On Defining Life

[SilenceDogood]

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.

 

[Hari Seldon]

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.

You know what happens when you assume. Did you see France just added abortion as a constitutional right. 92% in favor. Even in Kansas it has majority approval. It's too bad the pro fetus crowd could care less once a child is born.

 

[ataraxia]

By that definition, then the millions of skin cells we shed every day are little humans too. In fact, you can take one of those cells and transform them into embryonic cells very easily by plating them on the right culture media on a cell culture dish. So that can’t be it.

How about consciousness/sentience/brain activity as the criterion? After all, that is the criterion used in most hospitals on deciding when to declare someone “dead” and withdraw life support: absence of brain activity; brain death=death. It doesn’t even matter if there is still a heartbeat. It doesn’t matter if all the other cells in the body are still living cells. There’s no human there anymore once the brain is gone.

In the human embryo, electrical activity doesn’t start in the developing brain until after the 20th week.

 

[Loulit01]

The OP is an excellent example of how not to frame an argument.

 

[Lursa]

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.

So...please source where science, biological "criteria", recognizes value or rights for any unique individual, species, or stage of development?

 

[Phys251]

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.

Life began billions of years ago. Should all life be protected?

 

[Lursa]

Why do I have a feeling that another poster who posted a rather outraged thread about "killing the unborn" and ran into a brick wall of morality, law, and reason, has returned in a new guise attempting a new "angle?"

 

[Lursa]

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.

The born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law. If you disagree, please explain how, with reasoning founded in the law.

Why should the unborn be more entitled to those things than the woman? If you protect the unborn's life without her consent, you violate her rights to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and possibly life. Every single pregnancy risks a woman's life...it cannot be predicted or always prevented. Can it? Is the govt into rolling dice?

While the DOI is not a binding legal document, why should the govt secure those rights for the unborn at the expense of the woman?

 

[SilenceDogood]

So...please source where science, biological "criteria", recognizes value or rights for any unique individual, species, or stage of development?

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?

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

We know a human zygote is alive. So is a bacterium. So is my air fern.

Are human zygotes human, and alive? Yes and yes.

We place a higher premium on human life because we are vain, ergo humans must be more important than anything else that lives, even intelligent elephants and dolphins, which we keep in cages and tanks for our pleasure. We slaughter pigs and cattle without blinking. What if God is a pig, and that is the root of why humans suffer so much? Because keep pigs in horrid conditions, then we bash their heads in and eat them? Ever think of that? But nah, we only consider that abortion could somehow be a terrible thing. It's okey-dokey to enslave, poke at, slaughter, eat, artificially impregnate, do whatever we feel like to any other life. Human life? Oh no! Sacred! Everything else? I'm hungry. Can somebody please go slit that other livng being's throat and dip it in some scalding water so the feathers fall off and then roast it? That'd be great. No wait, lobster sounds good, just drop the little guy in the boiling water alive.

Come on man. We decide what "killing" is evil and which is totally A-ok and it's cultural, religious, selfish, egocentric, or all four.

Great, so, moving on.

If a zygote has the rights of a full term, born human being, then it has rights, full stop. A father must be tracked down and forcibly DNA tested (the mother's body is forcibly being made to retain the fetus, correct? She is not awarded autonomy as the fetus has rights. Well, same with the father then) against the fetus's DNA for a match. This can happen as early as the 12th week of pregnancy via CVS (chorus if villi sampling). The father will then retroactively be responsible for prenatal care from the first appointment and liable for housing and nutrition for the wellbeing of the host (the mother) as poor nutrition and inadequate unhealthy conditions could lead to fetal harm -- child abuse, given the fetus has personhood. It has rights.

There is a lot to consider if we are to decide that a thumbnail sized human DNA combination lacking consciousness, the neurological connections to feel pain, the experience to feel fear, or the capacity to live in any way except parasitically is to be co side reds at this stage, to have the rights of a full term born infant.

 

[SilenceDogood]

You know what happens when you assume. Did you see France just added abortion as a constitutional right. 92% in favor. Even in Kansas it has majority approval. It's too bad the pro fetus crowd could care less once a child is born.

I suppose the assumption I make is false if you kill it, but my meaning was more that left to its own devices, the human life will continue to develop. As for majority opinions, it is dubious to base morality on polls and voting data considering just a few hundred years ago slavery was considered moral by a majority of people. So I would say that though those stats may be true, that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Gordy327]

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.

Science does not equal or make law.

I believe that all human lives have an inherent right to life regardless of developmental stage.

Your beliefs are your own and do not make law either. Neither is there any "right to life" enumerated in the Constitution.

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

Personhood.

 

[Individual]

Life, we all recognize it when we see it.
The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Government does not create life, Women do.

 

[Lursa]

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?

