Does science define life as “beginning at conception”?Can scientists create a life-form yet?Have scientists demonstrated an absent protein can cause chicks to be born with scales rather than feathers (as well as reptile scales to feathers)?Could life begin by chance?Are the origins of Rh- blood unexplained by science?Life (i.e. cells) originated from clayHas a human baby's heart started beating only 18 days after conception?Of all humans ever born, did most men not become fathers?Russian scientist injects himself with 3.5 million-year-old bacteria, says he is now stronger and hasn't gotten ill in 2 yearsDoes going to concerts increase life expectancy?Does elective single embryo transfer (eSET) reduce pro-life hangups against IVF?

Good examples of "two is easy, three is hard" in computational sciences

Why favour the standard WP loop over iterating over (new WP_Query())->get_posts()?

Managing heat dissipation in a magic wand

Who is frowning in the sentence "Daisy looked at Tom frowning"?

Richard's Favourite TV Programme

Does a windmilling propeller create more drag than a stopped propeller in an engine out scenario

How do you cope with rejection?

"File type Zip archive (application/zip) is not supported" when opening a .pdf file

Bash - Execute two commands and get exit status 1 if first fails

Is there any official Lore on Keraptis the Wizard, apart from what is in White Plume Mountain?

Addressing an email

Is a reptile with diamond scales possible?

How come Arya Stark wasn't hurt by this in Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 5?

What should I wear to go and sign an employment contract?

How to plot a surface from a system of equations?

Can I have a delimited macro with a literal # in the parameter text?

Why were early aviators' trousers flared at the thigh?

Cycling to work - 30 mile return

Was murdering a slave illegal in American slavery, and if so, what punishments were given for it?

Is it wise to pay off mortgage with 401k?

Can't think of a good word or term to describe not feeling or thinking

Is being an extrovert a necessary condition to be a manager?

DISTINCT NULL return single NULL in SQL Server

What is the word for interior with a circle



Does science define life as “beginning at conception”?


Can scientists create a life-form yet?Have scientists demonstrated an absent protein can cause chicks to be born with scales rather than feathers (as well as reptile scales to feathers)?Could life begin by chance?Are the origins of Rh- blood unexplained by science?Life (i.e. cells) originated from clayHas a human baby's heart started beating only 18 days after conception?Of all humans ever born, did most men not become fathers?Russian scientist injects himself with 3.5 million-year-old bacteria, says he is now stronger and hasn't gotten ill in 2 yearsDoes going to concerts increase life expectancy?Does elective single embryo transfer (eSET) reduce pro-life hangups against IVF?













1















The following link makes such a claim



https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html




The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:




I suspect this might be cherry picking.










share|improve this question



















  • 10





    Scientists argue about whether viruses should be considered living organisms or not (and the only reasonable correct answer, from a scientific standpoint, is "it depends on your definition"). Going to science looking for a binary decision on something you intend to answer a moral question is not a good idea, because nuance is an integral part of the scientific method.

    – Bryan Krause
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    @BarryHarrison If your definition of "living organism" is "they can reproduce by themselves without a host" then you are correct (and this is often the trivia answer). However, there are lots of examples of things considered living organisms that fail that definition, including quite complex ones (most parasites need a host to reproduce, for example). Same thing for the title question: if you define human development as beginning at the point of fertilization, then that is the starting point, by definition. That doesn't give you any more information, it's just a definition.

    – Bryan Krause
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Science can't make moral judgements. But it can, sometimes, provide relevant facts that inform those judgements. Such as the percentage of viable conceptions that result in established pregnancies or the percentage of implanted embryos that lead to established pregnancies. If full human life is said to begin at conception most people die before birth.

    – matt_black
    3 hours ago






  • 3





    Whether or not that clump of cells constitutes life is trivial. The cells are inarguably human, but whether or not they are a separate being who has achieved "personshood" is the central argument between pro/anti abortion activists.

    – PC Luddite
    3 hours ago







  • 3





    @Fizz that article doesn't make a good distinction between simply life and personhood. Science can (mostly) answer the former while the latter is a philosophical question that can never be addressed scientifically.

