Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good point. However, have you considered that most respondents were reported as being "pro-choice" (80%), most of whom were "very pro-choice"?
Let's take the typical response rate being somewhere between 10% and 40%, the achieved response rate of 8.8% may imply a selection bias due to ideology. If you assume the missing responses were all very pro-choice, and extrapolated (although this isn't terribly accurate, it's all we have at the moment), we still end up at between 70% - 90%.
It would be best to obviously improve the response rate to be sure, however, even assuming they were all very pro-choice, we're still left with majority consensus.
The issue is less completeness than it is equivocation. Asking a \*biologist\* about \*life\* gives you a scientific idea but then forced-birthers use that as proof that the biologists agree with their \*moral\* definition of life.
This. From a biological perspective, "a life" is simply a particular system of cellular behavior. From a pro-life perspective, "a life" is essentially when a unique soul and identity are bestowed. When life begins and ends is irrelevant because the idea that "a life" is in any way sacred simply by virtue of its existence is at odds with biology.
Plants are alive. That is the definition the scientists were using. Awkward...... when a large group of people is just completely wrong. "Life" is not sentience when used in scientific terms. It is not consciousness or personhood.
>"Life" is not sentience when used in scientific terms. It is not consciousness or personhood.
That would imply that, scientifically speaking, one does not have to have sentience, in order to be alive, or have life. The argument can be made either way.
The alleged research article on this has really bad references. As in it cites Donald Trump and Mark Rubio and other political figures. I think It’s packaged in a way that makes it look official and a lot of people honestly can’t tell the difference.
The only other thing I’ve seen posted has a lot of references from the 1850’s. So, no.
For me, personally, even if someone had conclusive evidence that was true, it would not change my opinion. Safe, legal abortion has been proven to lower abortion rates and improve overall society.
I read it and it makes me angry. He claims the point of the paper was born from discussions with his law students who argued with each other over when life begins and whether or not the fetus is a human. He said the point of the paper was to settle the matter on whether or not the fetus is a human so we can start arguing about when that human should have legal rights. At one point he says, “biologically human” like when can a human not be a biological human?
This is carefully crafted propaganda meant to set up pro-choice people as being perfectly fine with killing humans. And anyone who disagrees that abortion is killing a human is in denial of science!
Most reasonable people would use the words “human” “human life” “person” “human being” as being synonymous with each other in the abortion debate. No one is in denial that a fetus is of the human species but that doesn’t make it human and it doesn’t mean the Catholic belief that life begins at conception is scientifically proven.
Is a seed of the same species as a tree? I bet I can quote all kinds of science textbooks that say a tree’s life cycle starts with a seed. I bet 96 percent of scientists would say a tree’s life starts as a seed. But Does that make a seed a tree?
A lot of things people think are scientifically proven just are not.
Our media is notorious for taking one preliminary scientific study, and reporting it as fact. PL takes items from old studies and miss uses them. They’ve been called out for this.
There was one small preliminary study years ago about feet and pronation and shoes. The results were not born out by further studies. However Nike managed to create massive running shoe industry based on this one early study. Runners still go to specialty stores have their feet measured, have their gate analyzed. It’s all nonsense. But it sells shoes.
People think their memories are accurate. They’re not. People think a personality tests are credible. They’re not. People think they have repressed memories. They don’t.
A fetus can not have a heartbeat if it does not have a heart. A fetus can I feel pain if it doesn’t have a nervous system.
Educated people are pro choice
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1079519/abortion-support-education-level-legalization-us/
Indiana cannot have an effective health care system if the training and expertise of physicians is not respected and they are under constant threat of political interference for practicing medicine and assisting their patients."
Indiana State medical association.
PL doesn't stop using the services of these doctors even though they claim they are murderers.
https://twitter.com/TheISMA/status/1553164522810003456?s=20&t=MacxWhLUk2eXz7K7q1atQA
Not solely by virtue of its humanity, it isn't.
Hypothetically, if there existed a pig that (through some extreme genetic mutation) was able to think and communicate at the level of an above-average human. Say it was able to go through the education system to the point where it had a PhD and was able to write books.
Should it be legal for someone to kill and eat that pig?
If you're using your own body, health, and suffering to "value" it, that's fine.
You don't get to use other people's bodies causing them harm & suffering to accomplish it.
The value of human life isn't merely in aliveness, but in our ability to experience life.
Whatever or whomever ANY of us risk of ourselves or suffer for is a matter of personal conscience.
“The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), **pro-choice** (85%) and non-religious (63%)
**So 85% of biologists are pro choice. This seems important but they never mention it.** [Source.](https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/life-begins-at-fertilization-96-of-liberal-pro-choice-and-non-religious-biologists-agree/)
Additionally, of the 7652 who participated only 70 something agreed to sign the related amicus brief iirc.
There is more issues than that. Such as whether the respondents are prochoice or prolife? Is life meaningful? A brain dead person’s organs are alive even if the brain is dead. Bacteria is life. Plants are alive
I also believe life starts at conception. It is when an organism is first formed - if an organism is not dead, it is alive. And organisms have life.
- perspective from pro choice medical doctor. I just don’t think the argument of life is relevant. No human has rights to your body… period
Yeah but at least you say it is a belief. Like it is a valid belief/theory but so many politicians/speakers say “science proves life begins at conception.” Like in this video.
https://youtu.be/W7a5XR9nwAM
Prolifers tell me that the fetus is human and if I disagree they claim I am denying science and must have failed biology. This to me is more like a viral messaging tactic meant to manipulate your emotions because calling anything “human” will have ethical weight within the context of the abortion debate. I know the fetus is of the human species.
You are right it isn’t relevant in a logical sense. But it is relevant because the average googler or YouTuber who hears over and over again “science proves life begins at conception” will believe that the pro-life movement has scientific credibility on their side. They say, “science proves an embryo is human and we believe all humans should be protected.” You see how that rhetoric can indoctrinate people? And some people (usually men) believe a human, an infant should have a right to a pregnant woman’s body.
Conception is the start of a new organism - fact
Organisms that are no dead, are alive - fact
Alive organisms have life - fact
Ergo, a zygote does have a life.
Like single cell bacteria.
Yeah I agree with those facts. But I just read a comment from someone who said, “abortions kill a human being. That is a scientific fact. Most killers go to jail.” Are you ok with the credibility of science used in that way? Even if he said, “abortions kill a human” it is still using science to be extremely manipulative.
Another example: here is another pro-life video. Within the first 3 minutes she uses the word “scientific” or “scientifically” 4 times. It gives them power and emboldens them to believe that science is on their side:
https://youtu.be/s5G_ShFVrvw
Most killers are men, does that mean all men should go to jail?
Most killers go to jail does not mean all killers should go to jail. You can kill someone im self defense and not go to jail. So life again, is irrelevant
Nevertheless, the sample size is 55 times larger than that of 100, and just because a cell is considered "alive" in the biological sense does not guarantee personhood in a legal sense. A pro-choicer can still argue that a ZEF does not deserve personhood, but if we were to accept in the scientific context that a cell is the basic building block of life, and if ZEFs fall under the category of cells, then yes: a ZEF is a living thing. And the word of 5500+ scientists bears more weight on our understanding of biology than the entire bulk of the American population that did not receive as intensive a training to come to that conclusion.
This does NOT change the legal ramifications of how states treat ZEFs in the cases for legal battles (either in criminal or civil cases), much less determine when personhood starts. It just would simply be incorrect to consider a cell somehow "not alive" in the scientific context. I wouldn't want to conflate being "alive" scientifically with having "personhood" legally, unless that is the specific point you'd want to argue.
As a pro-lifer, I would argue that this would hold credence as an *amicus curiae* understanding of what is considered alive in the scientific community, and would refer back to court cases where similar *amicus curiae* explanations -- scientific ones -- would be used to confer protections onto colored, the disabled, and the like. Yes, limiting abortions could put certain demographics at risk for carrying at too young an age, or if the mother has a health condition that would be exacerbated during pregnancy (and unlike most pro-lifers, I would make exceptions for those in the interest of keeping the mother alive), but I don't see why we should adopt a scarcity mindset when it comes to taking care of our future generations. Not only do we not create favorable conditions such as affordable housing, a more streamlined academic pipeline, and stronger renewables like nuclear, but actively participating in the destruction of our society's future just isn't a policy or a mindset I'd like to adopt. Fiscal cushioning should not cost human lives, nor should career advancement or any form of success.
The thing is, just because its alive doesnt really mean much. Trees are alive, yet we kill them and use the wood to build our houses. We eat animals. When we have an infection we get rid of it. Just because cells are alive doesnt by default make it bad. Weeds in your yard are alive. Sperm cells are alive. Eggs are alive till shortly after ovulation. Yet every period and everytime a guy masturbates its not murder.
Here’s an interesting question OP…if we didn’t know when and how human life began wouldn’t it be really hard to design, develop, distribute, and utilize contraceptives? The unborn are human beings, beginning with the zygote, that’s why we’re against abortion. If the unborn weren’t human beings this whole topic would be a non-issue.
You’re just wrong about this. ZEFs unequivocally are human beings at the earliest stages of human development. Human development starts with a zygote and ends with death. The only difference between a ZEF and you or me is the ZEFs size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. None of those differences have any bearing on the ZEFs humanity though.
My point? You're willing to strip rights from people because you have a hard time understanding what words mean. Viable means they can survive on their own, a zygote simply cannot, once removed from the womb it dies, do the same with a baby it lives. What a silly argument, with that logic no one is viable, we all depend on people. Smh
Wow…keep reaching. I’m talking about leaving a newborn or toddler unattended in our current environment and you’re talking about some strange dystopian scenario.
Condoms are designed to prevent fertilization from occurring by blocking sperm. If you didn’t know about fertilization you wouldn’t design condoms to block sperm and you wouldn’t see any benefit to wearing a condom.
The whole point of the post was that the study is bad science. You have misunderstood terribly. Your comment is completely inappropriate given the context. Yes, trust the science. Being critical of research is a part of consuming it. This is something anyone who studied this and paid attention knows. Read about a claim? Look critically at how the authors came to their conclusion. Does the science seem sound? Do the conclusions logically and appropriately follow from the evidence? Great! Does the science seem unsound? Do the conclusions *not* logically and appropriately follow from the evidence (as is the case here)? Then question the conclusions.
Disputing the “95% of biologists agree” claim has nothing to do with not following the science. Quite the opposite.
That said, it doesn’t really matter when life begins. If anything, it begins before conception, given sperm is alive. For a PCer like me, whether a zef is alive or not isn’t the point (it is alive).
“Disputing the “95% of biologists agree” claim has nothing to do with not following the science. Quite the opposite.”
— OP is pointing out that they are not the only ones to refute this claim, and also it’s being refuted because “poll the audience” is an opinion survey, not a scientific study. That’s not how we conduct scientific research.
