As I am new to this forum, please forgive me if this is an issue that is continually debated, but I am wondering what are people's opinions on when "life" (defined however you wish) begins since, to me, that seems to be the whole point of the abortion debate. (to those who say that the point is the choice of a woman, I agree, but I also think that one person's choice ends when the other person's "life" begins; ergo, we must first define the beginnings of "life" before we can decide when choice is appropriate)

I imagine that most in the pro-life camp believe that life begins immediately at conception. While I'm not particularly inclined to believe that (particularly when that means thousands of "lives" are being frozen in perpetuity in in-vitro fertilization clinics), I can at least understand their talking points due to their well-defined starting point for life.

For those who disagree with this starting point, when do you think life begins? I'm honestly not sure. As I said above, I don't necessarily think it begins at conception, but I also think that the fetus is a "life" at 8.5 months even though it's not yet been born. I'm having trouble defining when the fetus turned into a life during that timeframe, though.

I think it's a little trickier than that. There are really two questions: when does "life" begin, and when does "personhood" begin? The first may inform our legal thinking as well as our moral choices, but the second is how our tradition of law ultimately decides such matters.

On the second question the legal precedent is conflicting, but it all seems to agree that personhood begins no sooner than "quickening" (that is, the first detection of movement by the mother) or viability. The conflict is illustrated by the fact that if one kills a pregnant woman's unborn child, in many jurisdictions that act would be classed as a homicide, not a maiming of the mother, but OTOH, there is no civil case for wrongful death because a child cannot have any cause of action until it is born alive.

(The former principle has always troubled me from a legal standpoint, though not so much from a moral one. If an embryo or fetus is a person it is a person and if not it is not; personhood isn't subjective, you can't be a person to some people and not to others. If it is a person, then abortion is by definition murder; therefore, if abortion isn't to be murder, an unborn child cannot be a person. Consent can't change that because under our law there is no valid consent to murder, by the victim, the victim's guardian, or anyone else. But then how can a third-party assailant be charged with murder, as opposed to some sort of felonious assault, if no person has died?)

The tough thing IMO is rationally justifying a policy that personhood begins at birth even if life begins earlier, but doing so in a manner that doesn't carry the potential for classifying other helpless, unconscious, wholly dependent human beings as nonpersons. The location of the fetus doesn't do it for me. On the other hand it's hard to see a single fertilized egg as a person, genetically distinct though it may be. I don't have a good answer on how to draw the line.

I personally believe that life does not begin at conception but is already present in the sperm and the egg. To me, life is a continuim stretching back to the primeival ooze and ending with death of an individual organism. Others believe differently and have every right to do so. What people do not have the right to do is dictate the beliefs of others based on their personal beliefs. The question is not "when does life begin" but "when the interest of the state in protecting life." While only extremists think that life in the single cellular age is worth of protection by the state most people believe that a 9 month old fetus does.

Currently our Roe v Wade allows unrestricted right to abortion in the first trimester and allows for increasing restrictions based on the age of the fetus. To me that balances the rights of the woman with the interest of the state in protecting life.

I agree with Bruce; your distinction of "life" from "personhood" is what I was trying to get at (without unduly influencing anyone) in my comment of ".."life" (defined however you wish)" statement in the OP. I'm not sure I agree with your statement that all seem to agree that life begins no sooner than the "quickening", which generally occurs around 20 weeks or so. Why is this is the agreed-upon time for "life" rather than the development of the circulatory system and a heartbeat or the development of the CNS and brainwave activity?

As you say, it's a tricky subject, and it's one that (at least from what I've read) does not seem to get as much pub in opinion pieces. This is a shame since this seems (to me) the central issue of the entire debate. (if there is no "life" -- or "person" -- then there is no murder, and vice-versa)

Another interesting point that you mentioned was when you said
"The tough thing IMO is rationally justifying a policy that personhood begins at birth even if life begins earlier, but doing so in a manner that doesn't carry the potential for classifying other helpless, unconscious, wholly dependent human beings as nonpersons."

The ramifications of just such a policy would undoubtedly be far-ranging.

Thanks for the reply.

Collins4th:

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that all seem to agree that life begins no sooner than the "quickening", which generally occurs around 20 weeks or so. Why is this is the agreed-upon time for "life" rather than the development of the circulatory system and a heartbeat or the development of the CNS and brainwave activity?