    – PC Luddite
    2 hours ago















1















The following link makes such a claim



https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html




The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:




I suspect this might be cherry picking.










share|improve this question



















  • 10





    Scientists argue about whether viruses should be considered living organisms or not (and the only reasonable correct answer, from a scientific standpoint, is "it depends on your definition"). Going to science looking for a binary decision on something you intend to answer a moral question is not a good idea, because nuance is an integral part of the scientific method.

    – Bryan Krause
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    @BarryHarrison If your definition of "living organism" is "they can reproduce by themselves without a host" then you are correct (and this is often the trivia answer). However, there are lots of examples of things considered living organisms that fail that definition, including quite complex ones (most parasites need a host to reproduce, for example). Same thing for the title question: if you define human development as beginning at the point of fertilization, then that is the starting point, by definition. That doesn't give you any more information, it's just a definition.

    – Bryan Krause
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Science can't make moral judgements. But it can, sometimes, provide relevant facts that inform those judgements. Such as the percentage of viable conceptions that result in established pregnancies or the percentage of implanted embryos that lead to established pregnancies. If full human life is said to begin at conception most people die before birth.

    – matt_black
    3 hours ago






  • 3





    Whether or not that clump of cells constitutes life is trivial. The cells are inarguably human, but whether or not they are a separate being who has achieved "personshood" is the central argument between pro/anti abortion activists.

    – PC Luddite
    3 hours ago







  • 3





    @Fizz that article doesn't make a good distinction between simply life and personhood. Science can (mostly) answer the former while the latter is a philosophical question that can never be addressed scientifically.

    – PC Luddite
    2 hours ago













1












1








1








The following link makes such a claim



https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html




The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:




I suspect this might be cherry picking.










share|improve this question
















The following link makes such a claim



https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html




The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:




I suspect this might be cherry picking.







biology abortion






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









Fizz

11.1k24086




11.1k24086










asked 5 hours ago









Jacob BlausteinJacob Blaustein

629411




629411







  • 10





    Scientists argue about whether viruses should be considered living organisms or not (and the only reasonable correct answer, from a scientific standpoint, is "it depends on your definition"). Going to science looking for a binary decision on something you intend to answer a moral question is not a good idea, because nuance is an integral part of the scientific method.

    – Bryan Krause
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    @BarryHarrison If your definition of "living organism" is "they can reproduce by themselves without a host" then you are correct (and this is often the trivia answer). However, there are lots of examples of things considered living organisms that fail that definition, including quite complex ones (most parasites need a host to reproduce, for example). Same thing for the title question: if you define human development as beginning at the point of fertilization, then that is the starting point, by definition. That doesn't give you any more information, it's just a definition.

    – Bryan Krause
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Science can't make moral judgements. But it can, sometimes, provide relevant facts that inform those judgements. Such as the percentage of viable conceptions that result in established pregnancies or the percentage of implanted embryos that lead to established pregnancies. If full human life is said to begin at conception most people die before birth.

    – matt_black
    3 hours ago






  • 3





    Whether or not that clump of cells constitutes life is trivial. The cells are inarguably human, but whether or not they are a separate being who has achieved "personshood" is the central argument between pro/anti abortion activists.

    – PC Luddite
    3 hours ago







  • 3





    @Fizz that article doesn't make a good distinction between simply life and personhood. Science can (mostly) answer the former while the latter is a philosophical question that can never be addressed scientifically.

    – PC Luddite
    2 hours ago












  • 10





    Scientists argue about whether viruses should be considered living organisms or not (and the only reasonable correct answer, from a scientific standpoint, is "it depends on your definition"). Going to science looking for a binary decision on something you intend to answer a moral question is not a good idea, because nuance is an integral part of the scientific method.

    – Bryan Krause
    4 hours ago






  • 4





    @BarryHarrison If your definition of "living organism" is "they can reproduce by themselves without a host" then you are correct (and this is often the trivia answer). However, there are lots of examples of things considered living organisms that fail that definition, including quite complex ones (most parasites need a host to reproduce, for example). Same thing for the title question: if you define human development as beginning at the point of fertilization, then that is the starting point, by definition. That doesn't give you any more information, it's just a definition.

    – Bryan Krause
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Science can't make moral judgements. But it can, sometimes, provide relevant facts that inform those judgements. Such as the percentage of viable conceptions that result in established pregnancies or the percentage of implanted embryos that lead to established pregnancies. If full human life is said to begin at conception most people die before birth.