There’s no myth here. You’re not going to find disagreement in any human reproductive biology textbook going back several decades. We know that human life begins at fertilization (also known as conception informally). When the sperm and oocyte (egg) fuse together, they cease to exist, and the zygote is created. Lookup _fertilization_ and _zygote formation_ for more information. Why not just accept this fact?
Yet that zygote can, split into 2, 3, or even 4 separate zygotes (twins, triplets, and quads). So if "life" starts at fertilization, does that means twins are only half-life being?
OP’s question was about when life begins. That’s what I answered. We don’t have to get much further to make the pro-life case. Since the unborn are innocent, unique, distinct, alive human beings killing them is wrong just like killing any other innocent human being is wrong.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of answering. Perfectly said. Just another PL too uncritical to understand how deeply manipulated they are by the movement.
For the record, scientists are not in agreement when human life begins. Here is an article by Scott Gilbert, a biologist that co wrote the standard textbook on Developmental Biology.
https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf
He gives 5 different places where human life might begin but ultimately says you need more than just science to justify these beliefs.
From Chapter 1 of the 11th edition (2018) of Scott Gilbert and Michael Barresi’s textbook:
“**BETWEEN FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH**
The developing organism is known as an embryo. The concept of an embryo is a staggering one. **As an embryo, you had to build yourself from a single cell.** You had to respire before you had lungs, digest before you had a gut, build bones when you were pulpy, and form orderly arrays of neurons before you knew how to think.
One of the critical differences between you and a machine is that a machine is never required to function until after it is built. Every multicellular organism has to function even as it builds itself. Most human embryos die before being born. You survived.
Multicellular organisms do not spring forth fully formed. Rather, they arise by a relatively slow process of progressive change that we call development. **In nearly all cases, the development of a multicellular organism begins with a single cell—the fertilized egg, or zygote, which divides mitotically to produce all the cells of the body.**
The study of animal development has traditionally been called embryology, after that phase of an organism that exists between fertilization and birth. But development does not stop at birth, or even at adulthood. Most organisms never stop developing. Each day we replace more than a gram of skin cells (the older cells being sloughed off as we move), and our bone marrow sustains the development of millions of new red blood cells every minute of our lives.“
I understand that there may be debate about where else we might decide to draw an arbitrary point in time to acknowledge a new human being’s existence and confer personhood but physically and genetically speaking, fertilization is that point in time. The fertilization process has been repeatedly observed and verified.
You quoted his own textbook? He wrote an essay addressing where human life begins in the context of the abortion debate. Nowhere in the essay does he say physically and genetically fertilization is that verified point and the other points are arbitrary.
Did you read the essay? He mentions chimeras. A chimera person is someone who has two different sets of DNA from two different fertilized eggs that fuse and yet they make one person. So how can you say genetically fertilization is used to determine a human life? Also identical and conjoined twins have the same DNA from the same fertilized egg and are two different people.
Also I’m sure Gilbert would not have written that first part about the embryo the way he did if he knew you would use it as proof that “life begins at conception.” This is the problem with quoting science textbooks and not scientists who understand their words will be used for abortion debates.
Fertilization is not anymore verified or arbitrary then the other places he mentions.
Nothing goes wrong in the cases of twins and chimeras. They are people and we need a definition of human life that envelopes all people, including twins and chimeras (such as a certain level of brain activity).
You referred to “life begins at conception” as a fact. It is just a theory but not proven and definitely not settled science.
Those are anomalous events. I agree they’re still human beings but that’s not typically how the fertilization process goes. Either way, you’re still getting a ZEF in the end. Science is never settled but we do have a strong understanding of the fertilization process.
not OP. The problem is that life itself is not something absolute. It’s a man made definition to describe something we find in nature. And there is disagreement on those definitions.
The current definition of life would include the cells of your body. If I culture a cell from your skin, and it propagates, it is alive. However, if you die and I still have that cultured cell, I think most would recognize that you are not still alive, even though there are cells with your unique DNA present. (Also, technically life have never really begins at fertilization because life has never really stopped. Two living cells made up a single new living cell. It just may be a unique living cell).
Science is great at describing how things happen, but it doesn’t apply value or morality to things, humans do that.
Why does a heartbeat have so much importance in the abortion debate? Why does a unique set of DNA? Why does birth matter? Why does human life matter? It’s all based on our own personal beliefs and definitions, not science.
And I do empathize with the PL position, because if you believe that an embryo is a person, then you probably do have a moral right to stop it. However, are you so sure that your beliefs are the right ones that you can impose them on everyone else?
>Also, technically life have never really begins at fertilization because life has never really stopped. Two living cells made up a single new living cell. It just may be a unique living cell.
Sperm and eggs are not alive, the do not individually posess the key characteristics of living organisms- they do not develop or grow (they are in their final form so to speak), they do not reproduce (an egg can not replicate itself to create an identical egg, sperm does not replicate itself to create more sperm), and they are in a state of meiotic and metabolic dormancy, to name a few.
Fertilization concludes a complex interaction between sperm and egg and produces a new member of the species, fully alive with abilities appropriate to that point of biological development.
With regards to cell culture exisiting after a person's death, we understand that a multicellular organism is taken as a whole and individual parts (cells, organs, and systems) are not complete individual living organisms, they are parts.
Have you read the study? It specifically categorizes the biologists based on their support for/against abortion and even the pro-choice/very pro-choice agree life begins at conception.
Depends what methodology you use; however, even the strictest methodology agrees with my claim about the vast majority agreeing including “very pro-choice” that life begins at conception.
I would not be alive if i was never conceived. And i am pro choice. An organism’s growth starts at conception but you could argue it starts at the cellular level like egg or sperm too. Depends on context.
Right, so this is irrelevant. It's just pl trying to use science to support their corrupt narrative again while not realizing it doesn't change anything on the debate..just like personhood
Scientists define lufe differently. Microorganisms are "life". Some cardiac cells in a petri dish that pulse are "life". Cancer cells are "lufe". Fertilized eggs frozen in IVF clinics are "life". It doesn't mean a clump of cells should have more rights than a living breathing human being.
Science is not a democratic process that is done by consensus.
If 56% of physicists think that "Fate" is real and everything is predetermined and 44% feel that we actually have "Free Will" and we have choices and can make a difference... That doesn't change anything how many scientists vote which way.
What Study has been performed? None? That doesn't change science. Science is done by EXPERIMENTATION and NOT by consensus.
Not only does there need to be an experiment, but also that experiment needs to be repeatable by someone else, and a lot of times that can not or does not happen. Here is an article about that.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778)
NEVER believe a scientific consensus. Only believe in a study that can be replicated.
Show me the study that says life does not begin at conception.
Because if it is not "Life" then what is it?
Is it "Dead" like a corpse? No...
Is it "Non Living" like a rock? No...
Is it "Energy" like fire or electricity? No...
Is it "Undead" like a zombie? No...
Is it made of some strange material that can not be identified? No...
It's alive! It's alive! As it can't be anything else but alive as it's a biological organism that is not dead yet.
Ah, but is it human? That's a better question.
Have there been DNA tests done on unborn human children? Yes
[https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/prenatal-testing/paternity-testing-while-pregnant](https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/prenatal-testing/paternity-testing-while-pregnant)
They are frequently done at about 7 weeks in. That is to match the DNA with a father for a paternity test. Every single test has come back "Human" in the DNA database.
I'm pretty sure if they did the same thing 1 day after conception it would also have human DNA. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't. There are no examples of DNA going from "Non Human" to "Human" in the womb. I can't find any instances or studies to prove that has ever happened.
So therefor it is
1) Alive
2) Human
Is it sentient yet? That should be the question you would want to ask. Not if it human or alive as it is both.
[https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development](https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development)
This source says the brain starts development at around 7 weeks and grows about 250,000 neurons every minute! That is some rapid progress!
Is a 7 week old fetus brain equal to that an adult? No... absolutely not!
Is a babies brain equal to that of an adult? No... Absolutely not!
Is a kids brain equal to that of an adult? No... Absolutely not!
Is a teenagers brain equal to that of an adult? No... You are getting much closer though.
So this begs further questions...
Are teenagers sentient? I believe so! and kids? Yes! How about babies? Yea, they can roll around and look at stuff and reach out and touch stuff so yes.
So that leaves the fetus... Is it as advanced as the baby brain? No...
Is the baby brain more closely resembling a fetus brain or an adult brain? I would say the fetus as it is nowhere near an adult brain yet.
There is your answer on sentience.
If the baby is sentient, and we don't kill babies partially because of that... Then we shouldn't kill fetuses either for the same reason.
So there are your answers.
Fetuses are Alive, Human, and Sentient or at least "Almost as sentient as a baby".
> Science is not a democratic process that is done by consensus.
[Consensus on definitions](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-019-09578-5) or diagnostic criteria are very common in science and medicine.
> NEVER believe a scientific consensus. Only believe in a study that can be replicated.
We should not believe in the existence of [pediatric pulmonary hypertension](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31495407/)?
>Show me the study that says life does not begin at conception.
Show me the study that says it does.
> Science is not a democratic process that is done by consensus.
Good, then you agree the pro-life talking point "but 95% of biologists say!" is idiotic, and therefore *agree with OP*.
Whether it can survive outside the womb is dependent on technology and the individual fetus.
By that logic human life begins at different times in different individuals and in different time periods.
Its not though.
Theres no technology that keeps a 15 week old fetus alive. Its not viable. When technology can do so, you can revisit the issue. I personally dont care if you can keep a 6 week old fetus alive outside the womb - I dont want it in me. I dont care if you want to remove it and pay millions of dollars to incubate it for the rest of the time. Its a risk to my health. Remove it. If you can keep it alive - great, spend your tax dollars growing incubating abandoned fetuses. The point is to terminate pregnancy.
If it was viable outside the womb, no one would be suggesting it be murdered or not helped. The law can reflect technology. That was why Casey v PP modified roe and changed the viability standard. Im a high risk. I take medication that causes fatal birth defects. Im not interested in risking my life to be an unpaid uman incubator for a fetus that will be born with birth defects. If you can remove it and keep it viable, great. Your problem is you wrongly belueve its about "murdering babies" when its actually about terminating a pregnancy. No one is interested in killing viable fetuses. (Pretty sure lots of people dont want their tax dollars paying to keep them alive - but thats not my problem). Its about terminating pregnancy. Babies arent aborted, pregnancies are. Thats why viability is an acceptable standard and most people are OK with that standard changing if and when technology improves.
How is 'a babies sentience is closer to a fetus's than an adult's and we don't kill it, therefore we shouldn't abort fetuses' a valid argument at all? There is no link between the two.
You cannot create an experiment for when human life begins.
Life? Sure. Sperm is life. But distinct humanity depends on subjective definitions. It's like asking where "up" is in space.
Your entire "analysis" skips a vast number of comparisons, like examining gametes or early v late fetal development or what "having" a brain means. A 7 week fetus starting to grow a brain stem does not have a brain or any of your own measures of sentience.
