Universe, an anomaly in nature.

Eh, I don't think so. Humans are the rogue cells in the body of the planet Earth. We are the cancers that strive to kill the organism Earth, defying its defense mechanisms, at the mercy of biological inevitabilities.

No, that's not it either. What defines human life is doubt. Until a life can doubt, it is not human. However, it is alive.

This is exactly why I didn't ask for an objective answer with evidence to back up a claim. I just asked:

"What, specifically, do you think defines "human life"? Why?

What is your definition?"

The why part at the end is just a justification for your belief. I'm not trying to get an objective fact of where life starts, but rather to find out how other people feel about human life. The question of "what is the essence of man" might be moot in that there is no scientific fact to prove that ego, empathy, doubt, etc. may be the defining quality of human life, but I think it's still interesting to talk about and hear from other people.



I'm not really trying to get into an abortion debate perse, but I think this can be applied to abortion cases so I used that in the opening post. Since people make choices about whether abortion is good/bad they must have a foundation as to what they believe they are doing when they get an abortion. As I said before, I know this is subjective. All I'm trying to do is stimulate debate on what traits people view as human and what makes us human.

From what has been posted some people believe that one must simply have DNA whereas others feel that certain qualities define, and still others feel a certain developmental level is what defines a human. I don't feel any of there are right or wrong, and everything here may be right on one level or another (we're all winners!).



Just to get this straight, you feel that one becomes human the moment there is a diploid cell?

(emphasis mine) Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.
What bugs me the most about the anti-choice group is the extreme hubris of their absolute certainty of the "rightness" of their position and their reflexive condemnation of the "wrongness" of anyone who happens to disagree. I've always found it vaguely insulting that anyone would presume to assert their "moral" authority over a complete stranger.

There are those who believe murder of even born human beings isn't wrong, so why should we presume to assert our moral authority over them? If you believe something is wrong, it is your right try to prevent it from happening. This sometimes creates Hitlers and sometimes creates Saints, and like it or not, it is simply the way of the world and it would be hypocritical to criticize it.

Speaking as one member of the "Anti-Choice" crowd, your presumptions, about some at least, are incorrect. I don't want to enforce my morals on you. I don't care if, with who, or what, you have sex with, or how often. I don't care if you worship Satan, Mohammed, Homer Simpson, or nothing at all. I also don't care if you wanted to get a mole or even a kidney removed. What does concern society is when an innocent 3rd party is impacted. At that point it is no longer just a life-style choice. If we can't protect our weakest and most innocent, what are we?
Hence this thread...

That is a complete contradiction. You start the post with a well written statement about how you have no desire to impose your morals on anybody, then make a moral statement, which you KNOW many people do not share, about wheither or not there is an innocent third party involved.

Frankly, you think there is. I and many others, arguably a majority of the United States, think there is not. In both of our cases that is a moral choice. I don;t impose my moral choice on you: if you don't like abortions, then don't have one. Why do you get to impose your moral choice on those who believe like me?

Especially when you just went to great lengths to explain how thats exactly what you do not want to do?

A left Handed person mentioned murder, but another analogy (popular with anti-abortion folks) is to slavery. Here's one example that attempts to draw parallel arguments about slavery and abortion:



I probably don't agree withYogurt on when "an innocent third party" comes into existence. I'm partial to Victoria Silverwolf's definition of human life, which is concerned with the organism's capacity to experience suffering. But I don't see any contradiction in Yogurt's position.

The link you made above to slavery is not a particularily viable one. If you use that, I can always counter with some creationist believing with all their heart that the sould of children who learn evolution are in danger, therefore they have a right to impose their belief system on others. Or, if I wanted to go to extremes, the Klan thinking the nation of America is falling apart, and in saving the nation from itself, they have the right to impose their will on others.


EVERYBODY who decides their opinion is more important than another always thinks they have a good reason. Nobody starts a crusade on a whim or because they are bored.

In the case of abortion, the compairason of the Klan is obviously not appropriate, and neither is the compairason of Slavery. Essentially by making that argument, you are saying: some people thought slavery was OK, they were wrong, therefore in this unrelated case people who believe in X unrelated to slavery can be wrong.


The issue of when life begins is not known by science. It is not known by biology. The American Medial Association, the American Medical Students asociation, the American Medical Women's Association, in fact every legitimate national medical organisation in the US, are ALL pro-choice, but if you read the AMA manifesto, they are happy to claim this is a controvercial isue and they will never impose or sanction a doctor for following their concience in this matter.

There is no definitively right answer. Even the bible dies not speak specifically about abortion, it is all inferences and expansions on existing texts which have left many christians with their current beliefs about the issue.


So obviously, it is a matter of individual morality. Given that this is the case, nobody should have the right to impose their point of view on another, especially if that point of view is religious, and especially if it is the minority imposing a moral judgement on the majority, which in this case it is.


In this case, if you don't like abortions, dont have one, and don't perform them as a doctor. But why one feels they have ANY right to impose their beliefs on another against their will in this matter is beyond me.