Then why did you use science as the basis for your thread? Nothing in science is influenced by or depends on your 'belief.' Science recognizes no rights, they arent inherent...that's a belief, not science. Rights are a man-made concept.

So again...why are you using science as the foundation for your argument? I can just as easily say I dont believe the same and then ask why you think your "belief" should apply to women that dont believe the same? Should it?

 

[Lursa]

I suppose the assumption I make is false if you kill it, but my meaning was more that left to its own devices, the human life will continue to develop. As for majority opinions, it is dubious to base morality on polls and voting data considering just a few hundred years ago slavery was considered moral by a majority of people. So I would say that though those stats may be true, that's not necessarily a good thing.

That is an excellent observation. Consider this:

Laws denying women abortions remove a woman's consent to her life, (every day, living, loving, working, choosing her own course, caring for others, contributing, etc, not just to save her life) and bodily autonomy (4th Amendment "security of the person"), self-determination, due process, etc. are doing exactly what was done to the American slaves.

We ended slavery for the same reasons. We took away their rights to consent to their own lives and the direction of their lives. What justifies violating women's rights that way? What is the due process required/look like?

 

[Individual]

Prior to birth there are NO exercisable Rights.

 

[SilenceDogood]

By that definition, then the millions of skin cells we shed every day are little humans too. In fact, you can take one of those cells and transform them into embryonic cells very easily by plating them on the right culture media on a cell culture dish. So that can’t be it.

How about consciousness/sentience/brain activity as the criterion? After all, that is the criterion used in most hospitals on deciding when to declare someone “dead” and withdraw life support: absence of brain activity; brain death=death. It doesn’t even matter if there is still a heartbeat. It doesn’t matter if all the other cells in the body are still living cells. There’s no human there anymore once the brain is gone.

In the human embryo, electrical activity doesn’t start in the developing brain until after the 20th week.

I appreciate the rebuttal here, as it made me think a bit. Responding to the skin cells argument, I would say that the skin cells don't constitute unique human life in the same way a zygote would. Sure, they are both single celled, but as the baby develops in the womb, the unique human life would be the growing baby with its own unique features, whereas the skin cell retains the same DNA as the body that shed it. I'm not familiar with plating skin cells, so I'll need to look into that a bit more before I can make a fair response.

As for the consciousness/sentience/brain activity criterion, consciousness and sentience are inconsistent in that when you are asleep you are neither conscious nor sentient, yet no one would argue that it is legal to stab someone when they're sleeping, so those two don't work either. The brain activity criterion is an interesting point because it is spectral, in that the amount and type of brain activity varies greatly. Using a spectral criterion rather than a binary criterion allows for the sorting of humans based on their position on that spectrum. I don't think you'd argue that a someone who is mentally deficient is any less human than a genius, yet they have differing levels of brain activity.

I would still argue that a comprehensive yet simple definition of a human life would be an organism with unique human DNA, as that would include a living human zygote all the way to a fully-grown adult. Thanks again for your feedback, ataraxia!

 

[Lursa]

I appreciate the rebuttal here, as it made me think a bit. Responding to the skin cells argument, I would say that the skin cells don't constitute unique human life in the same way a zygote would. Sure, they are both single celled, but as the baby develops in the womb, the unique human life would be the growing baby with its own unique features, whereas the skin cell retains the same DNA as the body that shed it. I'm not familiar with plating skin cells, so I'll need to look into that a bit more before I can make a fair response.

As for the consciousness/sentience/brain activity criterion, consciousness and sentience are inconsistent in that when you are asleep you are neither conscious nor sentient, yet no one would argue that it is legal to stab someone when they're sleeping, so those two don't work either. The brain activity criterion is an interesting point because it is spectral, in that the amount and type of brain activity varies greatly. Using a spectral criterion rather than a binary criterion allows for the sorting of humans based on their position on that spectrum. I don't think you'd argue that a someone who is mentally deficient is any less human than a genius, yet they have differing levels of brain activity.

I would still argue that a comprehensive yet simple definition of a human life would be an organism with unique human DNA, as that would include a living human zygote all the way to a fully-grown adult. Thanks again for your feedback, ataraxia!

Science has clearly identified and categorized the primates known as Homo sapiens (humans).

An individual human life begins at fertilization/implantation...it has Homo sapiens DNA. Those are objective fact. What does that have to do with value and rights for that human life? Science does not determine that. It doesnt recognize those things for any species...why would it for Homo sapiens?

 

[ataraxia]

I appreciate the rebuttal here, as it made me think a bit. Responding to the skin cells argument, I would say that the skin cells don't constitute unique human life in the same way a zygote would. Sure, they are both single celled, but as the baby develops in the womb, the unique human life would be the growing baby with its own unique features, whereas the skin cell retains the same DNA as the body that shed it. I'm not familiar with plating skin cells, so I'll need to look into that a bit more before I can make a fair response.