    – matt_black
    3 hours ago






  • 3





    Whether or not that clump of cells constitutes life is trivial. The cells are inarguably human, but whether or not they are a separate being who has achieved "personshood" is the central argument between pro/anti abortion activists.

    – PC Luddite
    3 hours ago







  • 3





    @Fizz that article doesn't make a good distinction between simply life and personhood. Science can (mostly) answer the former while the latter is a philosophical question that can never be addressed scientifically.

    – PC Luddite
    2 hours ago







10




10





Scientists argue about whether viruses should be considered living organisms or not (and the only reasonable correct answer, from a scientific standpoint, is "it depends on your definition"). Going to science looking for a binary decision on something you intend to answer a moral question is not a good idea, because nuance is an integral part of the scientific method.

– Bryan Krause
4 hours ago





Scientists argue about whether viruses should be considered living organisms or not (and the only reasonable correct answer, from a scientific standpoint, is "it depends on your definition"). Going to science looking for a binary decision on something you intend to answer a moral question is not a good idea, because nuance is an integral part of the scientific method.

– Bryan Krause
4 hours ago




4




4





@BarryHarrison If your definition of "living organism" is "they can reproduce by themselves without a host" then you are correct (and this is often the trivia answer). However, there are lots of examples of things considered living organisms that fail that definition, including quite complex ones (most parasites need a host to reproduce, for example). Same thing for the title question: if you define human development as beginning at the point of fertilization, then that is the starting point, by definition. That doesn't give you any more information, it's just a definition.

– Bryan Krause
4 hours ago





@BarryHarrison If your definition of "living organism" is "they can reproduce by themselves without a host" then you are correct (and this is often the trivia answer). However, there are lots of examples of things considered living organisms that fail that definition, including quite complex ones (most parasites need a host to reproduce, for example). Same thing for the title question: if you define human development as beginning at the point of fertilization, then that is the starting point, by definition. That doesn't give you any more information, it's just a definition.

– Bryan Krause
4 hours ago




2




2





Science can't make moral judgements. But it can, sometimes, provide relevant facts that inform those judgements. Such as the percentage of viable conceptions that result in established pregnancies or the percentage of implanted embryos that lead to established pregnancies. If full human life is said to begin at conception most people die before birth.

– matt_black
3 hours ago





Science can't make moral judgements. But it can, sometimes, provide relevant facts that inform those judgements. Such as the percentage of viable conceptions that result in established pregnancies or the percentage of implanted embryos that lead to established pregnancies. If full human life is said to begin at conception most people die before birth.

– matt_black
3 hours ago




3




3





Whether or not that clump of cells constitutes life is trivial. The cells are inarguably human, but whether or not they are a separate being who has achieved "personshood" is the central argument between pro/anti abortion activists.

– PC Luddite
3 hours ago






Whether or not that clump of cells constitutes life is trivial. The cells are inarguably human, but whether or not they are a separate being who has achieved "personshood" is the central argument between pro/anti abortion activists.

– PC Luddite
3 hours ago





3




3





@Fizz that article doesn't make a good distinction between simply life and personhood. Science can (mostly) answer the former while the latter is a philosophical question that can never be addressed scientifically.

– PC Luddite
2 hours ago





@Fizz that article doesn't make a good distinction between simply life and personhood. Science can (mostly) answer the former while the latter is a philosophical question that can never be addressed scientifically.

– PC Luddite
2 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














Interestingly there's a survey: "Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'", 2018 of US biologists on this (the choice of profession/experts was motivated by a pre-survey of the US population at large):




Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins.



A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).



Historically, the descriptive view on when life begins has dictated the normative view that drives America's abortion laws: (1) abortion was illegal at ‘quickening’ under 18th century common law, (2) abortion was illegal at ‘conception’ in state laws from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and (3) abortion is currently legal before ‘viability’ due to 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy.




But do note (as the 3rd para [I added the breaks for readability] says) that that doesn't imply anything about viability/personhood. The fact that these are distinct questions is emphasized in other (scientific) sources:




In this paper we show that the question, "When does human life begin?", is not one question, but three. The first question is, "When does human biological life begin?", and is a scientific question. A brief review of embryology is provided to answer this question. The second question is, "When do obligations to protect human life begin?", and is a question of general theological and philosophical ethics. A brief review of major world religions and philosophy is provided to answer this question but has no settled answer and therefore involves irresolvable controversy. The third question is, "How should physicians respond to disagreement about when obligations to protect human life begin?" and is a question for professional medical ethics.




