Very true and if someone is attempting to kill me then I shall make sure that he doesn't fall into that error.

"It's not for us humans to decide who should live or who should die."

Let's assume this is true (but actually, I don't think it is, cos humans decide this all the time, so I will start another thread on it).

The question is then this: when does life begin?

It seems to me that an ovum is not a living being, but a full term baby about to be born is.

A fertilised ovum is unquestionably alive, if only because it can die.

For that matter, an unfertilised ovum is alive. So is a sperm.

Trying to find the point where "life" starts is not helpful in analysing this problem. The truth is that there is no point in the human reproductive cycle where the organisms involved are not alive.

Let me be more precise, when does a product of conception become a living human? An organism rather than a cell or a tissue, or a collection of tissues or organs.

This isn't any better. The products of conception are alive at all times - until they die - and they are human at all times. There is no point where the human ovum isn't, well, human.

And I don't think there is a clear division between an organism on the one hand and a "collection of tissues and organs" on the other, as your question seems to imply. An adult human is, after all, a collection of tissues and organs.

I don't think biology is any help to you here. Your question is fundamentally philosophical, not scientific.

According to some on this forum religion is the home of cranks, but it's interesting to watch the secular mind games at play in order to avoid admitting abortion is killing.

If I destroy one of my petunia seedlings when it's tiny and fragile as it is now, or later when it's flowering, I've still lost a petunia plant. The tiny plant however may not have been noticed by anyone except me, and so would not be missed.

Peregrinus,you say:
“The products of conception are alive at all times - until they die - and they are human at all times. There is no point where the human ovum isn't, well, human.”

Well yes, but you miss my point. Any part of a human, removed or ejected from a human, dead or alive, is of human origin. A gamete, a cell, or a tissue, or a product of conception, a collection of tissues and organs, can all be human and all be alive.

My point is, not all these things are human beings. Clearly ejaculated semen is human, but not a human being. I would argue that a live newborn baby is a human being.

“I don't think biology is any help to you here. Your question is fundamentally philosophical, not scientific.”

Philosophically we can define what a human being is. Once we have such a definition we can test this definition scientifically. We can biologically determine where, along the line from sperm and ova, through zygote, embryo, foetus, newborn, toddler, to teenager, where according to our philosophical definition, a being a human being starts in the reproductive cycle.

I would also argue that we can use science and biology to inform our philosophy and ethics. Philosophy and ethics do not work in a vacuum, they are influenced by the facts and fictions of the world, and science strives to bring facts to light.

Opponents of abortion invoke pain and suffering of the foetus as a reason to ban abortion. Determining this is the stuff of biological science and I see this as a legitimate concern. By saying that biology is no help you abandon analysis of this issue.

Christine, the lifecycle of the plant is different from a human. It is not an adequate analogy.

So where does a human being start? ejaculation? insemination? Fertilisation? Implantation? Embryo? Foetus?

What point do you choose?

"but it's interesting to watch the secular mind games at play in order to avoid admitting abortion is killing"

Yes abortion is killing, but the question is what is it killing. Is it killing a human being, or a potential human being?

When the child is still within the mother's body it may be aborted. The knitting needle through the skull was not unknown just before birth, resulting in a 'still-born child'.
This was and possibly still is, acceptable, however if the head is out such an act would probably be considered murderous although the majority of the child is still within the mother and hasn't been born, only the head could be considered 'new born'. Breech births would alter the scenario somewhat as would Caesarian section.
The only logical point to consider the begining of a human is at the moment of conception.
Accept this and then the only argument that needs to be solved is the point at which society will condone the killing of an unborn child.
One month? five months? while the umbilical cord is still whole?
Only when the cord is severed can we truly say that the child is seperated from the mother.

"The only logical point to consider the begining of a human is at the moment of conception."

It is clearly the beginning of the reproductive cycle where the genetic code is in place to create a human being. However, a full genome is not enough to constitute a human being, a lot of environmental things (in the womb) need to happen before that single cell could be called a human being.

I take your point. It’s important, though, to recognise where science can help us, and where it cannot.

You’re using the term “human being”. You don’t define the term, beyond saying that a full-term baby is a “human being”, but from the way in which you use it I think it’s fair to say that you use it to mean something like “a human individual which is developed to a point at which it is not ethical to abort it”.

That’s obviously a philosophical or moral concept, not a scientific one. Not only does the term have a fundamentally moral meaning – it tells us whether a particular act is ethical or not - but it also presupposes that the degree of respect to which a human individual is entitled depends on the state of its development, which itself is of course a moral claim.

Science can certainly illuminate this discussion by telling us how developed a particular human individual is, at least to some extent. If we claim that, say, an individual which can feel pain is a “human being” in this sense, then science can help to tell us at what stage of development it can feel pain, or at least it can identify a stage of development at which it cannot feel pain. But what science cannot do is to validate (or refute) the claim that an individual which feels pain is therefore a “human being” in the sense described.

From the moment of conception, science tells us that the fertilised ovum is a genetically unique living human individual, distinct from both its father and its mother. Science also tell us that at that moment it lacks any distinct organs, and that only at later stages - if it lives so long - will it acquire nerves, any cerebral function, the capacity to react to stimulus, instinct, volition, self-awareness, the capacity to breathe, the capacity to digest, vision, hearing, speech, the capacity to reason, to fall in love, to dream, to compose an opera, to watch reality television, etc.

