On Defining Life

[Lursa]

As do I. Quality over quantity.

And that is a moral stance as well, just like what @choiceone wrote.

 

[weaver2]

You have explained why your "stance" is grounded in biological facts. I'd be very interested in hearing why abortion is murder (the intentional taking of human life) based on exactly what biological fact and what ethics of human rights.

You've emphasized how you "stance" is grounded in morality and logic and principles and rationality but you've not actually said what that "stance" is.

You are using their methods and style of argument.

No they haven't.

An interview with Scott Gilbert - the Node

Scott Gilbert literally wrote the book on developmental biology! With the 13th edition of ‘Developmental Biology’ about to be published, we took the opportunity to find out more about the story behind the textbook, to discuss Scott’s research career and his social and political commentaries in...

thenode.biologists.com

My most recent paper concerns myths that are currently being used in the abortion debate in America. Each of these myths is represented as science, but none of them has much to do with facts from developmental biology. These myths portray fertilization as ensoulment, and depict the woman as a passive entity. I also show that different groups of biologists claim different embryonic stages to be the start of personhood (admitting that ‘personhood’ is not really a scientific concept), and that the notion that all biologists believe that personhood begins at fertilisation is ideology, not science. Some biologists say it begins at fertilisation when you get your genome. Other biologists say it begins at gastrulation, where you become an individual and can’t form twins or triplets anymore. Other biologists have claimed personhood begins when you get your electroencephalogram (EEG) pattern, because that’s when the anatomical correlates of consciousness and pain perception form (and we’re willing to say death is the loss of that pattern). Still others say personhood begin around when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. And some people maintain that personhood begins at birth, when the first breath causes pressure differences that change endothelial gene expression and cardiac morphology, preparing the fetus for life outside the mother.
And ........ ??????

Except for the direct quote from Scott Gilbert MD,PhD this is a pretty muddled post. Apologies offered. Wednesday involved an afternoon with an oral surgeon and an evening full of pain killer, not a combination that produces clarity.

 

[weaver2]

Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. These human rights are considered unalienable in the eyes of conservatives and liberals alike. If, as the Declaration of Independence claims, it is the role of the government to secure these rights for its citizens, then laws should be written to that end.

Of these rights, it is reasonable to argue that the right to life is paramount. After all, if one does not have life, then discussion of all other rights becomes frivolous as they are of no use to the dead. Therefore, it stands to reason on the basis that all human lives are of equal value, that it is immoral for one human to deprive another of the right to life unless it has been forfeit by the actions of the latter.

If this is the case, then the primary question pertaining to abortion is whether an unborn child, from zygote to birth, is to be considered a unique human life with its own rights. If it is, then all claims of necessity, short of threatening the life of the mother, would be subservient to the right of the child to life itself. If it is not, then the moment at which it becomes a human life must be defined and laws must be passed to protect its rights from that moment on.

The biological criteria for life is generally consistent. All single-celled organisms are considered life in a biological sense, so even a zygote would be considered some form of life. The next determination is whether it is human. Taxonomy, which is increasingly driven by genetics, defines a human as a member of the species homo sapiens. This means that a zygote containing complete human DNA could not be taxonomically considered anything other than human.

Thus we see that even as early in development as being a single-celled zygote, it is human life. The final distinction to be made is between that particular cell and any other human cell in the mother’s body. Said distinction is found in the DNA of the zygote. Though genetic testing would certainly show a maternal relationship between the woman and the cell, the new DNA would be unique. This DNA would include genetic information determining the child’s own height, eye color, hair color, skin color, and blood type, among other attributes.

Having defined the zygote as a unique human life, it can be assumed that it will remain a unique human life throughout its fetal development and beyond birth. It is therefore the responsibility of the government to protect that life from undue harm and guarantee its rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such action would include outlawing abortion, excepting cases where the life of the mother is threatened and no other medical aid could save both the lives of the mother and the child.

King George's idea of life, liberty and happiness was filling up the his royal coffers with profits from the work of the colonies.
The Declaration of Independence is just a letter to King George telling him if he doesn't let us pursue our own idea of life, liberty and happiness (property) things are going to get ugly fast. This is not law. Don't try to use it as a legal document to deny women the right to manage their reproductive lives to conform to their idea of life, liberty and happiness.