The science in this latter paper is nothing unconventional, i.e. it's consistent with the majority view from the other one.



Some (interesting, I hope) details from the survey (first paper). They asked 4 question of biologists:




Q1 - Implicit Statement A: “The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new
mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’
genome.”



Q2 - Implicit Statement B: “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the
spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a
new organism, the zygote.”



Q3 - Explicit Statement “In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human's life since
that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop
in the first stage of the human life cycle.”



Q4 - Open-Ended Essay Question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question ‘When does a
human's life begin?’”




And some charts for the responses (for the first two questions there was no [graphical] breakdown of political orientation; there is some in a table, but it's two pages long):




enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here




For the last question, there was manual coding of the free-form responses into those categories.



The "95% consensus" may be a little exaggerated because it was derived by evaluating whether each subject affirmed at least one of Q1-Q3 (i.e. logical ORing).




LangLangC asks some intersting (terminolgoy) questions. One way to solve these is as in the 2nd paper I mentioned.




A human being originates from two living cells: the
oocyte and the spermatozoon, transmitting the torch of
life to the next generation. [...] After syngamy, the zygote undergoes mitotic cell division
as it moves down the fallopian tube toward the
uterus. A series of mitotic divisions then leads to the
development of the preembryo. [...]



The pre-embryo is the structure that exists from the
end of the process of fertilization until the appearance of
a single primitive streak. Until the completion of implantation
the pre-embryo is capable of dividing into multiple
entities, but does not contain enough genetic information
to develop into an embryo: it lacks genetic material from
maternal mitochondria and of maternal and parental
genetic messages in the form of messenger RNA or
proteins.



A key stage in embryonic development is the emergence
of an individual human being. ‘‘Individual’’ means
that an entity (1) can be distinguished from other entities
and (2) is indivisible, i.e., it cannot be divided or split into
two members of the same species. An entity meeting the
first criterion, but not the second, is a distinct but not
individual entity. The pre-embryo, because it can divide
into monozygotic twins is a distinct but not individual
entity. The embryo, by contrast, no longer divides into
monozygotic twins and so it meets both criteria for being
an individual.



Distinct human life begins when there is a distinct entity,
the pre-embryo, resulting from the process of conception.
There is no ‘‘moment’’ of conception, a phrase that
has no biological application. Individual human life
begins later, with the emergence of the embryo. There is
no ‘‘moment’’ at which this occurs either. The beginnings
of human life involve complex biological processes that
occur over time.




The latter terminology "distinct human life", "individual human life" is probably not so well-established... But in this sense, an (unfertilized) egg or sperm is not "distinct human life" from its host/producer.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Nice line. But getting a bit philosophical, after discarding all normative doctrine, "life begins": wouldn't this also imply that sperm and egg aren't 'alive', meaning 'dead'? – The normative angle cannot be cast away, as the question itself is loaded with its goals, and even more so: axioms, and biologically – 'problematic'?

    – LangLangC
    59 mins ago






  • 1





    @LangLangC: I didn't really want to get into that here, but since you asked, and I had read that already... see expansion/edit.

    – Fizz
    46 mins ago


















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














Interestingly there's a survey: "Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'", 2018 of US biologists on this (the choice of profession/experts was motivated by a pre-survey of the US population at large):




Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins.



A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).



Historically, the descriptive view on when life begins has dictated the normative view that drives America's abortion laws: (1) abortion was illegal at ‘quickening’ under 18th century common law, (2) abortion was illegal at ‘conception’ in state laws from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and (3) abortion is currently legal before ‘viability’ due to 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy.




But do note (as the 3rd para [I added the breaks for readability] says) that that doesn't imply anything about viability/personhood. The fact that these are distinct questions is emphasized in other (scientific) sources:




In this paper we show that the question, "When does human life begin?", is not one question, but three. The first question is, "When does human biological life begin?", and is a scientific question. A brief review of embryology is provided to answer this question. The second question is, "When do obligations to protect human life begin?", and is a question of general theological and philosophical ethics. A brief review of major world religions and philosophy is provided to answer this question but has no settled answer and therefore involves irresolvable controversy. The third question is, "How should physicians respond to disagreement about when obligations to protect human life begin?" and is a question for professional medical ethics.




