When does human life begin?

Most have surmised since Kavanaugh that the "viability" standard for abortion laws was going to fall. However, it seems few on the right have wrestled with where life begins now if the standard of viability goes away. Essentially, we are now talking about giving legal rights to someone who is not a person but has the potential to become human. Where, then, is the pre-potential line? It seems to me this issue of kicking it to the states will ultimately need to end up back at SCOTUS to decide this...

Example 1: Hearbeat laws. It seems these will be common-place. At 6-weeks you can detect a fetal heartbeat so that's where we draw the line. But at 6 weeks, the fetus is also legally brain dead and under no circumstances could breathe on their own. We cut off life support for these individuals all the time.

Example 2: Conception. This one's fraught with peril. In vitro fertilization clinics around the country have tossed millions of fertilized embryos. Millions more sit in cryo-storage and will not ever leave. Its mass genocide. Send them to the Hague.

Example 3: Pre-conception. Hundreds of cells with the potential to become human are found in every post-puberty pre-menopausal woman. Unless there's a legal standard that sets a boundary for when a law can protect a potential human from existing, there's nothing stopping state legislatures from restricting morning after pills, condoms, birth control, or substances that reduce fertility.

Viability seemed like a reasonable compromise. Where's the line now, conservatives? Are we just winging it here?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Many states have "fetal homicide" laws, including blue states like California and Illinois, the later of which explicitly extends protection to the unborn starting from feralization, making exceptions for abortion.

Some of these (red) states explicitly define "person" as any human life from feralization to birth. Massachusetts (blue state) extends the term "person" to a viable fetus.

A zygote is a human life since it is a developing life with human DNA. A sperm or egg would not be a human life form since they each only contain half the DNA needed to be human.

But that's the legal side, leaving one important question: when is a life considered a human being scientifically? I'm not sure what dividing lines, if any even exist, must be crossed before scientists consider an unborn a human.

@wildgrass said
Most have surmised since Kavanaugh that the "viability" standard for abortion laws was going to fall. However, it seems few on the right have wrestled with where life begins now if the standard of viability goes away. Essentially, we are now talking about giving legal rights to someone who is not a person but has the potential to become human. Where, then, is the pre-potent ...[text shortened]... emed like a reasonable compromise. Where's the line now, conservatives? Are we just winging it here?

What is the beginning that every life shares, it doesn't start before conception, not
all life shares the same experiences, but all are conceived? Once conception occurs
something new is here, and if allowed to go through all of the normal processes
that each life has it will become something outside of the womb. Just because they
are mistreated by the millions doesn't alter who they are, it only shows they will
never become who they could have been. This is true of every living creature that
has conception in its development, all life so being human means at conception
we are now talking about human life in its earliest stages. If conception never occurs
nothing new will.

@vivify said
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Many states have "fetal homicide" laws, including blue states like California and Illinois, the later of which explicitly extends protection to the unborn starting from feralization, making exceptions for abortion.

Some of these (red) states explicitly define "person" as any human life from feralization ...[text shortened]... hat dividing lines, if any even exist, must be crossed before scientists consider an unborn a human.

Myself, I have relented to say that a baby's life begins reasonably at 28 weeks, but I am not happy about it. Problem with libs is that it should not be called a baby if it is in the womb. What a brain teaser, libs.

@vivify said
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Many states have "fetal homicide" laws, including blue states like California and Illinois, the later of which explicitly extends protection to the unborn starting from feralization, making exceptions for abortion.

Some of these (red) states explicitly define "person" as any human life from feralization ...[text shortened]... hat dividing lines, if any even exist, must be crossed before scientists consider an unborn a human.

I am trying to get at legal not scientific. Roe v. Wade drew the line at viability, when the fetus had enough surfactant to allow it breathe air. Pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions were unconstitutional until now.

Viability = living. A human cell can be viable but that doesn't mean its a human life. A zygote is a human cell but not a human life. It requires a hospitable incubator and a very defined set of circumstances and a long time to become viable as a human. As the OP mentions, millions of blastocysts have been tossed in waste bins. While they have the potential to be human this is not fetal homicide and it's not abortion either.

@kellyjay said
What is the beginning that every life shares, it doesn't start before conception, not
all life shares the same experiences, but all are conceived? Once conception occurs
something new is here, and if allowed to go through all of the normal processes
that each life has it will become something outside of the womb. Just because they
are mistreated by the millions doesn't a ...[text shortened]... e now talking about human life in its earliest stages. If conception never occurs
nothing new will.

..but all are conceived?

But also, everyone's parents were conceived. Every life shares that beginning too, right? Your conception was just the most proximal event of conception before you existed, but all conception events in your ancestry were required for your life to exist. This is true for everyone. If it's commonality you're after, one specific event seem arbitrary.

You mention that something in the womb will become something. That implies that it isn't currently that something. Is viability the something that it doesn't have? When does that non something in a womb become something?

If conception never occurs nothing new will.

Many many conception events occur without a human life forming (it might actually be more than those that do). Before viability the elective abortion is just one of many many circumstances in which conception doesn't lead to human life.

@wildgrass said
Viability = living. A human cell can be viable but that doesn't mean its a human life. A zygote is a human cell but not a human life. It requires a hospitable incubator and a very defined set of circumstances and a long time to become viable as a human.