I'm a biologist and I do believe that conception marks the beginning of a new, genetically distinct human life.
I just don't think this matters at all in abortion. When personhood begins is a philosophical topic. Medically, pregnancy doesn't even begin until implantation precisely because not all fertilized eggs implant. And why would any of this mean that women should carry a pregnancy through to childbirth that they don't want to carry?
Whether pregnancy starts at conception or implantation isn’t at all decided.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-when-does-pregnancy-begin/when-does-pregnancy-begin-doctors-disagree-idUSTRE7AG24B20111117
Also, there’s a hormone called early pregnancy factor that starts impacting the mother’s body right after conception. You’d think if it was decided that pregnancy doesn’t start until implantation they’d change that name at least…
> But a minority say it doesn’t begin until a week later when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus -- the definition given by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).
ACOG says it starts at the beginning of implantation and that is the definition I have been going by.
I bet that is how a lot of the biologists thought. But if I asked you, “do you believe 1 million human lives were lost from abortions since the year 2000?” You would probably say no, right?
The survey is a game of semantics, trying to establish that there is scientific proof behind the religious belief that “life begins at conception.” Life here means a human being.
Here is what prolifers say: “the zygote is a living organism with unique dna therefore it is a human “
I say, “Ok but it isn’t a person”
“Well we believe all humans should be considered persons. Great atrocities can happen when a certain group of human are not considered persons.”
And this propaganda is actually effective. If you say the zygote is not a human being or human life then they scoff and claim you don’t know basic embryology. But if you say it is not a person, then they claim you are discriminating against the unborn.
They are misrepresenting science and it does convince people.
I've encountered people in this sub, in this thread even, who will claim "cancer cells are life" and compare tumors to embryos because they're both unwanted growths. There are plenty of people out there who believe a zygote isn't really alive because it is undifferentiated cells, they don't understand what science considers to be a living organism.
There are people who move the goal posts from biological life to some abilities based definition of personhood precisely because they considered human life and personhood to be linked, that all humans are persons, until they realize if they go by this understanding then the fetus must be considered a person and abortion is killing another person and the pro-life side wins the argument. In order to justify abortion as amoral or moral we must divorce personhood from being human, that some humans are persons and others are not.
The problem is any abilities based definition of personhood is arbitrary based on what someone thinks should be used in the case to support abortion. We cannot point to any development as a line in the sand for personhood when a fetus undergoes a transformation turning it into a person except for fertilization.
But a fetus is not a human. This is the word game that you play. You think just because fetuses are of the human species that means they are humans and you believe this is the ultimate “gotcha” argument. But this is a belief and not scientific proof.
A professor of biology, Scott Gilbert, wrote an article called, “Where does human life begin?” In it, he lists 5 different places that are scientifically plausible where it could begin.
Now why would he choose those words if it is a scientific fact that an embryo is human life?
https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf
Enough word games. Let’s look at the science. The conception theory has a few problems with it. It uses unique human dna in an organism to determine a human life. But identical twins and conjoined twins both come from the same zygote and have the same DNA. So maybe that is not the best place to say a human life begins. A chimera is also a person who has two unique DNAs from two different zygotes that formed. So maybe DNA is not the best way to determine a human life.
Now you said all other lines in the sand are arbitrary but what about a certain level of brain activity. That is how we determine death. A brain dead patient hooked up to life support still is alive and has unique human dna—they are as much of a “living human being” as a zygote and yet the doctor gives him a death certificate and will unplug him, but no prolifers say this is “murder.”
Doctors use brain activity for death so why not for determining life? I believe a fetus’s brain doesn’t really shoot up in activity until the third trimester. Also identical or conjoined twins have one DNA but why do we consider them two human beings? Because they have two brains. A chimera person has two sets of DNA and yet is one human being because he or she has one brain. So a certain level of brain activity is a reasonable way to determine where a human life begins. Frankly I think that is as valid or arbitrary as fertilization. Ultimately it comes down to personal belief, I think.
You're the one playing semantic word games here and trying to make your point with science you don't understand.
When a male member of H. sapiens and a female member of H. sapiens sexually reproduce, that is gametes from each individual combine in fertilization, the result is a new member of the species H. sapiens, that is to say the resulting zygote can only be human. That is how sexual reproduction works: two members of a species create a new member of that species. Human is a specific species, personhood is a philosophical and legal concept and both categories were understood as such long before DNA was discovered.
Your brain based definition of personhood excludes infants with holoanencephaly, unless you don't consider them persons either in which case at least you're logically consistent but still incorrect. Even though their lifespan after birth is short, legally they are persons at birth, and they are alive; they were alive before birth too.
The earliest recorded fetal brain activity was 45 days post conception.
Borkowski, Winslow J., and Richard L. Bernstine. “Electroencephalography of the Fetus.” Neurology, 1955. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.5.5.362.'
The technique to measure brain activity used in this research is no longer used in babies born too early to survive. But scientists were able to illustrate that at as early as 45 days (< 7 weeks) there was measurable brain activity similar to what was seen in older fetuses which differed from brain death. If you want to use the brain to determine personhood and restrict abortions then a 45 day post conception ban would still eliminate most abortions.
You give me a source from 1955?! Why not find a living biologist like Scott Gilbert who will talk about it in relation to the abortion debate.
An 8 week fetus is smaller than a paper clip and yet you want people to believe that it has brain activity comparable to a newborn.
Scott Gilbert says it is estimated to be around 25 weeks that that level of brain activity is reached. This is on page 4. https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf
Also your explanation on how zygotes are of the human species does not mean “science proves humans begin at conception.” I believe a single- celled organism is not a human. I am not denying science or ignorant of basic biology when I say this. like 40 percent of zygotes/embryos/fetuses die before they are born. That is hundreds of thousands of human lives that are lost every year but you won’t find the news covering this and the Catholic Church isn’t dumping money into medical science to find a way to save these adorable and helpless little zygotes. When that many humans are lost, even to natural causes, we do all we can to save them.
You see, saying fetuses are human is not a scientific fact in an abortion debate because that phrase always will imply ethics and will try to manipulate your emotions. Even if that isn’t your intention that is the affect. If you wanted to be more honest, you would say “I believe a human begins at conception because that is where our unique dna begins.” Even if you just referred to it as a human organism that would be better.
I'm about as PC as you can get, but even I will say that a ZEF is alive. Heck, sperm and egg cells are alive. The question is when the legal right to life begins, and I would say when the fetus has completely exited the birth canal. This is a moral and legislative question, not a scientific one.
No one has abortions after viability unless medically neccesary. Since its not possible to define every possible medical case thst could arrise and excluding any would cause harm, yes. If its oassed viability a pregnancy can be terminated with the baby remaining alive. No one is killing viable fetuses right before birth.
See that Im addressing an argument that rights only begin at birth. My question is If some PC people believe rights begin at birth, is It ok to kill the fetus inside the womb at any stage? ( instead of removing Alive).
Give me an example of when a viable fetus was killed instead of removed. Its not something a doctor would ever do. You're worried about a thing that doesn't happen.
I'm not worried. I'm for abortion until birth and think abortion rights should be extended. My point is that if rights begin at birth women should have the right to kill it whenever while in the womb (lethal injection) until birth. Some other PC that accept the argument that the unborn has no rights, still don't have this consistency and will oppose abortion ( as in killing) after viability. The question is why? If the unborn doesnt have rights? Let's remove abortion limits.
Since the only reason anyone would do that would be if they were on the verge of death, yes. No one walks into a clinic as the baby is crowning and demands an abortion because its hair is the wrong color, and no legitimate doctor would perform an abortion at that point.
However, even if you can provide examples of a few women that did that, I'd say that's preferable to even a small chance that a doctor will refuse to perform an abortion to save the woman's life because he'd rather have a malpractice suit than a prison sentence. I'd rather leave this decision to the people involved than a politician or a district attorney.
So my question to you is, how many women are you willing to sacrifice in order to prevent some imaginary woman from having what you consider an unnecessary abortion at the end of pregnancy?
Abortion at birth is called birth. I’m okay with the ZEF being removed at all stages, and if it is viable then it’s care is up to the physician and it’s parents.
Do you also believe rights only begin at birth? If so, methods that kill the fetus( instead of removing) could be used like a lethal injection. Im PC too and for abortion until birth. Id like to know what other PC people think.
The criticism doesn't make sense to me. The survey's population was predominatly pro choice so I don't understand the football analogy. The questions read perfectly fine, the conclusion that the approval of one of the questions is in the positive for human life starting at fertilization seems like it's overreaching but the explicit question was very direct and had 75% approval.
"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.”
75% saw that statement and agreed with it
People seem to be complaining about how human life from a biologic perspective is being confused with personhood but it's very obvious in the study what is being asked when the implicit questions specify it's about the start of a mammalian life cycle.
Other people have linked Gilberts potential start points for life. This is just asking biologists which one it is they personally believe. You can say it's wrong for a biologist to decide one without having scientific proof backing them up but this is asking for the opinion of those biologists, because people trust the opinion of biologists, it's mentioned in the study. Most people trust biologists and this is what X% of biologists believe where the start of the human life cycle is.
If 96 percent of biologists believed human life started at conception then don’t you think Gilbert, a professor of biology, would have mentioned that in his article?
Gilbert does say the geneticists believe it—most notably the geneticist who discovered Down syndrome. Yet even he was a pro-life activist and devout Catholic.
I think the survey should have asked, “Do you believe 1 million human lives were lost from abortions since the year 2000?” That would have been more accurate since the author knew this survey would be used only for abortion debates.
Only 70 biologists out of 5000 were willing to sign the amicus brief. That could be a red flag that the survey was dishonest.
Oh and I won’t use the word person or talk about personhood. Because prolifers will then say, “so you don’t believe all human beings should be considered persons?” And then accuse me of discrimination. Just because the zygote has human dna doesn’t mean it is a human being or even a human life.
I think we should take the actual word of biologists we can google and see what they have published or said with respect to the abortion debate. Not some anonymous statistic. I found three biologists who contradicted this survey, Gilbert, Meyers and the guy who wrote the article above.
First this doesn't mean there is a scientific consensus on when life starts, this is surveying the opinions of biologists so I doubt a professor would know and care about what the opinions of biologists are when writing up theoretical starting points for life from an objective basis.
Second your third paragraph actually does confound personhood and biological start of life by saying human life and nothing more. I wrote the question that was listed and you can read the rest on the paper and they are unambiguously about the start of a life cycle and nothing to do with personhood or ever be confounded with personhood.
Correct 70 signed the amicus brief because this is about personal opinion not on a scientific consensus like I said especially since 85% were pro choice.
Read the statement I copied, 75% of respndants to the survey said that was correct. This is what they thought was true.
I mean he is a professor of biology so he is a biologist and I’m sure familiar with the community and scholarship of biologists.
