Does Embryo = Life?

[skills101]

I have been through many arguments about whether or not a fetus is considered alive, coming down to the ideal that abortion is immoral. Some say one's rights are given when they are born, because that is when they become... alive.

I'll just steal a bit of info from my biology textbook that scientists have agreed upon as the characteristics of life:

1. Cellular makeup - from conception, an embryo is made up of cells.
2. Ability to reproduce - even unborn babies have reproductive organs. Just because they cannot use them in the womb doesn't mean they don't have that ability, right? I mean, would you consider a 9-year-old not alive because it doesn't have that ability?
3. Based on Genetic Code
4. Growth and Development
5. Need for materials and Energy
6. Response to the Environment
7. Maintain an Internal Balance/Homeostasis - With the help of the woman's body.
8. Evolution - This is the only one I'm very controversial with. The obvious answer is that it does not, it merely develops. Though I'm not quite sure.

These characteristics apply to all organisms. For example, a virus is not living because it does not appeal to cellular makeup and growth.

Do you agree with this, that an embryo is alive after conception? Or do you believe it takes its rights as a human after labor.

BTW, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in these instances.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Weeell...you know how death is legally determined, right? It's when the brain stops...so I think it's reasonable to at least consider life as beginning when the brain starts up.

Plus, those definitions of life are more intended to describe a representative of a species once it's fully developed, not to describe when life begins in a specific organism.

 

[Linus]

Weeell...you know how death is legally determined, right? It's when the brain stops...so I think it's reasonable to at least consider life as beginning when the brain starts up.

So anything that doesn't have a brain is not living? What about plants, fungi, or bacteria? They do not have brains, but they are still living organisms. Why is it that when someone kills a pregnant woman they are tried for double homocide? It's because the fetus is alive. How can you kill something that isn't alive?

Plus, those definitions of life are more intended to describe a representative of a species once it's fully developed, not to describe when life begins in a specific organism.

You may or may not be correct here, but any group of cells (like a fetus for instance) meets these characteristics of life. I think the real issue with abortion is not whether or not the fetus is alive, but rather whether or not is it a human being. People want to justify killing an unborn fetus if they consider it anything but human.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

So anything that doesn't have a brain is not living? What about plants, fungi, or bacteria? They do not have brains, but they are still living organisms. Why is it that when someone kills a pregnant woman they are tried for double homocide? It's because the fetus is alive. How can you kill something that isn't alive?

I meant for humans, of course (after all, displaying signs of life isn't enough to keep us from killing things, we do that all the time). We're looking for characteristics of human life, and I rather think it's reasonable to define a human life as beginning when the brain starts working (which is around 40 days--funny coincidence, or whatever you want to call it, here, Jewish teachings say that for the first 40 days, the fetus is "as mere water," which is to say, not yet a human being...I was kinda amused when I learned this), seeing as we define the end of a human life by when the brain stops working.

 

[Pah]

So anything that doesn't have a brain is not living? What about plants, fungi, or bacteria? They do not have brains, but they are still living organisms. Why is it that when someone kills a pregnant woman they are tried for double homocide? It's because the fetus is alive. How can you kill something that isn't alive?

With plants, it is a seed or spore until such time as it puts down roots and sends up a shoot to start the respiration and photosynthesis processes. There is NO simularity to animals. A seed is a seed and a spore is a spore and neither are plants.

Many fungi reproduce asexualy or sexualy by means of spores from a fruiting body. Again, it is wrong to consider living animals and fungi together.

Bacteria grow in a nutrional medium and have no life outside the medium.

Do you want to try for viruses? Nah, you really don't want that either.

They are not tried for "double homicide" Get your facts straight.

The fetus is living human cells as is cancer or fingernails but not a human being in the minds of many and especially in the eyes of constutuinal law.

-pah-

 

[Lintu]

An embryo or fetus is just as alive as anything else in the body (as was already said) but does not become a separate human entity until it is wholly separate from the mother. IMHO

 

[Rex]

Wow what a great thread, really makes you think. Again I say why stop at the embryo and go to the sperm. It's alive!

 

[Ellie_A]

Life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies! But on this topic I personally feel that when it comes to the topic at hand that it is when "life" is self sustaning. Not do not meant earning money, I mean breathing, swallowing, existing without a womb.

 

[Linus]

Life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies!

:biglaugh: Great theory.

 

[Ceridwen018]

But on this topic I personally feel that when it comes to the topic at hand that it is when "life" is self sustaning. Not do not meant earning money, I mean breathing, swallowing, existing without a womb.

I've used this argument before in other places, but what about someone who is living in a vegetated state, due to an accident, a coma, etc.? They cannot swallow, breathe, etc. without the help of numerous machines, yet it is illegal to 'unplug' and therefore kill them because there is still brain activity there. In fact, in modern medicine that is the guidline which doctors follow to determine if something is alive or dead--brain activity.

Did you know that an unborn baby has a beating heart and brain activity within 10 days of conception? That's even before the mother could possible know she was pregnant.

 

[Pah]

I've used this argument before in other places, but what about someone who is living in a vegetated state, due to an accident, a coma, etc.? They cannot swallow, breathe, etc. without the help of numerous machines, yet it is illegal to 'unplug' and therefore kill them because there is still brain activity there. In fact, in modern medicine that is the guidline which doctors follow to determine if something is alive or dead--brain activity.