That's a trickier set of parameters than you realize. Some premature babies require a "hospitable incubator" to keep them alive; same for babies who are dangerously underweight or some babies born to drug-addicted mothers. Without advanced medical technology, these babies would not be viable outside the womb, and can take "a long time" (your words) to become viable without those man-made incubators.

Are such premature babies not human, then? Or those underweight or drug-addicted babies?

"Viability" is a flimsy definition for life. As medical technology advances, viability starts at an earlier time in an unborn's life. In fact, labs can grow a human embryo outside of the womb for 14 days; the only reason it's not longer is due to legal limits.

@vivify said
That's a trickier set of parameters than you realize. Some premature babies require a "hospitable incubator" to keep them alive; same for babies who are dangerously underweight or some babies born to drug-addicted mothers. Without advanced medical technology, these babies would not be viable outside the womb, and can take "a long time" (your words) to become viable without t ...[text shortened]... uman embryo outside of the womb for 14 days; the only reason it's not longer is due to legal limits.

If a baby is born, and takes a breath, then it's a living person. This parameter is no less tricky or flimsy than conception.

@vivify said
In fact, labs can grow a human embryo outside of the womb for 14 days; the only reason it's not longer is due to legal limits.

In fact, legal limits aside, labs can't grow a mouse outside the womb, so they probably can't grow a human either. We'll cross that legal bridge when we come to it but it's science fiction for now.

@wildgrass said
If a baby is born, and takes a breath, then it's a living person. This parameter is no less tricky or flimsy than conception.

You specifically said "viability". You're now adding parameters.

Using your new criteria (can breathe on it's own) a fetus can show the ability to breathe as early as 10 weeks:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318993#how-do-babies-breathe-in-the-womb

While that's still within the first trimester, at least we found the benchmark you were looking for in the OP.

@averagejoe1 said
Myself, I have relented to say that a baby's life begins reasonably at 28 weeks, but I am not happy about it. Problem with libs is that it should not be called a baby if it is in the womb. What a brain teaser, libs.

You relented ?? Relented ??
To a position that you are not happy with ??
What are you babbling on about ??
Just tell us what you believe ?
Or is a notion of when human life begins not part of your mantra on abortion ?

What's your position here ?
And why ??

"Relenting" to a position of when human life begins is nothing more than a cover for your true beliefs on why abortion should be banned.

@vivify said
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Many states have "fetal homicide" laws, including blue states like California and Illinois, the later of which explicitly extends protection to the unborn starting from feralization, making exceptions for abortion.

Some of these (red) states explicitly define "person" as any human life from feralization ...[text shortened]... hat dividing lines, if any even exist, must be crossed before scientists consider an unborn a human.

My belief?
There is biological life and
there is spiritual life....
Just as someone with a heartbeat, but no brain activity,
is considered dead....
It's a common, uncontested practice to pull the plug on
these unfortunates.
Spiritual life begins when an infant independently takes it's
first breath, and inhales the spirit of the surrounding world.
.Not unlike religion, everyone has their own personal beliefs,
and have since the beginning of time.
I don't inflict my personal views on others,
nor welcome theirs upon me.

@wildgrass said

..but all are conceived?

But also, everyone's parents were conceived. Every life shares that beginning too, right? Your conception was just the most proximal event of conception before you existed, but all conception events in your ancestry were required for your life to exist. This is true for everyone. If it's commonality you're after, one specific event s ...[text shortened]... tive abortion is just one of many many circumstances in which conception doesn't lead to human life.

Many things occur that don't by nature turn into human life, and sometimes even
when everything starts properly, it doesn't work out; that too is nature at work. We
are talking about taking something that did occur and running its natural course; a
human is formed. It starts at conception; if conception never happens, life doesn't
start; that is the beginning, the earliest necessary part of existence, it's beginning.

@wildgrass said
Most have surmised since Kavanaugh that the "viability" standard for abortion laws was going to fall. However, it seems few on the right have wrestled with where life begins now if the standard of viability goes away. Essentially, we are now talking about giving legal rights to someone who is not a person but has the potential to become human. Where, then, is the pre-potent ...[text shortened]... emed like a reasonable compromise. Where's the line now, conservatives? Are we just winging it here?

You ain’t a human being until you’re in my address book.

- Bill Hicks -

The truth can obviously and only be, that life is not important in this matter. What matters is when the symbiosis between host and parasite is severed and the parasite can be sustained without the host.

In other words… once the foetus is born and becomes a baby.

@vivify said
That's a trickier set of parameters than you realize. Some premature babies require a "hospitable incubator" to keep them alive; same for babies who are dangerously underweight or some babies born to drug-addicted mothers. Without advanced medical technology, these babies would not be viable outside the womb, and can take "a long time" (your words) to become viable without t ...[text shortened]... uman embryo outside of the womb for 14 days; the only reason it's not longer is due to legal limits.

Sustainability is, indeed, not a static definition. Neo-natal care has made sustainability possible at a much earlier moment.

It doesn’t mean anything to the abortion debate though. Say you can sustain life at 24 weeks (hardly), but a woman gets very bad news at 30 weeks and makes the horrible decision that an abortion is best (and if you’ve been pregnant for that long, it’s not a bloody easy decision to have to make), then there will never be a sustainable life.
The host decides to severe the symbiosis and remove the parasite. Ergo, no sustainability after separation.