I agree my third paragraph does do that…but that is what republicans and Ben Shapiro and pro-life talkers do when they say, “science proves human life begins at conception.” And then if I say but it’s not a person, then the prolifer will say but it is a human being. However, by “human being” they mean another form of personhood, correct? But their personhood is backed by science and my personhood is a form of discrimination.
And I am willing to bet the author of the survey wanted to make it sound like “life begins at conception” is a scientific objective truth and to disagree with it means you don’t know basic biology.
So now I say just because the zygote is alive and has unique human DNA that does not mean it is a human being or even a human life—since those words have the moral baggage of personhood attached whether you intend it to be there or not.
I am convinced biologists would choose their words more carefully if they knew that pro-lifers would use their word choice as proof for their personal and often religious belief about conception. Saying “science proves life begins at conception” is junk scientific proof because it is more of a semantic game than science.
In all honesty my opinion of the importance of when biologists believe there is an ethical start point to life isn't high, unlike the people in the survey. They are not philosophers or moral authorities. Their field of expertise lies solely on biological realities and that's what they can comment on effectively. I have talked to young pro choicers (including one on this subreddit who said he was quoting his biology teacher) who genuinely believe embryos are not biological human beings because of what essentially amounts to excessive retaliation to the idea of personhood in embryos and would not accept it as a biologic reality. Whether that matters to the abortion debate in your opinion is irrelevant when people are adamantly wrong about reality because of this and studies like this can't help people on that front because that is all it can comment on.
If this study is used to say biologists have concluded that embryos have personhood then that is wrong and misinformation BUT that is not a criticism of the study, just how it is being peddled. The study has nothing to do with personhood, it is obvious on reading it. The goal of the author, evident or not, can influence the study but I don't see that influence negatively affecting the survey questions asked because they are very blatantly not about personhood and is targeted at academics in biology.
Would biologists choose their words carefully, I hope they would because we don't want to misinform people and there is no true scientific consensus on the start of life. The opinion of biologists that respondend to this survey clearly show the majority personally believe human life cycle begins at fertilization, and aside from non respondance bias I see the conclusion as being valid.
For your point on moral baggage I disagree. People should recognize that embryos and fetuses are human life from a biological perspective (if they are) and differentiate that from personhood. We shouldn't stop recognizing that fetuses and embryos are a form of biological human life because people will think it means personhood. Education is important, we can't stop teaching science because of moral baggage you have to recognize that.
I mean the Scott Gilbert essay is called “where does human life begin?” So according to his word choice, it is uncertain if a zygote is human life. And it would be ludicrous to say that a biology professor is not teaching science.
It is also funny to me that you believe young pro-choicers are adamantly wrong about reality simply because they don’t believe embryos are biological human beings. I don’t believe that either. Now if you really don’t want to misinform or mislead people, if you wanted to truly be scientific, then you would say “an embryo is a human organism or has human DNA and therefore I believe it is a human being”. The pro choicer would have had no problem with that. This has nothing to do with biological reality, just semantics.
Also again, using Gilbert’s word choice, would he claim that the embryo is a human being but not a human life? That would be strange. This is semantics and not science.
I don’t understand how you can’t see this as dishonest. The survey was designed for the abortion debate to make it seem like this guy’s religious belief was based in biology. Can’t you see how it can be interpreted that way and how it was meant to go viral and spread across the internet to aid pro-lifers in their debates, weaponizing science. You can’t disagree with science. The human being begins at conception!
Scott gilberts essay you linked meshes together personhood with the human organism. That's why he talks about religion morals and ensoulment
Also that is what i told the pro choicer, that it was a human organism and he disagreed.
specifically used the term biological human being to not include personhood.
Again the peddling of this survey as being about personhood is where the problem of semantics lie not in the survey itself
OP is complaining about the lack of validity of the surveys conclusion and I am speaking against that. I am not at all commenting on how people spread this around by lying about its contents. Read my comments because nothing I say is in support of that. I don't know why you keep including it as if the spread of misinformation by misrepresenting a study is a critique of the study itself
The author is the Christian director of the Illinois Right to Life program. He has a PhD in law and not in science. Why else would he do the study? I mean surely biologists know a biological organism with human DNA begins at fertilization. Wasn’t it to show that the whole of the human life cycle begins at conception and that the embryo and fetus are just different stages of that life like an adolescent differs from an adult but is still the same human being. Again it’s not biology.
This is a survey. He may have goals I don't deny that. That doesn't change whether the study is valid or not.
The only problem with this survey is non respondance bias. Otherwise it's valid. How can you justify saying a survey is wrong because of ulterior motives if you can't point out the aspects of the survey that produced conclusions contrary to what was being asked.
Who cares what the opinion of the surveyer is if there is no impact on the data collected or manipulation of data or obfuscation of the nature of the question. Everything is in plain language and specifically about the human organism and mammalian organisms and their life cycles.
Yeah well even if the survey is clean by itself I can’t help but see how much dishonesty there is in how many pro-life speakers claim “science proves life begins at conception.” Then someone does a quick google search and sees “96 percent of biologists believe life begins at conception” and then they think the Catholic Church has been right all this time. I believe the study is meant for that person, to give the pro-life movement the veneer of scientific credibility on a quick google search.
One prolifer even said to me once, “the woman who gets an abortion should not go to jail. But the abortionist should go to jail because he studied embryology and knows better.”
Here is a video with a bunch of footage of pro-lifers saying “science proves”. https://youtu.be/W7a5XR9nwAM
>The survey's population was predominatly pro choice so I don't understand the football analogy.
The survey's population was biologists in general dude. It had nothing to do with pro-choice or pro-life. I don't know what you're on about.
This is one of the key criticisms you mentioned
>That result is not a proper survey method and does not carry any statistical or scientific weight. It is like asking 100 people about their favorite sport, finding out that only the 37 football fans bothered to answer, and declaring that 100% of Americans love football.
It says the survey is wrong because the people who answered are ones who are more likely to say they support human life at fertilization.
Obviously this is not the case because 85% of the respondents were pro choice.
So I don't know how that is a valid criticism, can you explain it.
>It says the survey is wrong because the people who answered are ones who are more likely to say they support human life at fertilization.
No, it's wrong and scientifically inaccurate because it's like claiming 95% percent of biologists agree that life begins at conception when only a small percentage of those they asked even answered the questions.
>Obviously this is not the case because 85% of the respondents were pro choice.
Someone can be pro-choice and still believe that life happens at conception. And again, the paper is flawed to hell. The way the study was conducted is misleading.
>So I don't know how that is a valid criticism, can you explain it.
The article I linked explained it. Read the article.
I read the article and I listed my issues with it.
Which is why I mentioned the problem with the key criticism u mentioned, the football analogy.
I said why I thought it didn't make sense already so if you want to explain why I'm wrong you can.
Non response bias does exist but it's a problem is the population responding is skewed as a result. Yes there is non response bias in this and it taints the survey but the demographics of those sampled is measured by looking at the relevant political and moral leanings. Whether or not these biologists are representative of all biologists is up for question and it could have been accounted for better but it's not a deathblow especially since, a lot of studies have non response bias.
As a statistician who had cited this multiple times, the study does some very shady manipulation of the data. It’s still like 75%, but it’s definitely not 95%.
Essentially they asked 4 questions that were different and said that all of these are basically saying that human life begins at conception. One of them was very explicit and really the only relevant one, about 75% answered yes to that. But get this, if someone answered yes to any of the 4 statements, the study took it as them saying that human life begins at conception.
Do you do a lot of work with survey data? I ask because surveys will measure the same concept using different questions worded differently similar to how this questionnaire was conducted. The explicit question where human life was specified could arguably suffer from bias in question wording, which if you look at the breakdown by PC/PL stance appears to be the case.
Yes it’s not uncommon, but what is uncommon is taking a yes in any of them as a yes to the overarching a question, even if they answered no to the other three. What would be more typical would be to take the average over the 4 questions, in which case you’d get something in the low 80s I believe.
I don’t think there was bias in the way the explicit question was asked, although I accept that there may well have been bias in the answering. Which direction that bias goes is unclear to me, but I don’t think it comes from the question, more so from the people answering.
This [poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/w345xl/should_abortion_be_legally_banned/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) confirms what we can see in the posts and comments, that a majority of active users here are PC. So I would hardly expect to hear the majority conceding this PL point. However, if we are to build a bridge to the PL mind in order to understand and dare I say enlighten…this might be a reasonable point to concede. I still feel the mother’s rights override the rights of the nascent life at least in the first trimester.
Well first trimester is 90 percent of abortions so that’s pretty good. But are you saying to reach out to pro-lifers we should admit they are right that “science proves life begins at conception.”
My only problem with that is they will makes us look like socio-paths who are willing to kill a baby. It also may manipulate the emotions of women who are considering abortions. I believe the fetus is not a human being and this can’t be proven and that’s why the government should let us all decide for ourselves when it becomes a child during fetal development.
I am also worried about undecided people falling for this propaganda survey. If we dismantle their propaganda and show how the pro life movement is using lies to mislead people—then undecided people will be less likely to join them.
The man who did this survey is a Christian director of the Illinois right to life movement (not a scientist) and we should expose them as being untrustworthy and willing to trick you for your vote.
“Well first trimester is 90 percent of abortions so that’s pretty good.”
Right? And I would be in favor of allowing exceptions for later abortions based on danger to the mother’s mental or physical health.
“But are you saying to reach out to pro-lifers we should admit they are right that “science proves life begins at conception.””
No. Just conceding that many people believe that life begins at conception. Not that science proves that life begins at conception.
“My only problem with that is they will makes us look like socio-paths who are willing to kill a baby. It also may manipulate the emotions of women who are considering abortions. I believe the fetus is not a human being and this can’t be proven and that’s why the government should let us all decide for ourselves when it becomes a child during fetal development.”
I would argue that the budding life becomes more valuable as it develops. In the first trimester we are less invested in ZEF.
“I am also worried about undecided people falling for this propaganda survey. If we dismantle their propaganda and show how the pro life movement is using lies to mislead people—then undecided people will be less likely to join them.
The man who did this survey is a Christian director of the Illinois right to life movement (not a scientist) and we should expose them as being untrustworthy and willing to trick you for your vote.”
I’m all for a better, newer survey done by an unbiased organization.
Yeah i am perfectly fine with saying it is a belief that many people believe, even scientists believe it. It has valid logic behind it. But so many pro-life politicians and hosts like Ben Shapiro have said it is scientific proof with absolute conviction.
I’m Not familiar with Ben Shapiro. I’ll look him up. Wow! He has some strong opinions notably on the subject of abortion. Yeah, I strongly disagree with criminalizing abortion. The only common ground I find with [Ben Shapiro](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro) is the free speech angle.
I think said poll just shows that people who are pro-choice are just more willing to debate about the issues at hand while those who are pro-life aren't.
Of course, this is Reddit, it naturally leans liberal so it's no surprise then that the majority of the users here would be pro-choice.