Thus I stand by my Statement. Yogurt cannot one one hand claim that he has no desire at all to impose his views or beliefs on others, and then in the same paragraph impose his views and beliefs on others. If he really wants to 'protect the wekest and most innocent', then spend time with orp[hans and underpriviliged kids, petition the government for more equitable education, to clean up inner city schools, to provide shelter and housing for homeless children.

There are tens of thousands of REAL children suffering as we speak, why not try and help them as opposed to spending all this time and energy on hypothertical ones?

I know it does not apply universally at all, but there is a measure of truth in the oft-used addage that many pro-lifers cares for the life of a fetus until the moment they are born, then who cares...

I'm somewhat befuddled that you are not able to distinguish between what one does to/with themselves and to/with another person. I didn't think it was a difficult concept.



Not that it matters, but since you challenged, I've been a volunteer firefighter/EMT since the early 70s. Last year alone, at age 50, I ran over 100 incidents and in addition I attended over 200 hours of training. Everything from pink eye to cardiac arrests, and everything from automatic false alarms to residential to 4th alarm industrial structure fires. Many of the afflicted or affected are children.
For this I get to write off about $25 in mileage, but many tears of gratitude.
That's how I have chosen to help my society

I am perfectly able to distinguish between what one does to/with themselves and to/with another person. It is only YOUR OPINION that there is another person involved here. It is YOUR OPINION that there is a third party with full rights which need to be taken into account, though as with most pro-life people you cannot actually decide if it is a person with full rights or not yourself.

It is YOUR MORAL JUDGEMENT that you are trying to impose on others, about what is and is not a person. You have no right to do that.




Kudos to you then, for being one of the few who put their money where their mouths are. And while you get serious karmic points for your commitment to your fellow real, actual men and women, that in the end does not alter the fact that you are trying to impose a minority moral view about abortion upon the majority...

I have to challenge your premise as to when life begins. It never ends. The cells the create the human fetus were alive. The fetus is "alive" and goes through a process of cellular differentiation and growth to create a "baby".

The question is really under what circumstances is it acceptable to kill that fetus.

A reasonable person might determine that it is ethical to do so at an early state in that development process. Another rational person might think that it's acceptable to kill that fetus if the woman would die as a result of carrying it.

But, at the same time, reasonable and rational people could decide, via our democratic process, that it's immoral to kill a fetus as a matter of convenience or kill a fetus that is biologically indistinguishable from a fully developed baby.

The abortion issue is not about "choice". That's a euphemism that has been promoted by those who want an unlimited right to kill that fetus for any reason. It's not about "privacy". We do not have the "right" to commit crimes and/or immoral acts (as designed via our rule of law) while in the state of "privacy".

Instead, the issue is where the line should be drawn where killing the fetus is acceptable to our society. These lines are already drawn in many life/death questions. It's illegal and wrong to kill someone. However, if you do so while protecting yourself (or someone else) from bodily harm, our society has ruled that your actions are not wrong and are justifiable. We need to determine, via our political process, when killing a fetus is "justifiable" in other words.

This debate is long overdue and I welcome it. It's about time that we reach consensus as a nation. I suspect that we'll agree to have abortion, limited to very early pregnancy and under certain regulated circumstances, and that late term abortions except in the most dire of circumstances, would be outlawed.

I agree with your second point, the issue of when terminating a preganancy (or killing a fetus, depending on your choice of terminology) becomes unaccaeptable is the main issue.

But it is not the only isue. The isue of choice IS important and cannot be seperated from the discussion. For example, if fetal development took place in an egg and the children were raised entirely by the state, then the answer of society would probably be different from hat it is now. But that is not the case, the fetus affects the mother and the mother's life and hath enormously, and then it is raised by the parent or parents financially, emotionally and physically.

So choice does enter into it, so does privacy. The government legislating what can and cannot happen inside a woman's body, while it might be the end result, is worrying, and sets an ugly precident.


So the discussion of the main issue should not eclipse or drive out the important secondary issues, nor can we pretend they do not exist, because they do.

That has no bearing on whether a zygote is an organism.

Any discrete living thing with cells that operate on organelles is an organism.

The fact that in the earliest stages the zygote could theoretically become two organism does not mean it was not one in the first place.

Again, much of what you say looks at human life in romantic terms, placing values on what society feels is alive.

Viability and human life are not even nearly the same concept.

There are a few cells that exist as unicellular organisms. Not every cell operating on organelles is a discrete (as in unconnected distinct parts) living thing.


But was it a “discrete” organism prior to, and during, twinning?


I think I’m quite sterile and unemotional about the subject considering the pro-life side’s many emotional platitudes. It’s still better than the usual “You want to kill babies, Lesly. Babies!” I’ll take it as an unintentional compliment.


That would be why I modified my response with: “Questions of viability aside…”

I meant discrete as in "Constituting a separate thing" that is to say not part of any larger organism.


Prior to, certainly.

During.. That's more of a problem. I would agree that during the actual, physical, process of twinning it may be impossible to count discrete organisms.


It was simply an observation on the basis for your previous conclusions about "personhood" and it's relationship to the beginnings of human life.

Strictly speaking they are separate concerns.

This debate deal with a "human life" and that begins at conception.