The science in this latter paper is nothing unconventional, i.e. it's consistent with the majority view from the other one.



Some (interesting, I hope) details from the survey (first paper). They asked 4 question of biologists:




Q1 - Implicit Statement A: “The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new
mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’
genome.”



Q2 - Implicit Statement B: “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the
spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a
new organism, the zygote.”



Q3 - Explicit Statement “In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human's life since
that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop
in the first stage of the human life cycle.”



Q4 - Open-Ended Essay Question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question ‘When does a
human's life begin?’”




And some charts for the responses (for the first two questions there was no [graphical] breakdown of political orientation; there is some in a table, but it's two pages long):




enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here




For the last question, there was manual coding of the free-form responses into those categories.



The "95% consensus" may be a little exaggerated because it was derived by evaluating whether each subject affirmed at least one of Q1-Q3 (i.e. logical ORing).




LangLangC asks some intersting (terminolgoy) questions. One way to solve these is as in the 2nd paper I mentioned.




A human being originates from two living cells: the
oocyte and the spermatozoon, transmitting the torch of
life to the next generation. [...] After syngamy, the zygote undergoes mitotic cell division
as it moves down the fallopian tube toward the
uterus. A series of mitotic divisions then leads to the
development of the preembryo. [...]



The pre-embryo is the structure that exists from the
end of the process of fertilization until the appearance of
a single primitive streak. Until the completion of implantation
the pre-embryo is capable of dividing into multiple
entities, but does not contain enough genetic information
to develop into an embryo: it lacks genetic material from
maternal mitochondria and of maternal and parental
genetic messages in the form of messenger RNA or
proteins.



A key stage in embryonic development is the emergence
of an individual human being. ‘‘Individual’’ means
that an entity (1) can be distinguished from other entities
and (2) is indivisible, i.e., it cannot be divided or split into
two members of the same species. An entity meeting the
first criterion, but not the second, is a distinct but not
individual entity. The pre-embryo, because it can divide
into monozygotic twins is a distinct but not individual
entity. The embryo, by contrast, no longer divides into
monozygotic twins and so it meets both criteria for being
an individual.



Distinct human life begins when there is a distinct entity,
the pre-embryo, resulting from the process of conception.
There is no ‘‘moment’’ of conception, a phrase that
has no biological application. Individual human life
begins later, with the emergence of the embryo. There is
no ‘‘moment’’ at which this occurs either. The beginnings
of human life involve complex biological processes that
occur over time.




The latter terminology "distinct human life", "individual human life" is probably not so well-established... But in this sense, an (unfertilized) egg or sperm is not "distinct human life" from its host/producer.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Nice line. But getting a bit philosophical, after discarding all normative doctrine, "life begins": wouldn't this also imply that sperm and egg aren't 'alive', meaning 'dead'? – The normative angle cannot be cast away, as the question itself is loaded with its goals, and even more so: axioms, and biologically – 'problematic'?

    – LangLangC
    59 mins ago






  • 1





    @LangLangC: I didn't really want to get into that here, but since you asked, and I had read that already... see expansion/edit.

    – Fizz
    46 mins ago















3














Interestingly there's a survey: "Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'", 2018 of US biologists on this (the choice of profession/experts was motivated by a pre-survey of the US population at large):




Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins.



A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).



Historically, the descriptive view on when life begins has dictated the normative view that drives America's abortion laws: (1) abortion was illegal at ‘quickening’ under 18th century common law, (2) abortion was illegal at ‘conception’ in state laws from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and (3) abortion is currently legal before ‘viability’ due to 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy.




But do note (as the 3rd para [I added the breaks for readability] says) that that doesn't imply anything about viability/personhood. The fact that these are distinct questions is emphasized in other (scientific) sources:




In this paper we show that the question, "When does human life begin?", is not one question, but three. The first question is, "When does human biological life begin?", and is a scientific question. A brief review of embryology is provided to answer this question. The second question is, "When do obligations to protect human life begin?", and is a question of general theological and philosophical ethics. A brief review of major world religions and philosophy is provided to answer this question but has no settled answer and therefore involves irresolvable controversy. The third question is, "How should physicians respond to disagreement about when obligations to protect human life begin?" and is a question for professional medical ethics.