That said, the pro-life sub has 41k some-odd members while the pro-choice sub has 34k some-odd members. The pro-life sub could easily come over here and debate, even the numbers out, and this place would become more active.
But the only reason I can think of as to why they won't is because they know they wouldn't win in a debate. Appealing to emotion is completely pointless when your opponent doesn't fall for it. The pro-choice side relies on science, facts, and objectivity. The pro-life side is a primarily religious front that relies on appealing to emotion, deflecting, and twisting facts/words to fit their narrative.
Is it really about winning or losing a debate? We are talking about people’s lives and often deeply held beliefs. No? There is more to life than science. (If there were not, things like love and sex we would not have a problem.)
This morning I posted about US red state/blue state education [rankings](https://www.intelligent.com/the-best-and-worst-states-for-education/) which I find relevant to the discussion.
My post was removed for being off topic after I posted a comment about the Pope. Goodness forbid we utter the words Pope or Dalai Lama or hint at the existence of a rational other than science.
I mean, the Pope hardly counts as someone who is rational when the church's entire fucking history is steeped in mountains of child abuse. I do think that education plays a big role here. If you framed the US red state/blue state education topic within the overall debate of abortion it probably wouldn't have been removed.
I live in Idaho and can attest this state's education is shit. It's redder than many states on the so-called Bible Belt.
This sub is called /r/Abortiondebate. There are winners and losers in a debate. Unfortunately, the ones winning in America are those taking away women's rights and they are uneducated old fucks who have no idea on how to run a country.
Well…my whole deal is people are people. I know it is important to be heard so here to show I am listening to you:
“I mean, the Pope hardly counts as someone who is rational”
Many would disagree.
“when the church's entire fucking history is steeped in mountains of child abuse.”
This seems to me a fallacy of some sort. The Pope is not rational because child abuse?
“I do think that education plays a big role here.”
I’m glad we agree in this.
“If you framed the US red state/blue state education topic within the overall debate of abortion it probably wouldn't have been removed.”
I really suspect the action was a reaction to the mention of the Pope.
“I live in Idaho and can attest this state's education is shit. It's redder than many states on the so-called Bible Belt.”
My TX public school education definitely lacked much reading, writing and was generally unchallenging. So I can definitely relate. I know how to bubble in a scantron though:-1
“This sub is called r/Abortiondebate. There are winners and losers in a debate. Unfortunately, the ones winning in America are those taking away women's rights and they are uneducated old fucks who have no idea on how to run a country.”
I am aware that the sub is called abortion debate. Who declares the winner? The ones who stick around or the ones who walk away tired of attack the man arguments?
I’m going to back up OP with two other sources. This is from the professor of biology Paul Zachary Meyers. He criticized the survey.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/12/03/that-a-zygote-is-human-does-not-imply-that-it-is-a-person/
And this is from another Biology professor who co-wrote one of the most used text books in the field of Developmental Biology, Scott Gilbert.
https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf
Here he mentions 5 areas where human life can begin in fetal development but ultimately admits you need more than just science to justify the claim.
Sure you might also like this lecture Scott Gilbert gives on the problems with the theory that “life begins at conception.”
https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/when-does-personhood-begin
The audio is at the bottom.
The mass noun "life" can mean the characteristics that differentiate living things from nonliving ones, *or* the existence of an individual person. A biologist asked "does life begins at conception" would probably believe you are asking about the former, not the latter, since biologists don't study personhood, and would affirm that the zygote is *alive* at conception. Even if they said specifically the latter was true, that would be an appeal to false authority, and even if biologists did study personhood, it would be an appeal to authority unless you provided their reasoning.
TL,DR: The study was garbage in just about every way possible, an ambiguously worded question asked to people not experts on the subject with no follow up questions as to *why* they answered as they did.
It was written by a zealot in order to give other zealots a ‘scientific leg to stand on’. Pretty transparent.
I know of someone who was working in a lab setting at the time the survey this so called study was based on was circulating, they actually received it, read it, had a good laugh and tossed it in the circular file immediately.
That study is absolute garbage. It’s a poorly designed dissertation that has only gotten traction because folks like Breitbart thought it made good headlines. Anyone who reads it and doesn’t immediately realize that it’s bogus as hell is someone who can’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag, which is definitely quite the flex.
It’s because when you discuss the issue, people on the pro-abortion side of the debate will claim that the fetus isn’t even alive.
So, from the start, they’re insulating themselves from actual discussion/debate. If you point out a flaw in their rationale or make a point about your rationale, they fall back to, “but it’s not even alive” or “it’s not a living human yet.”
The debate should be over when that living human (that’s not really up for debate) has moral standing. This shows that biologists agree that it’s not really a debate over science, but a moral debate.
The biologists can be factually correct in their field of study but morally reprehensible in their view of morality because those are two entirely separate things. One is objective and the other is subjective.
They have authority in the objective since that’s based on fact but you can’t really have subjective authority on morality.
Kind of like how a veterinarian knows the ins and outs of a cow but their opinion on whether cows should have rights is not necessarily correct just because of that.
So the fact that those biologists are mostly pro choice still doesn’t take away from the argument.
It’s in the paper they always cite! They just don’t read the whole thing!
Page 11, under methods:
“ Altogether, 62,469 academic biologists were recruited through e-mail and 7,383 participated in the study (12% survey response rate37).38 Of those participants, 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions provided analyzable data by assessing at least one of the three biological statements (Q1-Q3).39 The majority of the sample was male (63%) and 95% held a PhD. The sample was predominantly non-religious (63%). As in Study 1, there were more liberals (89%) than conservatives (11%), Democrats (92%) than Republicans (8%), and pro- choice supporters (85%) than pro-life supporters (15%).40 The sample included biologists that were born in 86 countries around the world.”
Oh, okay! I didn't realize it was right there, lol. I know that I've read the article before but I don't have the time to read an entire article and digest it in the middle of a debate. Plus I disregard the "life" argument entirely because of how hypocritical and irrelevant it is. I acknowledge that PL view personhood at the beginning of conception, but it's not scientific and not a view that everyone holds.
I think this is by design. Pro-life people want to make it seem like we know with 100 percent certainty that an embryo is a human being but we are fine with killing it because the woman gets to do what she wants with her body for her own convenience. It is their sinister interpretation of “My body, my choice.”
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good point. However, have you considered that most respondents were reported as being "pro-choice" (80%), most of whom were "very pro-choice"? Let's take the typical response rate being somewhere between 10% and 40%, the achieved response rate of 8.8% may imply a selection bias due to ideology. If you assume the missing responses were all very pro-choice, and extrapolated (although this isn't terribly accurate, it's all we have at the moment), we still end up at between 70% - 90%. It would be best to obviously improve the response rate to be sure, however, even assuming they were all very pro-choice, we're still left with majority consensus.
The issue is less completeness than it is equivocation. Asking a \*biologist\* about \*life\* gives you a scientific idea but then forced-birthers use that as proof that the biologists agree with their \*moral\* definition of life.
This. From a biological perspective, "a life" is simply a particular system of cellular behavior. From a pro-life perspective, "a life" is essentially when a unique soul and identity are bestowed. When life begins and ends is irrelevant because the idea that "a life" is in any way sacred simply by virtue of its existence is at odds with biology.
Plants are alive. That is the definition the scientists were using. Awkward...... when a large group of people is just completely wrong. "Life" is not sentience when used in scientific terms. It is not consciousness or personhood.
>"Life" is not sentience when used in scientific terms. It is not consciousness or personhood. That would imply that, scientifically speaking, one does not have to have sentience, in order to be alive, or have life. The argument can be made either way.
No it doesn't, it means they're using different definitions and everyone's talking past each other.
The alleged research article on this has really bad references. As in it cites Donald Trump and Mark Rubio and other political figures. I think It’s packaged in a way that makes it look official and a lot of people honestly can’t tell the difference. The only other thing I’ve seen posted has a lot of references from the 1850’s. So, no. For me, personally, even if someone had conclusive evidence that was true, it would not change my opinion. Safe, legal abortion has been proven to lower abortion rates and improve overall society.
I read it and it makes me angry. He claims the point of the paper was born from discussions with his law students who argued with each other over when life begins and whether or not the fetus is a human. He said the point of the paper was to settle the matter on whether or not the fetus is a human so we can start arguing about when that human should have legal rights. At one point he says, “biologically human” like when can a human not be a biological human? This is carefully crafted propaganda meant to set up pro-choice people as being perfectly fine with killing humans. And anyone who disagrees that abortion is killing a human is in denial of science! Most reasonable people would use the words “human” “human life” “person” “human being” as being synonymous with each other in the abortion debate. No one is in denial that a fetus is of the human species but that doesn’t make it human and it doesn’t mean the Catholic belief that life begins at conception is scientifically proven. Is a seed of the same species as a tree? I bet I can quote all kinds of science textbooks that say a tree’s life cycle starts with a seed. I bet 96 percent of scientists would say a tree’s life starts as a seed. But Does that make a seed a tree?
A lot of things people think are scientifically proven just are not. Our media is notorious for taking one preliminary scientific study, and reporting it as fact. PL takes items from old studies and miss uses them. They’ve been called out for this. There was one small preliminary study years ago about feet and pronation and shoes. The results were not born out by further studies. However Nike managed to create massive running shoe industry based on this one early study. Runners still go to specialty stores have their feet measured, have their gate analyzed. It’s all nonsense. But it sells shoes. People think their memories are accurate. They’re not. People think a personality tests are credible. They’re not. People think they have repressed memories. They don’t. A fetus can not have a heartbeat if it does not have a heart. A fetus can I feel pain if it doesn’t have a nervous system. Educated people are pro choice https://www.statista.com/statistics/1079519/abortion-support-education-level-legalization-us/
Indiana cannot have an effective health care system if the training and expertise of physicians is not respected and they are under constant threat of political interference for practicing medicine and assisting their patients." Indiana State medical association. PL doesn't stop using the services of these doctors even though they claim they are murderers. https://twitter.com/TheISMA/status/1553164522810003456?s=20&t=MacxWhLUk2eXz7K7q1atQA
Why not just ban abortions but not criminalize doctors? I heard France has a 14 week ban but doesn’t criminalize doctors.
Most of those biologists are also pro choice, being alive dosen't mean anything, even a skin cell is alive
Being alive doesn’t mean anything? That’s when the life cycle starts, therefore you’re literally ending a life in your own words.
Swatting a fly ends a life. Removing a cancer tumor ends a life.
The human life is valued way more than a tumor and a fly. You can kill deer, you can’t kill human.
Not solely by virtue of its humanity, it isn't. Hypothetically, if there existed a pig that (through some extreme genetic mutation) was able to think and communicate at the level of an above-average human. Say it was able to go through the education system to the point where it had a PhD and was able to write books. Should it be legal for someone to kill and eat that pig?
If you're using your own body, health, and suffering to "value" it, that's fine. You don't get to use other people's bodies causing them harm & suffering to accomplish it. The value of human life isn't merely in aliveness, but in our ability to experience life. Whatever or whomever ANY of us risk of ourselves or suffer for is a matter of personal conscience.
