Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

When does life begin?

i have just been into an ethics lesson where we were talking bout when does life begin, conception, viability, ensoulment, birth, or when wanted. does anyone have any other suggestions or comments to make on the above.
thanks halz xxxx

Reply 1

Calvin

Life? Life begins at sensitivity + growth + potential for reproduction + some other things I can't remember, GCSE bioglogy.

Human life? I think probably at a few months after birth when a being can start to have some sort of ambitions and hopes. Abortion (which is what I assume we're going to talk about) is fine before that if all agree.

Reply 2

Dhesi

Different religions believe different times. Catholics believe life occurs at conception but muslims hold another belief which is a few weeks into pregnancy but i cant honestly remember.

Reply 3

halz89

so calvin you are saying that although a baby is breathing and doing most things that u and i are doing now jus because it is not thinking ahead it is not human, is this proven that babys do not think ahead or is it jus what you believe?
and doesnt a baby think ahead , 'should i pee in my potty or behind the chair?'

Reply 4

Calvin

No. I'm saying because babies breath and dont do most of the important things you and I do, it's not human. Squirrles do a lot of the same stuff as small babies, but they aren't people. They're squirrels... obviously... um yeah.
I can't point you to proof, but I imagine it could be proven. Future planning certianly starts to manifest a long long time after current abortion laws set the cut off.
Do babies think they should pee behind the chair? At a month old? Uh... no, they can't get behind the chair at a month old. They just kind of wave their arms. ...A squirrel could get behind the chair, a little baby can't. They don't seem so special to me. :wink:

Reply 5

ofholyname

Dhesi

Catholics believe life occurs at contraception but muslims hold another belief which is a few weeks into pregnancy but i cant honestly remember.

Dont you mean at conception?

lol yeah sorry

Calvin

You are starting to sound worryingly like Peter Singer, who says that babies up until about 10 months can be killed as they are too dependent. Along with anyone with a slight mental or physical disability that stops them from being independent. Also worryingly, he is head of the board of ethics at Havard. Oh dear oh dear.

Reply 8

Calvin

Well, yeah, I guess I am. Though I think "slight mental or physical disability" is a bit of a strawman. He's talking about more viscious impairments than that. Do you not think he appears to have a point?

Reply 9

meef cheese

Calvin

Did you just say it was ok to abort babies after they have been born? :confused:

Reply 10

ice_cube

Calvin

No. you cant just decide when to start or stop someone's life. At what point do you decide a person is now a person? 9 months and 29 days or 10 months?

Reply 11

Calvin

That's an interesting stance, you're not saying "That's terrible, you're drawing the line in totally the wrong place" you seem to be saying we shouldn't draw a line at all. You have to draw the line somewhere, there are good reasons for thinking something like say 2 months old is a reasonable place. No less reasonable than say conception, or first trimester where many other people draw it.

Did you just say it was ok to abort babies after they have been born?

Well yeah, I'm not entirely sure I believe it 100%, but it certainly makes for a provocative discussion and it's something I've thought about.

Reply 12

TCovenant

The main point here is that the categories of 'life' and 'human' are completely irrelevant- furthermore when considered correctly such categories are easily determined: if its got human DNA, it's human; if the cells are reproducing etc. then they're alive. Obviously such categories have no ethical importance. Rather the only important element to consider is 'conciousness,' or more specifically 'personhood' namely conciousness of the self as a being in time, with the capacity for holding preferences.

Singer, who says that babies up until about 10 months can be killed as they are too dependent. Along with anyone with a slight mental or physical disability that stops them from being independent.

Luckily Singer doesn't actually say that. His real position is that any-one who isn't a person, and thus lacks the capacity for pleasure/suffering, or indeed self-concious cannot have preferences for themselves (and thus there is no ethical consideration regarding them), that is not to say that there are never ethical considerations- namely external future effects of their death.

Further, given that Singer believes that ethical action is the maximisation of preferences, it follows that it would be acceptable to kill a neonate if doing so results in something of greater moral importance. Indeed by definition it is morally required to do anything that serves a greater moral purpose. The severely disabled have pertinence to this issue only insofar as if one suffers to such an extent that non-life is preferable to life, then they ought to be terminated, to best serve their preferences. Likewise, if faced with a choice between one infant (who will proceed to live a long and comfortable life) and one who is disabled to the extent that they will live a life that will have greater negative effects- more pain, less happiness, greater external cost, then the better choice, ought to be taken.

Both statements are utterly uncontestable unless you privilage the importance of 'life'- life regardless of conciousness, pleasure, pain etc, or if you hold that direct action is different morally from indirect action of the same effect.