deni wrote:The definition that life starts at birth is not to be easily shrugged off, no matter how retarded YOU think it is. After all, if you expect that a non-parasitic life form should be sustainable by their own, then life begins at birth as birth is the moment when a human should be able to perform all life necessary bodily functions on their own. It is a legit definition in my opinion (although I do not agree with it personally).
It is philosophical argument, one not based on medical science for the reasons Mezz has stated.
deni wrote:I do not know when life begins nor do I think there can be conclusive 'proof' - it is a definition and as every definition it just needs to be stated and not proven.
I agree that defining the moment life begins during a pregnancy is going to be a bit arbitrary, however, it clearly starts prior to birth.
I personally find the argument that life doesn't begin until breath, when the infant takes it's first breath outside the womb to be retard because it ignores the fact that the unborn child is breathing inside the womb, just not with it's own lungs. If you are going to claim that, while in the womb, the child can not be considered alive because it relies on the mother for oxygen, then anyone that has a cardiopulmonary bypass can not be considered alive while they are connected to the heart and lung machine. Not only do they rely on the heart and lung machine for oxygenated blood, they also rely on it for pumping the blood through out the body in place of the heart. This logic can be extended to anyone that has to rely on any machine to survive, such as an artificial lung, or pacemaker. It can even be applied to those using an oxygen tank while scuba diving and astronauts in space.
deni wrote:Considering that over a third of the zygotes do not manage to nidate and over 25% of the remaining zygotes who managed to nidate are flushed away in the first days/weeks after nidation, I would consider the definition that life starts at fertilizations a non viable one. If we consider that life starts in the moment of fertilization, then it would mean that statistically every fertile woman who had unprotected sex is a murderer - even if she never knew about the pregnancy - as many unnnoticed abortions in the first weeks of gestation occur due to women doing physical exercise, lack of progesterone (easily treatable), increase caffeine comsumption etc. With the exception of chromosomic factors that might trigger an abortion in the first weeks of gestation, almost all other factors are behaviour-based making - if the definition that life starts at the moment of fertilization is accepted - almost every fertile woman a murderer.
Your reasoning for why life doesn't begin at conception is based on practicality, but ignores basic tenants of law. Specifically mens rea. The circumstances which you list can not be murder. At the very most, they could be defined as involuntary manslaughter. It is true that if law defined life as starting at conception, it would be a hotly debated topic as to whether or not those acts constitute a high degree of negligence(the requirement for involuntary manslaughter). Some people would take the absolute route and argue that anytime a woman has unprotected sex, she should consider herself pregnant until such a time as it can be proven that she is not and therefore should take appropriate precautions. Others would argue that would be utterly ridiculous and completely impractical. This actually intrigues me.
deni wrote:The high risk of abortion ends after the first trimester - about this time a pregnancy becomes more stable, the hormone storm in the woman's body calms down and the brain and neural pathways of the fetus begin to develop. I prefer the definition that life starts at this point - I could try to justify my positition with the fact that the neural cortex is built in the second trimester and the existence of it makes us the sentient beings we are, but as I said before, every definition is arbitrary and cannot be proven but just stated
You're right that it would be arbitrary, defining when life begins is going to be a philosophical discussion, but atleast this argument is based somewhat on medical science rather than just being purely philosophical. The argument that life begins at birth when the infant takes it's first breath might have worked a hundred years ago, but it doesn't really fly these days. The argument that the bible supports this belief is just a sign of ignorance regarding the bible. It ignores the fact that Adam, up until God breaths life into him, is nothing more than clay. Once God breaths 'the breath of life' into him, he then became flesh and blood.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
If you want to argue it any other way, it's going to require quite a stretch. You will have to assume that the clay instantly turns to flesh, that the heart begins to beat and the man starts to breath before God imparts 'the breath of life' thus giving him a soul.
The body requires oxygenated blood, without oxygen the body will die. So Adam had to have been breathing before God gave him a soul by breathing into his nostrils. But at anyrate, for this to be the case, it would require divine intervention at every birth. Certainly not a stretch if you believe in God. Maybe it is the case, maybe this is why gingers don't have souls.
In fact, I like this argument. I'm going to say that life begins at birth because it is at that point that God gives the infant a soul. Gingers do not have souls because God hates gingers and can not be bothered giving them one when they are born.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