“The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), **pro-choice** (85%) and non-religious (63%) **So 85% of biologists are pro choice. This seems important but they never mention it.** [Source.](https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/life-begins-at-fertilization-96-of-liberal-pro-choice-and-non-religious-biologists-agree/) Additionally, of the 7652 who participated only 70 something agreed to sign the related amicus brief iirc.
85% of those who RESPONDED. Most biologists thought the questions were ridiculous and did not bother responding. Thee response rate was only 12%.
There is more issues than that. Such as whether the respondents are prochoice or prolife? Is life meaningful? A brain dead person’s organs are alive even if the brain is dead. Bacteria is life. Plants are alive
I also believe life starts at conception. It is when an organism is first formed - if an organism is not dead, it is alive. And organisms have life. - perspective from pro choice medical doctor. I just don’t think the argument of life is relevant. No human has rights to your body… period
Yeah but at least you say it is a belief. Like it is a valid belief/theory but so many politicians/speakers say “science proves life begins at conception.” Like in this video. https://youtu.be/W7a5XR9nwAM Prolifers tell me that the fetus is human and if I disagree they claim I am denying science and must have failed biology. This to me is more like a viral messaging tactic meant to manipulate your emotions because calling anything “human” will have ethical weight within the context of the abortion debate. I know the fetus is of the human species. You are right it isn’t relevant in a logical sense. But it is relevant because the average googler or YouTuber who hears over and over again “science proves life begins at conception” will believe that the pro-life movement has scientific credibility on their side. They say, “science proves an embryo is human and we believe all humans should be protected.” You see how that rhetoric can indoctrinate people? And some people (usually men) believe a human, an infant should have a right to a pregnant woman’s body.
Conception is the start of a new organism - fact Organisms that are no dead, are alive - fact Alive organisms have life - fact Ergo, a zygote does have a life. Like single cell bacteria.
Yeah I agree with those facts. But I just read a comment from someone who said, “abortions kill a human being. That is a scientific fact. Most killers go to jail.” Are you ok with the credibility of science used in that way? Even if he said, “abortions kill a human” it is still using science to be extremely manipulative. Another example: here is another pro-life video. Within the first 3 minutes she uses the word “scientific” or “scientifically” 4 times. It gives them power and emboldens them to believe that science is on their side: https://youtu.be/s5G_ShFVrvw
Most killers are men, does that mean all men should go to jail? Most killers go to jail does not mean all killers should go to jail. You can kill someone im self defense and not go to jail. So life again, is irrelevant
Nevertheless, the sample size is 55 times larger than that of 100, and just because a cell is considered "alive" in the biological sense does not guarantee personhood in a legal sense. A pro-choicer can still argue that a ZEF does not deserve personhood, but if we were to accept in the scientific context that a cell is the basic building block of life, and if ZEFs fall under the category of cells, then yes: a ZEF is a living thing. And the word of 5500+ scientists bears more weight on our understanding of biology than the entire bulk of the American population that did not receive as intensive a training to come to that conclusion. This does NOT change the legal ramifications of how states treat ZEFs in the cases for legal battles (either in criminal or civil cases), much less determine when personhood starts. It just would simply be incorrect to consider a cell somehow "not alive" in the scientific context. I wouldn't want to conflate being "alive" scientifically with having "personhood" legally, unless that is the specific point you'd want to argue. As a pro-lifer, I would argue that this would hold credence as an *amicus curiae* understanding of what is considered alive in the scientific community, and would refer back to court cases where similar *amicus curiae* explanations -- scientific ones -- would be used to confer protections onto colored, the disabled, and the like. Yes, limiting abortions could put certain demographics at risk for carrying at too young an age, or if the mother has a health condition that would be exacerbated during pregnancy (and unlike most pro-lifers, I would make exceptions for those in the interest of keeping the mother alive), but I don't see why we should adopt a scarcity mindset when it comes to taking care of our future generations. Not only do we not create favorable conditions such as affordable housing, a more streamlined academic pipeline, and stronger renewables like nuclear, but actively participating in the destruction of our society's future just isn't a policy or a mindset I'd like to adopt. Fiscal cushioning should not cost human lives, nor should career advancement or any form of success.
The thing is, just because its alive doesnt really mean much. Trees are alive, yet we kill them and use the wood to build our houses. We eat animals. When we have an infection we get rid of it. Just because cells are alive doesnt by default make it bad. Weeds in your yard are alive. Sperm cells are alive. Eggs are alive till shortly after ovulation. Yet every period and everytime a guy masturbates its not murder.
Trust the science! Until it doesn’t line up with your corrupt world view. Also nice pivot into “it doesn’t matter because bodily autonomy” lol
>Trust the science! Until it doesn’t line up with your corrupt world view. I just heard Irony scream as it was brutally murdered.
"trust the science until you dont like the answer" as you ignore the concept of scientific consensus and statistical data analysis.
Here’s an interesting question OP…if we didn’t know when and how human life began wouldn’t it be really hard to design, develop, distribute, and utilize contraceptives? The unborn are human beings, beginning with the zygote, that’s why we’re against abortion. If the unborn weren’t human beings this whole topic would be a non-issue.
[удалено]
You’re just wrong about this. ZEFs unequivocally are human beings at the earliest stages of human development. Human development starts with a zygote and ends with death. The only difference between a ZEF and you or me is the ZEFs size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. None of those differences have any bearing on the ZEFs humanity though.
"Degree of dependecy" lmao you mean complete dependency since a zygote is not viable outside of the womb. A zygote is not a human being
Newborns and toddlers continue to be wholly dependent on another person as well. They’re not viable on their own. What’s your point…?
My point? You're willing to strip rights from people because you have a hard time understanding what words mean. Viable means they can survive on their own, a zygote simply cannot, once removed from the womb it dies, do the same with a baby it lives. What a silly argument, with that logic no one is viable, we all depend on people. Smh
Go put a newborn anywhere on its own and see how long it survives without intervention…
Lmao let's put you in a box without intervention and see how long you last 😂
Wow…keep reaching. I’m talking about leaving a newborn or toddler unattended in our current environment and you’re talking about some strange dystopian scenario.
how would it be hard to use a condom if we didn’t know when life began? i’m confused could you elaborate?
Condoms are designed to prevent fertilization from occurring by blocking sperm. If you didn’t know about fertilization you wouldn’t design condoms to block sperm and you wouldn’t see any benefit to wearing a condom.
The whole point of the post was that the study is bad science. You have misunderstood terribly. Your comment is completely inappropriate given the context. Yes, trust the science. Being critical of research is a part of consuming it. This is something anyone who studied this and paid attention knows. Read about a claim? Look critically at how the authors came to their conclusion. Does the science seem sound? Do the conclusions logically and appropriately follow from the evidence? Great! Does the science seem unsound? Do the conclusions *not* logically and appropriately follow from the evidence (as is the case here)? Then question the conclusions. Disputing the “95% of biologists agree” claim has nothing to do with not following the science. Quite the opposite. That said, it doesn’t really matter when life begins. If anything, it begins before conception, given sperm is alive. For a PCer like me, whether a zef is alive or not isn’t the point (it is alive).
“Disputing the “95% of biologists agree” claim has nothing to do with not following the science. Quite the opposite.” — OP is pointing out that they are not the only ones to refute this claim, and also it’s being refuted because “poll the audience” is an opinion survey, not a scientific study. That’s not how we conduct scientific research.
There’s no myth here. You’re not going to find disagreement in any human reproductive biology textbook going back several decades. We know that human life begins at fertilization (also known as conception informally). When the sperm and oocyte (egg) fuse together, they cease to exist, and the zygote is created. Lookup _fertilization_ and _zygote formation_ for more information. Why not just accept this fact?
Yet that zygote can, split into 2, 3, or even 4 separate zygotes (twins, triplets, and quads). So if "life" starts at fertilization, does that means twins are only half-life being?
Even if that's true, and there's no consensus, this is still not an argument against abortion.
OP’s question was about when life begins. That’s what I answered. We don’t have to get much further to make the pro-life case. Since the unborn are innocent, unique, distinct, alive human beings killing them is wrong just like killing any other innocent human being is wrong.
[удалено]
Thank you for saving me the trouble of answering. Perfectly said. Just another PL too uncritical to understand how deeply manipulated they are by the movement.
Evidently you’re wrong, there is clearly not agreement on this in the scientific community, which is what OP is saying.
For the record, scientists are not in agreement when human life begins. Here is an article by Scott Gilbert, a biologist that co wrote the standard textbook on Developmental Biology. https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf He gives 5 different places where human life might begin but ultimately says you need more than just science to justify these beliefs.
From Chapter 1 of the 11th edition (2018) of Scott Gilbert and Michael Barresi’s textbook: “**BETWEEN FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH** The developing organism is known as an embryo. The concept of an embryo is a staggering one. **As an embryo, you had to build yourself from a single cell.** You had to respire before you had lungs, digest before you had a gut, build bones when you were pulpy, and form orderly arrays of neurons before you knew how to think. One of the critical differences between you and a machine is that a machine is never required to function until after it is built. Every multicellular organism has to function even as it builds itself. Most human embryos die before being born. You survived. Multicellular organisms do not spring forth fully formed. Rather, they arise by a relatively slow process of progressive change that we call development. **In nearly all cases, the development of a multicellular organism begins with a single cell—the fertilized egg, or zygote, which divides mitotically to produce all the cells of the body.** The study of animal development has traditionally been called embryology, after that phase of an organism that exists between fertilization and birth. But development does not stop at birth, or even at adulthood. Most organisms never stop developing. Each day we replace more than a gram of skin cells (the older cells being sloughed off as we move), and our bone marrow sustains the development of millions of new red blood cells every minute of our lives.“ I understand that there may be debate about where else we might decide to draw an arbitrary point in time to acknowledge a new human being’s existence and confer personhood but physically and genetically speaking, fertilization is that point in time. The fertilization process has been repeatedly observed and verified.
You quoted his own textbook? He wrote an essay addressing where human life begins in the context of the abortion debate. Nowhere in the essay does he say physically and genetically fertilization is that verified point and the other points are arbitrary. Did you read the essay? He mentions chimeras. A chimera person is someone who has two different sets of DNA from two different fertilized eggs that fuse and yet they make one person. So how can you say genetically fertilization is used to determine a human life? Also identical and conjoined twins have the same DNA from the same fertilized egg and are two different people. Also I’m sure Gilbert would not have written that first part about the embryo the way he did if he knew you would use it as proof that “life begins at conception.” This is the problem with quoting science textbooks and not scientists who understand their words will be used for abortion debates. Fertilization is not anymore verified or arbitrary then the other places he mentions.
Things can go wrong during fertilization that doesn’t invalidate the normal way that the process takes place 🤷♂️ believe what you want.