The science in this latter paper is nothing unconventional, i.e. it's consistent with the majority view from the other one.



Some (interesting, I hope) details from the survey (first paper). They asked 4 question of biologists:




Q1 - Implicit Statement A: “The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new
mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’
genome.”



Q2 - Implicit Statement B: “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the
spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a
new organism, the zygote.”



Q3 - Explicit Statement “In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human's life since
that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop
in the first stage of the human life cycle.”



Q4 - Open-Ended Essay Question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question ‘When does a
human's life begin?’”




And some charts for the responses (for the first two questions there was no [graphical] breakdown of political orientation; there is some in a table, but it's two pages long):




enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here




For the last question, there was manual coding of the free-form responses into those categories.



The "95% consensus" may be a little exaggerated because it was derived by evaluating whether each subject affirmed at least one of Q1-Q3 (i.e. logical ORing).




LangLangC asks some intersting (terminolgoy) questions. One way to solve these is as in the 2nd paper I mentioned.




A human being originates from two living cells: the
oocyte and the spermatozoon, transmitting the torch of
life to the next generation. [...] After syngamy, the zygote undergoes mitotic cell division
as it moves down the fallopian tube toward the
uterus. A series of mitotic divisions then leads to the
development of the preembryo. [...]



The pre-embryo is the structure that exists from the
end of the process of fertilization until the appearance of
a single primitive streak. Until the completion of implantation
the pre-embryo is capable of dividing into multiple
entities, but does not contain enough genetic information
to develop into an embryo: it lacks genetic material from
maternal mitochondria and of maternal and parental
genetic messages in the form of messenger RNA or
proteins.



A key stage in embryonic development is the emergence
of an individual human being. ‘‘Individual’’ means
that an entity (1) can be distinguished from other entities
and (2) is indivisible, i.e., it cannot be divided or split into
two members of the same species. An entity meeting the
first criterion, but not the second, is a distinct but not
individual entity. The pre-embryo, because it can divide
into monozygotic twins is a distinct but not individual
entity. The embryo, by contrast, no longer divides into
monozygotic twins and so it meets both criteria for being
an individual.



Distinct human life begins when there is a distinct entity,
the pre-embryo, resulting from the process of conception.
There is no ‘‘moment’’ of conception, a phrase that
has no biological application. Individual human life
begins later, with the emergence of the embryo. There is
no ‘‘moment’’ at which this occurs either. The beginnings
of human life involve complex biological processes that
occur over time.




The latter terminology "distinct human life", "individual human life" is probably not so well-established... But in this sense, an (unfertilized) egg or sperm is not "distinct human life" from its host/producer.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Nice line. But getting a bit philosophical, after discarding all normative doctrine, "life begins": wouldn't this also imply that sperm and egg aren't 'alive', meaning 'dead'? – The normative angle cannot be cast away, as the question itself is loaded with its goals, and even more so: axioms, and biologically – 'problematic'?

    – LangLangC
    59 mins ago






  • 1





    @LangLangC: I didn't really want to get into that here, but since you asked, and I had read that already... see expansion/edit.

    – Fizz
    46 mins ago













3












3








3







Interestingly there's a survey: "Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'", 2018 of US biologists on this (the choice of profession/experts was motivated by a pre-survey of the US population at large):




Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins.



A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).



Historically, the descriptive view on when life begins has dictated the normative view that drives America's abortion laws: (1) abortion was illegal at ‘quickening’ under 18th century common law, (2) abortion was illegal at ‘conception’ in state laws from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and (3) abortion is currently legal before ‘viability’ due to 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy.




But do note (as the 3rd para [I added the breaks for readability] says) that that doesn't imply anything about viability/personhood. The fact that these are distinct questions is emphasized in other (scientific) sources:




In this paper we show that the question, "When does human life begin?", is not one question, but three. The first question is, "When does human biological life begin?", and is a scientific question. A brief review of embryology is provided to answer this question. The second question is, "When do obligations to protect human life begin?", and is a question of general theological and philosophical ethics. A brief review of major world religions and philosophy is provided to answer this question but has no settled answer and therefore involves irresolvable controversy. The third question is, "How should physicians respond to disagreement about when obligations to protect human life begin?" and is a question for professional medical ethics.