Depends on the type of brain activity and/or depends on the court - but "pulling the plug" is done.

-pah-

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Unquestionably, a fetus is living material - that is beyond debate. Pah is exactly right - the fetus is living, as is a cancerous tumor or a kidney.

I'm in agreement with the statement by Lintu. I hate to see any fetus aborted, but in my opinion, that fetus has no rights at all until the moment after delivery.

TVOR

 

[skills101]

but in my opinion, that fetus has no rights at all until the moment after delivery.

I've heard a lot of people say this, but I'm curious, do you know exactly why you feel that way?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I've heard a lot of people say this, but I'm curious, do you know exactly why you feel that way?

For me, Skills, it is a simple and quite direct answer - until the moment after delivery, the health and life of the mother are the ONLY thing that matters. The moment after delivery, her health and life are completely separate from the baby, and at this moment (for me), the baby is its own person. Until that moment, I would willingly and unhesitatingly trade a fetus for the health or life of the mother.
In another thread, Paraprakrti tried many times to tell me that I knew that this was not true. I think we finally came to an agreement that he could not tell me what I know. I understand (full well) that not all would agree with my position (for a variety of reasons). I have no problem with that.


Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Ellie_A]

I've used this argument before in other places, but what about someone who is living in a vegetated state, due to an accident, a coma, etc.? They cannot swallow, breathe, etc. without the help of numerous machines, yet it is illegal to 'unplug' and therefore kill them because there is still brain activity there. In fact, in modern medicine that is the guidline which doctors follow to determine if something is alive or dead--brain activity.

When I was talking about the infant being able to survive on it's own I meant without machines. This is how I feel about vegitative states too. Now to the law.... make sure you have a living will and the your loved ones know your wishes beforehand.

 

[Simon the Cat]

I would fall somewhere in the middle here. I do think fetus's and embroys and etc... are alive but I don' t ascribe rights to them. Just because something has brain waves doesn't make it worthwhile as an entity. The unborn are all potential which is why all the arguments about giving them rights are so compelling. However, the world they enter into is anything but potential.

Plants are alive, as are dust mites and many other things that people have no qualms about killing. Mole rats have brain waves. Why aren't they considered to be as special as the unborn human child? If we are all about saving every unborn human for its unknown potential can we still in all fairness continue to kill puppies and kittens and eat lambchops and chop down trees? Why is human life given so much value over these others lives? Its not o.k. to abort human fetuses but it is o.k. to abort cat fetuses and have pandas and tigers and hippos practically extinct? Why are we so precious and special?

 

[huajiro]

I have been through many arguments about whether or not a fetus is considered alive, coming down to the ideal that abortion is immoral. Some say one's rights are given when they are born, because that is when they become... alive.

I'll just steal a bit of info from my biology textbook that scientists have agreed upon as the characteristics of life:

1. Cellular makeup - from conception, an embryo is made up of cells.
2. Ability to reproduce - even unborn babies have reproductive organs. Just because they cannot use them in the womb doesn't mean they don't have that ability, right? I mean, would you consider a 9-year-old not alive because it doesn't have that ability?
3. Based on Genetic Code
4. Growth and Development
5. Need for materials and Energy
6. Response to the Environment
7. Maintain an Internal Balance/Homeostasis - With the help of the woman's body.
8. Evolution - This is the only one I'm very controversial with. The obvious answer is that it does not, it merely develops. Though I'm not quite sure.

These characteristics apply to all organisms. For example, a virus is not living because it does not appeal to cellular makeup and growth.

Do you agree with this, that an embryo is alive after conception? Or do you believe it takes its rights as a human after labor.

BTW, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in these instances.

I think everyone knows what I will say on this so, I will make it short and sweet.
I feel that an embryo is a living being and therefore abortion is killing a living being.
I will repeat what I have put in another thread: if you do anything that causes any living being to cease to exist purpously, you are guilty of murder. That is it.

 

[skills101]

Plants are alive, as are dust mites and many other things that people have no qualms about killing. Mole rats have brain waves. Why aren't they considered to be as special as the unborn human child? If we are all about saving every unborn human for its unknown potential can we still in all fairness continue to kill puppies and kittens and eat lambchops and chop down trees? Why is human life given so much value over these others lives? Its not o.k. to abort human fetuses but it is o.k. to abort cat fetuses and have pandas and tigers and hippos practically extinct? Why are we so precious and special?

That sounds like a whole thread all together.

Why does a spider have no qualm about killing a fly, why does a cat not care about killing a mouse, why does a tiger not care about killing a zebra? Why are we considered precious and special? Because we are precious and special. Man has an imagination, pandas do not. And so far, it is o.k. to have an abortion; it's still legal.

 

[Simon the Cat]

But are we more precious and special than pandas? Pandas can live solely on bamboo are born weighing less than a pound and grow to be several hundred pounds - pretty cool in my book (I am not saying I don't think humans are precious and special just that they don't have a lock on it). I am not so much concerned about why a spider has no qualms about killing a fly as why we have no qualms about killing a fly - or a panda (for the sake of argument -here) - but that we do have qualms about killing other humans and that we specifically have qualms about killing living but unborn potential human beings.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

From a human point of view, humans are more valuable than pandas. We are talking about human views and human morals here so this point of view in this context makes sense, methinks. To humans, humans are special. I'm sure that, to pandas, pandas are special, and that's fine all around.