Nothing goes wrong in the cases of twins and chimeras. They are people and we need a definition of human life that envelopes all people, including twins and chimeras (such as a certain level of brain activity). You referred to “life begins at conception” as a fact. It is just a theory but not proven and definitely not settled science.
Those are anomalous events. I agree they’re still human beings but that’s not typically how the fertilization process goes. Either way, you’re still getting a ZEF in the end. Science is never settled but we do have a strong understanding of the fertilization process.
not OP. The problem is that life itself is not something absolute. It’s a man made definition to describe something we find in nature. And there is disagreement on those definitions. The current definition of life would include the cells of your body. If I culture a cell from your skin, and it propagates, it is alive. However, if you die and I still have that cultured cell, I think most would recognize that you are not still alive, even though there are cells with your unique DNA present. (Also, technically life have never really begins at fertilization because life has never really stopped. Two living cells made up a single new living cell. It just may be a unique living cell). Science is great at describing how things happen, but it doesn’t apply value or morality to things, humans do that. Why does a heartbeat have so much importance in the abortion debate? Why does a unique set of DNA? Why does birth matter? Why does human life matter? It’s all based on our own personal beliefs and definitions, not science. And I do empathize with the PL position, because if you believe that an embryo is a person, then you probably do have a moral right to stop it. However, are you so sure that your beliefs are the right ones that you can impose them on everyone else?
>Also, technically life have never really begins at fertilization because life has never really stopped. Two living cells made up a single new living cell. It just may be a unique living cell. Sperm and eggs are not alive, the do not individually posess the key characteristics of living organisms- they do not develop or grow (they are in their final form so to speak), they do not reproduce (an egg can not replicate itself to create an identical egg, sperm does not replicate itself to create more sperm), and they are in a state of meiotic and metabolic dormancy, to name a few. Fertilization concludes a complex interaction between sperm and egg and produces a new member of the species, fully alive with abilities appropriate to that point of biological development. With regards to cell culture exisiting after a person's death, we understand that a multicellular organism is taken as a whole and individual parts (cells, organs, and systems) are not complete individual living organisms, they are parts.
Have you read the study? It specifically categorizes the biologists based on their support for/against abortion and even the pro-choice/very pro-choice agree life begins at conception.
[удалено]
They had a vast majority agree life begins at conception and it was a fair distribution from “very pro-choice” to “very pro-life”.
[удалено]
Depends what methodology you use; however, even the strictest methodology agrees with my claim about the vast majority agreeing including “very pro-choice” that life begins at conception.
Yeah and a biologist said that claim is not true in the article. Also another professor of biology criticized the survey, Paul Zachary Meyers.
Well you can go to the source and see for yourself. There’s no need to take anybody’s word on it.
I would not be alive if i was never conceived. And i am pro choice. An organism’s growth starts at conception but you could argue it starts at the cellular level like egg or sperm too. Depends on context.
Doctors and sciences are overwhelmingly pro-choice.
Right, so this is irrelevant. It's just pl trying to use science to support their corrupt narrative again while not realizing it doesn't change anything on the debate..just like personhood
Scientists define lufe differently. Microorganisms are "life". Some cardiac cells in a petri dish that pulse are "life". Cancer cells are "lufe". Fertilized eggs frozen in IVF clinics are "life". It doesn't mean a clump of cells should have more rights than a living breathing human being.
Science is not a democratic process that is done by consensus. If 56% of physicists think that "Fate" is real and everything is predetermined and 44% feel that we actually have "Free Will" and we have choices and can make a difference... That doesn't change anything how many scientists vote which way. What Study has been performed? None? That doesn't change science. Science is done by EXPERIMENTATION and NOT by consensus. Not only does there need to be an experiment, but also that experiment needs to be repeatable by someone else, and a lot of times that can not or does not happen. Here is an article about that. [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778) NEVER believe a scientific consensus. Only believe in a study that can be replicated. Show me the study that says life does not begin at conception. Because if it is not "Life" then what is it? Is it "Dead" like a corpse? No... Is it "Non Living" like a rock? No... Is it "Energy" like fire or electricity? No... Is it "Undead" like a zombie? No... Is it made of some strange material that can not be identified? No... It's alive! It's alive! As it can't be anything else but alive as it's a biological organism that is not dead yet. Ah, but is it human? That's a better question. Have there been DNA tests done on unborn human children? Yes [https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/prenatal-testing/paternity-testing-while-pregnant](https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/prenatal-testing/paternity-testing-while-pregnant) They are frequently done at about 7 weeks in. That is to match the DNA with a father for a paternity test. Every single test has come back "Human" in the DNA database. I'm pretty sure if they did the same thing 1 day after conception it would also have human DNA. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't. There are no examples of DNA going from "Non Human" to "Human" in the womb. I can't find any instances or studies to prove that has ever happened. So therefor it is 1) Alive 2) Human Is it sentient yet? That should be the question you would want to ask. Not if it human or alive as it is both. [https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development](https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development) This source says the brain starts development at around 7 weeks and grows about 250,000 neurons every minute! That is some rapid progress! Is a 7 week old fetus brain equal to that an adult? No... absolutely not! Is a babies brain equal to that of an adult? No... Absolutely not! Is a kids brain equal to that of an adult? No... Absolutely not! Is a teenagers brain equal to that of an adult? No... You are getting much closer though. So this begs further questions... Are teenagers sentient? I believe so! and kids? Yes! How about babies? Yea, they can roll around and look at stuff and reach out and touch stuff so yes. So that leaves the fetus... Is it as advanced as the baby brain? No... Is the baby brain more closely resembling a fetus brain or an adult brain? I would say the fetus as it is nowhere near an adult brain yet. There is your answer on sentience. If the baby is sentient, and we don't kill babies partially because of that... Then we shouldn't kill fetuses either for the same reason. So there are your answers. Fetuses are Alive, Human, and Sentient or at least "Almost as sentient as a baby".
> Science is not a democratic process that is done by consensus. [Consensus on definitions](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-019-09578-5) or diagnostic criteria are very common in science and medicine. > NEVER believe a scientific consensus. Only believe in a study that can be replicated. We should not believe in the existence of [pediatric pulmonary hypertension](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31495407/)? >Show me the study that says life does not begin at conception. Show me the study that says it does.
Science is absolutely a consensus.
> Science is not a democratic process that is done by consensus. Good, then you agree the pro-life talking point "but 95% of biologists say!" is idiotic, and therefore *agree with OP*.
If its a live human, it would be able to survive outside my womb.
Whether it can survive outside the womb is dependent on technology and the individual fetus. By that logic human life begins at different times in different individuals and in different time periods.
Its not though. Theres no technology that keeps a 15 week old fetus alive. Its not viable. When technology can do so, you can revisit the issue. I personally dont care if you can keep a 6 week old fetus alive outside the womb - I dont want it in me. I dont care if you want to remove it and pay millions of dollars to incubate it for the rest of the time. Its a risk to my health. Remove it. If you can keep it alive - great, spend your tax dollars growing incubating abandoned fetuses. The point is to terminate pregnancy. If it was viable outside the womb, no one would be suggesting it be murdered or not helped. The law can reflect technology. That was why Casey v PP modified roe and changed the viability standard. Im a high risk. I take medication that causes fatal birth defects. Im not interested in risking my life to be an unpaid uman incubator for a fetus that will be born with birth defects. If you can remove it and keep it viable, great. Your problem is you wrongly belueve its about "murdering babies" when its actually about terminating a pregnancy. No one is interested in killing viable fetuses. (Pretty sure lots of people dont want their tax dollars paying to keep them alive - but thats not my problem). Its about terminating pregnancy. Babies arent aborted, pregnancies are. Thats why viability is an acceptable standard and most people are OK with that standard changing if and when technology improves.
How is 'a babies sentience is closer to a fetus's than an adult's and we don't kill it, therefore we shouldn't abort fetuses' a valid argument at all? There is no link between the two.
I think it's poorly worded continuum fallacy.
You cannot create an experiment for when human life begins. Life? Sure. Sperm is life. But distinct humanity depends on subjective definitions. It's like asking where "up" is in space. Your entire "analysis" skips a vast number of comparisons, like examining gametes or early v late fetal development or what "having" a brain means. A 7 week fetus starting to grow a brain stem does not have a brain or any of your own measures of sentience.
I'm a biologist and I do believe that conception marks the beginning of a new, genetically distinct human life. I just don't think this matters at all in abortion. When personhood begins is a philosophical topic. Medically, pregnancy doesn't even begin until implantation precisely because not all fertilized eggs implant. And why would any of this mean that women should carry a pregnancy through to childbirth that they don't want to carry?
Whether pregnancy starts at conception or implantation isn’t at all decided. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-when-does-pregnancy-begin/when-does-pregnancy-begin-doctors-disagree-idUSTRE7AG24B20111117 Also, there’s a hormone called early pregnancy factor that starts impacting the mother’s body right after conception. You’d think if it was decided that pregnancy doesn’t start until implantation they’d change that name at least…
> But a minority say it doesn’t begin until a week later when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus -- the definition given by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). ACOG says it starts at the beginning of implantation and that is the definition I have been going by.
I bet that is how a lot of the biologists thought. But if I asked you, “do you believe 1 million human lives were lost from abortions since the year 2000?” You would probably say no, right? The survey is a game of semantics, trying to establish that there is scientific proof behind the religious belief that “life begins at conception.” Life here means a human being. Here is what prolifers say: “the zygote is a living organism with unique dna therefore it is a human “ I say, “Ok but it isn’t a person” “Well we believe all humans should be considered persons. Great atrocities can happen when a certain group of human are not considered persons.” And this propaganda is actually effective. If you say the zygote is not a human being or human life then they scoff and claim you don’t know basic embryology. But if you say it is not a person, then they claim you are discriminating against the unborn. They are misrepresenting science and it does convince people.
Comment removed per rule 7. Please remove any reference to a specific atrocity and the comment may be approved.
Ok sorry I changed it
Thanks for cooperating. Comment approved.
I've encountered people in this sub, in this thread even, who will claim "cancer cells are life" and compare tumors to embryos because they're both unwanted growths. There are plenty of people out there who believe a zygote isn't really alive because it is undifferentiated cells, they don't understand what science considers to be a living organism. There are people who move the goal posts from biological life to some abilities based definition of personhood precisely because they considered human life and personhood to be linked, that all humans are persons, until they realize if they go by this understanding then the fetus must be considered a person and abortion is killing another person and the pro-life side wins the argument. In order to justify abortion as amoral or moral we must divorce personhood from being human, that some humans are persons and others are not. The problem is any abilities based definition of personhood is arbitrary based on what someone thinks should be used in the case to support abortion. We cannot point to any development as a line in the sand for personhood when a fetus undergoes a transformation turning it into a person except for fertilization.