The science in this latter paper is nothing unconventional, i.e. it's consistent with the majority view from the other one.



Some (interesting, I hope) details from the survey (first paper). They asked 4 question of biologists:




Q1 - Implicit Statement A: “The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new
mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’
genome.”



Q2 - Implicit Statement B: “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the
spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a
new organism, the zygote.”



Q3 - Explicit Statement “In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human's life since
that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop
in the first stage of the human life cycle.”



Q4 - Open-Ended Essay Question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question ‘When does a
human's life begin?’”




And some charts for the responses (for the first two questions there was no [graphical] breakdown of political orientation; there is some in a table, but it's two pages long):




enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here




For the last question, there was manual coding of the free-form responses into those categories.



The "95% consensus" may be a little exaggerated because it was derived by evaluating whether each subject affirmed at least one of Q1-Q3 (i.e. logical ORing).




LangLangC asks some intersting (terminolgoy) questions. One way to solve these is as in the 2nd paper I mentioned.




A human being originates from two living cells: the
oocyte and the spermatozoon, transmitting the torch of
life to the next generation. [...] After syngamy, the zygote undergoes mitotic cell division
as it moves down the fallopian tube toward the
uterus. A series of mitotic divisions then leads to the
development of the preembryo. [...]



The pre-embryo is the structure that exists from the
end of the process of fertilization until the appearance of
a single primitive streak. Until the completion of implantation
the pre-embryo is capable of dividing into multiple
entities, but does not contain enough genetic information
to develop into an embryo: it lacks genetic material from
maternal mitochondria and of maternal and parental
genetic messages in the form of messenger RNA or
proteins.



A key stage in embryonic development is the emergence
of an individual human being. ‘‘Individual’’ means
that an entity (1) can be distinguished from other entities
and (2) is indivisible, i.e., it cannot be divided or split into
two members of the same species. An entity meeting the
first criterion, but not the second, is a distinct but not
individual entity. The pre-embryo, because it can divide
into monozygotic twins is a distinct but not individual
entity. The embryo, by contrast, no longer divides into
monozygotic twins and so it meets both criteria for being
an individual.



Distinct human life begins when there is a distinct entity,
the pre-embryo, resulting from the process of conception.
There is no ‘‘moment’’ of conception, a phrase that
has no biological application. Individual human life
begins later, with the emergence of the embryo. There is
no ‘‘moment’’ at which this occurs either. The beginnings
of human life involve complex biological processes that
occur over time.




The latter terminology "distinct human life", "individual human life" is probably not so well-established... But in this sense, an (unfertilized) egg or sperm is not "distinct human life" from its host/producer.






share|improve this answer















Interestingly there's a survey: "Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'", 2018 of US biologists on this (the choice of profession/experts was motivated by a pre-survey of the US population at large):




Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins.



A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).



Historically, the descriptive view on when life begins has dictated the normative view that drives America's abortion laws: (1) abortion was illegal at ‘quickening’ under 18th century common law, (2) abortion was illegal at ‘conception’ in state laws from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and (3) abortion is currently legal before ‘viability’ due to 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy.




But do note (as the 3rd para [I added the breaks for readability] says) that that doesn't imply anything about viability/personhood. The fact that these are distinct questions is emphasized in other (scientific) sources:




In this paper we show that the question, "When does human life begin?", is not one question, but three. The first question is, "When does human biological life begin?", and is a scientific question. A brief review of embryology is provided to answer this question. The second question is, "When do obligations to protect human life begin?", and is a question of general theological and philosophical ethics. A brief review of major world religions and philosophy is provided to answer this question but has no settled answer and therefore involves irresolvable controversy. The third question is, "How should physicians respond to disagreement about when obligations to protect human life begin?" and is a question for professional medical ethics.




The science in this latter paper is nothing unconventional, i.e. it's consistent with the majority view from the other one.



Some (interesting, I hope) details from the survey (first paper). They asked 4 question of biologists:




Q1 - Implicit Statement A: “The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new
mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’
genome.”



Q2 - Implicit Statement B: “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the
spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a
new organism, the zygote.”



Q3 - Explicit Statement “In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human's life since
that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop
in the first stage of the human life cycle.”