Probably because by the time any of the latter bacame knowable it had already started to be a highly charged political issue.

When I said "all seem to agree..." I meant all the old precedents, not all people or all legal scholars today.

carol h:

What people do not have the right to do is dictate the beliefs of others based on their personal beliefs.

Nonsense. We dictate the belief that people of all races are equally human, don't we? How about the belief that those with severe birth or developmental disorders are people? You're required to follow those policies and obey the laws based on them whether you personally agree with them or not. And there's nothing wrong with that.

It's really the other way around - you don't get to write your own laws based on your personal beliefs.

Currently our Roe v Wade allows unrestricted right to abortion in the first trimester and allows for increasing restrictions based on the age of the fetus. To me that balances the rights of the woman with the interest of the state in protecting life.

Why does the state have any interest in protecting any life, including yours?

It is in the Constitution: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." People can disagree if this is a legitimate function of the state, but in our country we have agreed that it is.

the true conservative:

Currently our Roe v Wade allows unrestricted right to abortion in the first trimester and allows for increasing restrictions based on the age of the fetus. To me that balances the rights of the woman with the interest of the state in protecting life.

Why does the state have any interest in protecting any life, including yours?

Bogus question. If the state has no obligation in protecting my right to live then what is its purpose? There can be no individual liberty without an acknowledged right to live.

carol h:

It is in the Constitution: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." People can disagree if this is a legitimate function of the state, but in our country we have agreed that it is.

1. First of all, that's not in the constitution.

2. More importantly, if we have agreed that this is a legitimate function of the state, then on what basis do you deny this protection to some of your fellow humans?

Bogus question. If the state has no obligation in protecting my right to live then what is its purpose? There can be no individual liberty without an acknowledged right to live.

Precisely! Which is exactly why abortion should be illegal. The right to life is the foundation of all other liberties.

After all, every conception begins with an erection, no? If a one-celled fertilized egg is "life" because it has the potential to develop into a person, then an erection is no less the same as potential life, and the opportunity for it to come (pun intended) to the resolution God obviously intended is a right that should be protected by law! Nevermind that it's not always a sure thing that ejaculation inside a woman's body will naturally lead to a human being. It's not always a sure thing that a fertilized egg will naturally lead to one, either. The point is that a hard-on represents the POTENTIAL to directly result in what everyone agrees would be a full-fledged person, a person that needs to be protected from getting killed! So Ladies, think of all the humanity you are potentially destroying when you say "No." (It also goes without saying that birth control = murder.)

I hope everyone knows that is meant as a joke. (However, I imagine that someone running for political office on that platform will garner his share of votes from randy frat boys ...) I just wanted to suggest that even the pro-life position that life begins at conception is arbitrary, as arbitrary as the first-trimester line currently used to delineate the unfettered right to abortion.

the true conservative:

Bogus question. If the state has no obligation in protecting my right to live then what is its purpose? There can be no individual liberty without an acknowledged right to live.

Precisely! Which is exactly why abortion should be illegal. The right to life is the foundation of all other liberties.

But the question then becomes what constitutes a life. When I go home and begin my masterbation regimen (See this weeks Dear Prudence) so I can last too long, should the state come prosecute me. After all sperm are technically alive.

We agree, presumably, that preconception cells are not a life deserving of State protection. We also agree that an infant at birth IS a life deserving of State protection. The USSC has ruled that at viability (or the point at which it becomes a separate human life) the duty of the State to protect that life outweighs the right of the woman to control her reproduction. I have no problem with this. Why do you?

Tarkol:

But the question then becomes what constitutes a life. When I go home and begin my masterbation regimen (See this weeks Dear Prudence) so I can last too long, should the state come prosecute me. After all sperm are technically alive.

We agree, presumably, that preconception cells are not a life deserving of State protection.

Hey buddy, maybe that's too much of a presumption. (see my post above).

x.tango:

Tarkol:

But the question then becomes what constitutes a life. When I go home and begin my masterbation regimen (See this weeks Dear Prudence) so I can last too long, should the state come prosecute me. After all sperm are technically alive.

We agree, presumably, that preconception cells are not a life deserving of State protection.

Hey buddy, maybe that's too much of a presumption. (see my post above).

I agree it may be.