When does human life begin?

@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?

It “began” (evolved from apes we don’t call human) around 3 million years ago and never stopped.

@wildgrass says -
Viability seemed like a reasonable compromise. Where's the line now, conservatives? Are we just winging it here?
------------
Viability is where I settled in. Legal in first 6 months, and no further. Most women could accept this, I think.

As I see it, the woman has more rights to the her own uterus than the embryo does.
In technicality, the woman may still demand in the 7th month to have the embryo removed.
However, it is now her *child* and even if the child were to be removed by C-section, it is still very dangerous
to the child and the woman and doctor can be charged with "endangering a child", or worse.
Hence, just ban abortion after 6 months.

It is a most complicated and difficult law to adjudicate.

@shavixmir said
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, ...[text shortened]... t decides to severe the symbiosis and remove the parasite. Ergo, no sustainability after separation.

I agree that when "life" technically starts doesn't matter, and I've been saying that for a long time. Abortion is a right that shouldn't be infringed, period.

The issue is that pro-choice people minimize the life of an unborn in order to make themselves feel better about abortion: just a clump of cells, not viable, parasite, etc. Doing so completely misses the point of why abortions should be legal: a woman needs to be able to decide her future. Mistakes happen, as is part of being human, and as you said, hard decisions have to be made.

@vivify said
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.

You brought up parameters, not me. I was using your terminology.

I don't really understand what your angle is here. By viability, I thought it was obvious that meant "able to live outside the womb." It involves more than just breathing, but the development of lung surfactant as a step towards viability takes the longest, that's why breathing is such an important part of the timing of the whole deal. Lawmakers settled on that 22-24 week range, when most fetuses would have that ability, a long time ago. Rare examples exist of 19-week fetuses who survive, but this is an extreme exception. Under no circumstances can a ten week old fetus breathe air. Fetal breathing is for lung development, not to be confused with actual breathing.

What I was looking for in the OP was not a semantics argument and a link to medical news today. What I was looking for was, if not viability then what is it? Lots say "conception" but then would early-term abortion be pre-meditated murder? Would everyday activities performed by women (e.g. riding a horse) be reckless endangerment or manslaughter to the fertilized egg? What do we do with IVF clinics who conceive blastocysts in a lab and then dispose of them?

@shavixmir said
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, ...[text shortened]... t decides to severe the symbiosis and remove the parasite. Ergo, no sustainability after separation.

Right. Modern ultrasounds identify most "bad news" around the same time frame (20-24 weeks) where states used to draw the line, but sometimes that takes longer. Of course I agree if a doctor determines that fetal development isn't compatible with human life, those decisions should always be available to women.

But it seems in reality the US is moving the goalpost in the other direction here. I don't see where a "human life begins at conception" line is going to play moving forward. It seems at best unenforceable to call it murder and at worst an excuse to repress women.

@kellyjay said
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.

A blastocyst is brain dead. It lacks organs or limbs or any features that can distinguish its individuality without destroying it. A blastocyst is not viable as an organism or capable of growing into a human outside its human host. From the blastocyst stage onward, differences in degree of maturation exist on a spectrum until birth.

I can see why it is tempting to think conception is the beginning of human life. But there are lots of things that, if they didn't happen, an individuals' life would not begin. Growth inside a human host is also required, and is a shared feature of all human beings. Given all the potential paths of a blastocyst post-conception, conception is an arbitrary goal post. Or at least, it is no less arbitrary as a goal post than others. Viability seems like the logical metric that preserves the privacy, health and autonomy of the human host.

@wildgrass said
A blastocyst is brain dead. It lacks organs or limbs or any features that can distinguish its individuality without destroying it. A blastocyst is not viable as an organism or capable of growing into a human outside its human host. From the blastocyst stage onward, differences in degree of maturation exist on a spectrum until birth.

I can see why it is tempting to think ...[text shortened]... ity seems like the logical metric that preserves the privacy, health and autonomy of the human host.

It’s the individual woman’s choice to make and we should trust that her decision is based on her reality but I understand why it’s an emotive issue.

@wildgrass said
A blastocyst is brain dead. It lacks organs or limbs or any features that can distinguish its individuality without destroying it. A blastocyst is not viable as an organism or capable of growing into a human outside its human host. From the blastocyst stage onward, differences in degree of maturation exist on a spectrum until birth.

I can see why it is tempting to think ...[text shortened]... ity seems like the logical metric that preserves the privacy, health and autonomy of the human host.

We are talking about human life, from start to finish, so when human life is started,
it begins, and at the end of all of the processes, some time afterward, they can sit
around and talk about this, that, and the other thing. Do you think it is a fair
comparison to put up a brain-dead blastocyst next to human life?

@kellyjay said
We are talking about human life, from start to finish, so when human life is started,
it begins, and at the end of all of the processes, some time afterward, they can sit
around and talk about this, that, and the other thing. Do you think it is a fair
comparison to put up a brain-dead blastocyst next to human life?

You've missed the whole point of this thread. A blastocyst has only the potential to form 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?

" 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. "
Without buying into the debate too much, on this point quoted, If a person that was " brain dead " had a high chance of a full recovery, the plug would "not" be pulled. It is incorrect to call something "dead" that is clearly not. It is simply not "yet" functional.

@jimmac said
" 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. "
Without buying into the debate too much, on this point quoted, If a person that was " brain dead " had a high chance of a full recovery, the plug would "not" be pulled. It is incorrect to call something "dead" that is clearly not. It is simply not "yet" functional.

Huh? A person with a high chance of recovery would not be brain dead.

@wildgrass said
Huh? A person with a high chance of recovery would not be brain dead.

Then it's not a good comparison to a fetus is it?

Said it once, said it a 100 times: the start of life is a pointless debate.

A single sperm is alive. Stop squirting them into socks?

A cow is alive. Stop eating cheeseburgers?
A plant is alive. Stop eating lettuce?

All science points towards a faetus not feeling pain until the third trimester (27 weeks).

Educate. Woman’s body. Her choice.
There is no other measurement possible in this. Or, at least, not one which isn’t bad for the health of women.

@wildgrass said
Huh? A person with a high chance of recovery would not be brain dead.

Huh, That is my point. neither is the baby, right??

@wildgrass
Human life begins when you stop being a stressed-out work-slave struggling to pay bills while getting screwed by the ruling sociopaths, and actually find a way to find some freedom to live, similar to what birds and dolphins have.