Q4 - Open-Ended Essay Question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question ‘When does a
human's life begin?’”




And some charts for the responses (for the first two questions there was no [graphical] breakdown of political orientation; there is some in a table, but it's two pages long):




enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here




For the last question, there was manual coding of the free-form responses into those categories.



The "95% consensus" may be a little exaggerated because it was derived by evaluating whether each subject affirmed at least one of Q1-Q3 (i.e. logical ORing).




LangLangC asks some intersting (terminolgoy) questions. One way to solve these is as in the 2nd paper I mentioned.




A human being originates from two living cells: the
oocyte and the spermatozoon, transmitting the torch of
life to the next generation. [...] After syngamy, the zygote undergoes mitotic cell division
as it moves down the fallopian tube toward the
uterus. A series of mitotic divisions then leads to the
development of the preembryo. [...]



The pre-embryo is the structure that exists from the
end of the process of fertilization until the appearance of
a single primitive streak. Until the completion of implantation
the pre-embryo is capable of dividing into multiple
entities, but does not contain enough genetic information
to develop into an embryo: it lacks genetic material from
maternal mitochondria and of maternal and parental
genetic messages in the form of messenger RNA or
proteins.



A key stage in embryonic development is the emergence
of an individual human being. ‘‘Individual’’ means
that an entity (1) can be distinguished from other entities
and (2) is indivisible, i.e., it cannot be divided or split into
two members of the same species. An entity meeting the
first criterion, but not the second, is a distinct but not
individual entity. The pre-embryo, because it can divide
into monozygotic twins is a distinct but not individual
entity. The embryo, by contrast, no longer divides into
monozygotic twins and so it meets both criteria for being
an individual.



Distinct human life begins when there is a distinct entity,
the pre-embryo, resulting from the process of conception.
There is no ‘‘moment’’ of conception, a phrase that
has no biological application. Individual human life
begins later, with the emergence of the embryo. There is
no ‘‘moment’’ at which this occurs either. The beginnings
of human life involve complex biological processes that
occur over time.




The latter terminology "distinct human life", "individual human life" is probably not so well-established... But in this sense, an (unfertilized) egg or sperm is not "distinct human life" from its host/producer.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 44 mins ago









LangLangC

18.7k57388




18.7k57388










answered 2 hours ago









FizzFizz

11.1k24086




11.1k24086







  • 1





    Nice line. But getting a bit philosophical, after discarding all normative doctrine, "life begins": wouldn't this also imply that sperm and egg aren't 'alive', meaning 'dead'? – The normative angle cannot be cast away, as the question itself is loaded with its goals, and even more so: axioms, and biologically – 'problematic'?

    – LangLangC
    59 mins ago






  • 1





    @LangLangC: I didn't really want to get into that here, but since you asked, and I had read that already... see expansion/edit.

    – Fizz
    46 mins ago












  • 1





    Nice line. But getting a bit philosophical, after discarding all normative doctrine, "life begins": wouldn't this also imply that sperm and egg aren't 'alive', meaning 'dead'? – The normative angle cannot be cast away, as the question itself is loaded with its goals, and even more so: axioms, and biologically – 'problematic'?

    – LangLangC
    59 mins ago






  • 1





    @LangLangC: I didn't really want to get into that here, but since you asked, and I had read that already... see expansion/edit.

    – Fizz
    46 mins ago







1




1





Nice line. But getting a bit philosophical, after discarding all normative doctrine, "life begins": wouldn't this also imply that sperm and egg aren't 'alive', meaning 'dead'? – The normative angle cannot be cast away, as the question itself is loaded with its goals, and even more so: axioms, and biologically – 'problematic'?

– LangLangC
59 mins ago





Nice line. But getting a bit philosophical, after discarding all normative doctrine, "life begins": wouldn't this also imply that sperm and egg aren't 'alive', meaning 'dead'? – The normative angle cannot be cast away, as the question itself is loaded with its goals, and even more so: axioms, and biologically – 'problematic'?

– LangLangC
59 mins ago




1




1





@LangLangC: I didn't really want to get into that here, but since you asked, and I had read that already... see expansion/edit.

– Fizz
46 mins ago





@LangLangC: I didn't really want to get into that here, but since you asked, and I had read that already... see expansion/edit.

– Fizz
46 mins ago



Popular posts from this blog

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її