But science has nothing to say about the moral significance of being a human individual, or of any subsequent developmental marker. Picking a particular capacity and saying that an entity needs to have that capacity in order to be a “human being”, in the sense in which I think you are use in the word, is a moral claim, not susceptible to any kind of scientific testing, validation or support.

I find the discussion lacking in recognition of women as human beings, thinking, feeling with conscience etc.

Do people think the status of female's should be downcast to that of a reproductive organism rather than as people with legal responsibility?

I take your point.

However I suggest that discussion so far has revolved around the moral status of the child not because it is the only one that matters, but because it is the only one about which there is any question.

You can make the point that the mother is a “human being”, in sam’s language, in the fullest possible sense (which, incidentally, is much, much more than a person “with legal responsibility”).

But this is trite; nobody doubts or denies it. Where do you go from here? If you reason that the mother’s humanity and autonomy means that an abortion chosen by her is ethical, it seems to me that you are either assuming or asserting that the unborn child does not have a moral status equivalent to that of the mother.

Which, of course, means that you are now making a claim about the status of the child, not the status of the mother.

One could dispute that it is the beginning of the reproductive cycle, which one might say starts 'when boy meets girl'.

But tell us, Sam, at what point does a human start; if not at the start, then when?

Well, it’s not called the reproductive cycle for nothing.

The whole point of a cycle is that it keeps going round and round; it doesn’t have any beginning or end. As already pointed out, the human embryo is (a) human and (b ) alive from the point at which it comes into existence through the fusion of a sperm and an ovum. But even before that point, both the sperm and the ovum are also (a) human and (b) alive. And they were both ultimately formed by the division of (living, human) cells in a chain that goes back to a previous embryo which was human and alive from the moment it came into existence. And so forth. There is no point at which “human life” can be said to begin, unless perhaps the point at which the human species evolved.

What does have a definite starting point, though, is the human individual. Scientifically, the human individual starts when the sperm and the egg fuse. I don’t think there can be any dispute about this.

Sam postulates another category, the human being, which overlaps with but is not identical to the human individual. That such categories can exist and can have meaning is not a novel suggestion; we all accept, for instance, that not all human individuals are “citizens”.

By and large, categories like “citizen” are not scientific, in the biological sense; science can explain the category, or help us to identify its members, but we create these categories, and attribute significance to them, and use them for philosophical, social, cultural or legal purposes. It is for such purposes that Sam proposes the category of “human being”.

But, I agree, it’s up to him to explain and justify this category, and the significance he attributes to it.

Peregrinus, I like the way you pick my posts apart and force me to think carefully what i mean and be precise about what i am saying

And Samuel, hello again, SamC has returned......... Have you taken the place of MikeM as the elder statesman of the forum? And what news of polly?

“The whole point of a cycle is that it keeps going round and round; it doesn’t have any beginning or end.”

Yes, but an individual human has a clear beginning, when its genome is assembled. This takes fertilisation.

“You’re using the term “human being”. You don’t define the term, beyond saying that a full-term baby is a “human being””

I haven’t worked out where that point is. I suspect I would use ability to survive outside the womb unassisted, and capacity to feel pain, as key factors. I am open to discussion on this. What I do know is that before 4 months I currently have no ethical concerns about elective abortion for whatever reason a woman chooses.

After 7 months I think that I would classify the unborn as a human being, probably leaning toward 6 months.

“I think it’s fair to say that you use it to mean something like “a human individual which is developed to a point at which it is not ethical to abort it”.

Well, sort of. Ethical decisions are rarely absolute for me, each decision has its own circumstances. I see this as the difference between morality and ethics, and I do not use these words interchangeably.

A moral code is usually a set of inviolable rules, much like the law. Usually religious, or at least cultural law. I am not so black and white, or at least not on most issues.

For me ethics is the theory and process of making decisions, typically where none of the decisions are ideal and any option has a negative impact on someone.

But back to the issue, I see abortion choice as a complete unfettered right of a woman until we give the POC the status of being a human being. (I use POC simply because it covers zygote, embryo, foetus) As I said above, I believe that this is no earlier than 4 months. Once the POC becomes a ‘human being’ that is the point where we must consider the rights of the unborn.

Even when an unborn is defined as a human being I still believe there would be cases where abortion is justified, such as a significant threat to the health of the mother.

Ideally, in an modern society, we would give women all the support and resources they need to make a decision on an abortion by 4 months, and definitely by 6 months.

"But, I agree, it’s up to him to explain and justify this category, and the significance he attributes to it."

I agree too, but there is precious little explanation and justification on the topic of abortion, just a lot of uncommitted 'please explains' and morally outraged 'you are condoning murder' or absolute 'woman's right'.

And note, I believe if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant it is always her right, even to 9 months, but once again, hopefully society will offer the resources to ensure that this decision is taken sooner rather than later.

Sam,
Hello yourself.
"Have you taken the place of MikeM as the elder statesman of the forum? And what news of polly?"

Who could take the place of the knowledgeable and erudite Mike M?
Elder(ly) I may be but no statesman (although I drive a 1999 model).
Polly, unfortunately, is but a ghost that don't post; although I sometimes feel her hovering near.

And is MikeM still around?