 

[dockside]

Hi Lursa! Thanks for the question. The point of referencing scientific sources was to establish that even from conception, a zygote is scientifically a unique human life. What you're asking for there is more of a moral question, which is beyond the purview of science. I believe that all human lives have an inherent right to life regardless of developmental stage. If you disagree, what would you say distinguishes a human life not worthy of rights from a human life worthy of rights?

Answering for myself (not for Lursa) as a woman who has had 3 pregnancies and two children. The miscarriage that I had devastated me as I
I was so looking forward to having another child in 7 months. But that blob of tissue that I flushed down the toilet was not the same thing as the actual baby I so wanted. And, after giving birth later one last time and almost dying from internal bleeding, I would not have hesitated to have an abortion, if I ever got pregnant again, to insure that my two children would have their mother in their lives. So, you can believe all you want that a zygote has as much right to be born and therefore never have an abortion. But how dare you foist that belief on me through laws that put the eventual life of a zygote over my actual life.

 

[weaver2]

The point of referencing scientific sources was to establish that even from conception, a zygote is scientifically a unique human life.

You are quoting a cultural myth, more specifically an anti-abortion cultural myth. Science has not said that from conception a zygote is scientifically a unique human life. Here from Scott Gilbert Developmental Biologist: MD, PhD is a brief condensations of his description of the hormones, chemicals, mothers diet, bacteria, and physical events make what is eventually a human being

"(The researchers) asked the question, how is DNA being represented? They found that it was being represented as the secular equivalent of soul. ..... The culture of America believes that DNA is our essence."

But

"The different diets (of two different pregnant mice) actually activated and suppressed different genes, so one (off spring) is obese and golden, the other is sleek and brown, so the genes are not determining their obesity in this case. The genes are not determining their color. It's the environment, the maternal diet that's doing this.
....... maternal care can activate or repress gene expression in rats. Here we see the glucocorticoid receptor in the brain of rats, and depending on whether the rats got maternal care during the first seven days of postnatal life, you either activate or un-activate this particular gene. In both cases, this is due to DNA methylation, this epigenetic phenomena.
We even get a separate inheritance. We get bacteria. As we go through the reproductive tract of the female, we get new bacteria. That bacteria colonizes our gut. Our gut expects it. We get variation. We get finished by the bacteria that we inherit, often through birth."

There are other processes and substances that trigger or don't trigger development throughout pregnancy making it scientifically incorrect to say that at the moment of conception a unique human being is formed.

It is interesting that conservative Christians are fond of quoting science when they think it will advance their cause and the rest of the time is spent denigrating scientific research and proof.

Having defined the zygote as a unique human life, it can be assumed that it will remain a unique human life throughout its fetal development and beyond birth.

Do not use your myths and call it science in support of the beliefs of your religion. Someone will actually know the real science and tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. Thank you Dr Gilbert.

 

[Lursa]

@SilenceDogood appears to have abandoned the thread and possibly the forum. All of 4 posts and none since the initial join date of March 4.

 

[Bodi]

Hi Lursa! Thanks for the question. The point of referencing scientific sources was to establish that even from conception, a zygote is scientifically a unique human life.

Nobody disputes that...

What you're asking for there is more of a moral question, which is beyond the purview of science. I believe that all human lives have an inherent right to life regardless of developmental stage.

Whenever possible that is correct.

If you disagree, what would you say distinguishes a human life not worthy of rights from a human life worthy of rights?

The born person's right's ALWAYS take precedence over the unborn human's rights...

 

[weaver2]

@SilenceDogood appears to have abandoned the thread and possibly the forum. All of 4 posts and none since the initial join date of March 4.

Don't you just love guys like Dogood and "collected" that come over to the abortion sub-forum after having read a pamphlet on pregnancy all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed ready to give badly needed instruction to poorly educated women and men.

They usually open with some earth shaking information like

All single-celled organisms are considered life in a biological sense, so even a zygote would be considered some form of life.

OMG .... life..... and in a biological sense, also. .

Taxonomy, which is increasingly driven by genetics, defines a human as a member of the species homo sapiens. This means that a zygote containing complete human DNA could not be taxonomically considered anything other than human.

Oooo Genes and taxonomy and species. You're right up there with Gregor Mendel and his pea plants.

They discover they really don't have anything new to tell anyone and start lecturing on morals .......... their morals.

Then they leave in a huff of self righteous name calling. It's pretty predictable.