As for the consciousness/sentience/brain activity criterion, consciousness and sentience are inconsistent in that when you are asleep you are neither conscious nor sentient, yet no one would argue that it is legal to stab someone when they're sleeping, so those two don't work either. The brain activity criterion is an interesting point because it is spectral, in that the amount and type of brain activity varies greatly. Using a spectral criterion rather than a binary criterion allows for the sorting of humans based on their position on that spectrum. I don't think you'd argue that a someone who is mentally deficient is any less human than a genius, yet they have differing levels of brain activity.

I would still argue that a comprehensive yet simple definition of a human life would be an organism with unique human DNA, as that would include a living human zygote all the way to a fully-grown adult. Thanks again for your feedback, ataraxia!

Sure!

But a couple of additional points: intelligence is not the same thing as consciousness or sentience. No one would argue that a rabbit, horse, or dog are more intelligent than a human being. Yet no one would deny that they are sentient creatures which can feel pain. That is why animal cruelty is considered immoral by most people. And yet scratching an itch, where you are scratching off and therefore killing thousands of living skin cells with each rub, is not considered immoral.

And it’s not true that each of those living skin cells does not have unique potential for life. They have the same unique DNA content as the embryonic cell. It’s just a matter of which of its genes are being turned on and which are turned off. The potential is the same.

Here is a link to how skin cells can be turned into embryonic cells in a lab.

Human skin cells converted into embryonic stem cells: First time human stem cells have been produced via nuclear transfer

Scientists have successfully reprogrammed human skin cells to become embryonic stem cells capable of transforming into any other cell type in the body. It is believed that stem cell therapies hold the promise of replacing cells damaged through injury or illness. Diseases or conditions that might...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[quip]

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.

If indeed we grant - without question - full legal, human rights to the unborn, then such designation entails the mother's right to deny - this fully legal entity - trespass upon her body and welfare, sans her explicit consent.

If, on the other hand, you claim the woman's pregnancy itself requires the responsibility to protect the life of the fetus, then you acknowledge the symbiotic interdependence between mother and her fetus, inherent within the process of human gestation.

In either case, the factual claim that a zygote equals a human life (thus, should be granted equal rights and protection) is - in and of itself - an insufficient argument:

Human rights imply a capacity for personal, independent sovereignty; the unborn are incipient in both physicality and in the capacity for rights.

 

[beefheart]

You know what happens when you assume. Did you see France just added abortion as a constitutional right. 92% in favor. Even in Kansas it has majority approval. It's too bad the pro fetus crowd could care less once a child is born.

Even Ireland made abortion legal. The majority of Americans want it to be legal, safe and available, and every single time it has been put on the ballot, voters have approved it.

If someone doesn't like abortion, I get it, their solution should be to NOT HAVE ONE.

 

[Gordy327]

If someone doesn't like abortion, I get it, their solution should be to NOT HAVE ONE.

One would think it should be that easy. But apparently, some feel that because they don't like abortion, then no one else should be allowed to have an abortion.

 

[BirdinHand]

Excellent.

Now that we have established that a zygote is a human life, can they be claimed on taxes as a dependent? To increase food stamps, welfare, etc because the number of people in a household has increased?

When can I take a life insurance policy out on the zygote?

When is child support going to start for the zygote?

When does Medicaid start for the Zygote?

Since women are going to be tasked with growing these zygotes to babies - when does the paid maternity leave start for the woman?

How about frozen embryos? Can they be claimed as dependents on taxes? Since ZEF are now determined to be humans and protected?

 

[Hari Seldon]

I suppose the assumption I make is false if you kill it, but my meaning was more that left to its own devices, the human life will continue to develop. As for majority opinions, it is dubious to base morality on polls and voting data considering just a few hundred years ago slavery was considered moral by a majority of people. So I would say that though those stats may be true, that's not necessarily a good thing.

How about miscarriages? They happen all the time. More so than abortions. What's dubious is the pro fetus crowd claiming they are pro life when they couldn't give a shit about the baby or mother after birth. Food, medical care, housing, etc. Spare me your dubious morality.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

Excellent.

Now that we have established that a zygote is a human life, can they be claimed on taxes as a dependent? To increase food stamps, welfare, etc because the number of people in a household has increased?

When can I take a life insurance policy out on the zygote?

When is child support going to start for the zygote?

When does Medicaid start for the Zygote?

Since women are going to be tasked with growing these zygotes to babies - when does the paid maternity leave start for the woman?

How about frozen embryos? Can they be claimed as dependents on taxes? Since ZEF are now determined to be humans and protected?

How can enforced paternity testing be put into place and enforced child support for the zygote once personhood and therefore, rights for the embryo are established, retroactive to the zygote stage?