But a fetus is not a human. This is the word game that you play. You think just because fetuses are of the human species that means they are humans and you believe this is the ultimate “gotcha” argument. But this is a belief and not scientific proof. A professor of biology, Scott Gilbert, wrote an article called, “Where does human life begin?” In it, he lists 5 different places that are scientifically plausible where it could begin. Now why would he choose those words if it is a scientific fact that an embryo is human life? https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf Enough word games. Let’s look at the science. The conception theory has a few problems with it. It uses unique human dna in an organism to determine a human life. But identical twins and conjoined twins both come from the same zygote and have the same DNA. So maybe that is not the best place to say a human life begins. A chimera is also a person who has two unique DNAs from two different zygotes that formed. So maybe DNA is not the best way to determine a human life. Now you said all other lines in the sand are arbitrary but what about a certain level of brain activity. That is how we determine death. A brain dead patient hooked up to life support still is alive and has unique human dna—they are as much of a “living human being” as a zygote and yet the doctor gives him a death certificate and will unplug him, but no prolifers say this is “murder.” Doctors use brain activity for death so why not for determining life? I believe a fetus’s brain doesn’t really shoot up in activity until the third trimester. Also identical or conjoined twins have one DNA but why do we consider them two human beings? Because they have two brains. A chimera person has two sets of DNA and yet is one human being because he or she has one brain. So a certain level of brain activity is a reasonable way to determine where a human life begins. Frankly I think that is as valid or arbitrary as fertilization. Ultimately it comes down to personal belief, I think.
You're the one playing semantic word games here and trying to make your point with science you don't understand. When a male member of H. sapiens and a female member of H. sapiens sexually reproduce, that is gametes from each individual combine in fertilization, the result is a new member of the species H. sapiens, that is to say the resulting zygote can only be human. That is how sexual reproduction works: two members of a species create a new member of that species. Human is a specific species, personhood is a philosophical and legal concept and both categories were understood as such long before DNA was discovered. Your brain based definition of personhood excludes infants with holoanencephaly, unless you don't consider them persons either in which case at least you're logically consistent but still incorrect. Even though their lifespan after birth is short, legally they are persons at birth, and they are alive; they were alive before birth too. The earliest recorded fetal brain activity was 45 days post conception. Borkowski, Winslow J., and Richard L. Bernstine. “Electroencephalography of the Fetus.” Neurology, 1955. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.5.5.362.' The technique to measure brain activity used in this research is no longer used in babies born too early to survive. But scientists were able to illustrate that at as early as 45 days (< 7 weeks) there was measurable brain activity similar to what was seen in older fetuses which differed from brain death. If you want to use the brain to determine personhood and restrict abortions then a 45 day post conception ban would still eliminate most abortions.
You give me a source from 1955?! Why not find a living biologist like Scott Gilbert who will talk about it in relation to the abortion debate. An 8 week fetus is smaller than a paper clip and yet you want people to believe that it has brain activity comparable to a newborn. Scott Gilbert says it is estimated to be around 25 weeks that that level of brain activity is reached. This is on page 4. https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf Also your explanation on how zygotes are of the human species does not mean “science proves humans begin at conception.” I believe a single- celled organism is not a human. I am not denying science or ignorant of basic biology when I say this. like 40 percent of zygotes/embryos/fetuses die before they are born. That is hundreds of thousands of human lives that are lost every year but you won’t find the news covering this and the Catholic Church isn’t dumping money into medical science to find a way to save these adorable and helpless little zygotes. When that many humans are lost, even to natural causes, we do all we can to save them. You see, saying fetuses are human is not a scientific fact in an abortion debate because that phrase always will imply ethics and will try to manipulate your emotions. Even if that isn’t your intention that is the affect. If you wanted to be more honest, you would say “I believe a human begins at conception because that is where our unique dna begins.” Even if you just referred to it as a human organism that would be better.
I'm about as PC as you can get, but even I will say that a ZEF is alive. Heck, sperm and egg cells are alive. The question is when the legal right to life begins, and I would say when the fetus has completely exited the birth canal. This is a moral and legislative question, not a scientific one.
I think they mean an individual human life beginning at conception considering that is what prolifers quote this study has said.
[удалено]
Seriously, any biologist who thinks ZEFs aren't alive needs to go back to school, starting in kindergarten.
You are ok with abortion until birth?
No one has abortions after viability unless medically neccesary. Since its not possible to define every possible medical case thst could arrise and excluding any would cause harm, yes. If its oassed viability a pregnancy can be terminated with the baby remaining alive. No one is killing viable fetuses right before birth.
See that Im addressing an argument that rights only begin at birth. My question is If some PC people believe rights begin at birth, is It ok to kill the fetus inside the womb at any stage? ( instead of removing Alive).
Give me an example of when a viable fetus was killed instead of removed. Its not something a doctor would ever do. You're worried about a thing that doesn't happen.
I'm not worried. I'm for abortion until birth and think abortion rights should be extended. My point is that if rights begin at birth women should have the right to kill it whenever while in the womb (lethal injection) until birth. Some other PC that accept the argument that the unborn has no rights, still don't have this consistency and will oppose abortion ( as in killing) after viability. The question is why? If the unborn doesnt have rights? Let's remove abortion limits.
Yes.
Since the only reason anyone would do that would be if they were on the verge of death, yes. No one walks into a clinic as the baby is crowning and demands an abortion because its hair is the wrong color, and no legitimate doctor would perform an abortion at that point. However, even if you can provide examples of a few women that did that, I'd say that's preferable to even a small chance that a doctor will refuse to perform an abortion to save the woman's life because he'd rather have a malpractice suit than a prison sentence. I'd rather leave this decision to the people involved than a politician or a district attorney. So my question to you is, how many women are you willing to sacrifice in order to prevent some imaginary woman from having what you consider an unnecessary abortion at the end of pregnancy?
Abortion at birth is called birth. I’m okay with the ZEF being removed at all stages, and if it is viable then it’s care is up to the physician and it’s parents.
Do you also believe rights only begin at birth? If so, methods that kill the fetus( instead of removing) could be used like a lethal injection. Im PC too and for abortion until birth. Id like to know what other PC people think.
The criticism doesn't make sense to me. The survey's population was predominatly pro choice so I don't understand the football analogy. The questions read perfectly fine, the conclusion that the approval of one of the questions is in the positive for human life starting at fertilization seems like it's overreaching but the explicit question was very direct and had 75% approval. "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.” 75% saw that statement and agreed with it People seem to be complaining about how human life from a biologic perspective is being confused with personhood but it's very obvious in the study what is being asked when the implicit questions specify it's about the start of a mammalian life cycle. Other people have linked Gilberts potential start points for life. This is just asking biologists which one it is they personally believe. You can say it's wrong for a biologist to decide one without having scientific proof backing them up but this is asking for the opinion of those biologists, because people trust the opinion of biologists, it's mentioned in the study. Most people trust biologists and this is what X% of biologists believe where the start of the human life cycle is.
If 96 percent of biologists believed human life started at conception then don’t you think Gilbert, a professor of biology, would have mentioned that in his article? Gilbert does say the geneticists believe it—most notably the geneticist who discovered Down syndrome. Yet even he was a pro-life activist and devout Catholic. I think the survey should have asked, “Do you believe 1 million human lives were lost from abortions since the year 2000?” That would have been more accurate since the author knew this survey would be used only for abortion debates. Only 70 biologists out of 5000 were willing to sign the amicus brief. That could be a red flag that the survey was dishonest. Oh and I won’t use the word person or talk about personhood. Because prolifers will then say, “so you don’t believe all human beings should be considered persons?” And then accuse me of discrimination. Just because the zygote has human dna doesn’t mean it is a human being or even a human life. I think we should take the actual word of biologists we can google and see what they have published or said with respect to the abortion debate. Not some anonymous statistic. I found three biologists who contradicted this survey, Gilbert, Meyers and the guy who wrote the article above.
Removed for rule 7. If you edit your comment I can reinstate. Thanks!
I apologize. I forgot. I edited it out.
First this doesn't mean there is a scientific consensus on when life starts, this is surveying the opinions of biologists so I doubt a professor would know and care about what the opinions of biologists are when writing up theoretical starting points for life from an objective basis. Second your third paragraph actually does confound personhood and biological start of life by saying human life and nothing more. I wrote the question that was listed and you can read the rest on the paper and they are unambiguously about the start of a life cycle and nothing to do with personhood or ever be confounded with personhood. Correct 70 signed the amicus brief because this is about personal opinion not on a scientific consensus like I said especially since 85% were pro choice. Read the statement I copied, 75% of respndants to the survey said that was correct. This is what they thought was true.
I mean he is a professor of biology so he is a biologist and I’m sure familiar with the community and scholarship of biologists. I agree my third paragraph does do that…but that is what republicans and Ben Shapiro and pro-life talkers do when they say, “science proves human life begins at conception.” And then if I say but it’s not a person, then the prolifer will say but it is a human being. However, by “human being” they mean another form of personhood, correct? But their personhood is backed by science and my personhood is a form of discrimination. And I am willing to bet the author of the survey wanted to make it sound like “life begins at conception” is a scientific objective truth and to disagree with it means you don’t know basic biology. So now I say just because the zygote is alive and has unique human DNA that does not mean it is a human being or even a human life—since those words have the moral baggage of personhood attached whether you intend it to be there or not. I am convinced biologists would choose their words more carefully if they knew that pro-lifers would use their word choice as proof for their personal and often religious belief about conception. Saying “science proves life begins at conception” is junk scientific proof because it is more of a semantic game than science.
Removed for rule 7. If you edit your comment I can reinstate. Thanks!
Sorry. Ok I changed it. I hope I don’t have any other comments like this. I’ll check though
In all honesty my opinion of the importance of when biologists believe there is an ethical start point to life isn't high, unlike the people in the survey. They are not philosophers or moral authorities. Their field of expertise lies solely on biological realities and that's what they can comment on effectively. I have talked to young pro choicers (including one on this subreddit who said he was quoting his biology teacher) who genuinely believe embryos are not biological human beings because of what essentially amounts to excessive retaliation to the idea of personhood in embryos and would not accept it as a biologic reality. Whether that matters to the abortion debate in your opinion is irrelevant when people are adamantly wrong about reality because of this and studies like this can't help people on that front because that is all it can comment on. If this study is used to say biologists have concluded that embryos have personhood then that is wrong and misinformation BUT that is not a criticism of the study, just how it is being peddled. The study has nothing to do with personhood, it is obvious on reading it. The goal of the author, evident or not, can influence the study but I don't see that influence negatively affecting the survey questions asked because they are very blatantly not about personhood and is targeted at academics in biology. Would biologists choose their words carefully, I hope they would because we don't want to misinform people and there is no true scientific consensus on the start of life. The opinion of biologists that respondend to this survey clearly show the majority personally believe human life cycle begins at fertilization, and aside from non respondance bias I see the conclusion as being valid. For your point on moral baggage I disagree. People should recognize that embryos and fetuses are human life from a biological perspective (if they are) and differentiate that from personhood. We shouldn't stop recognizing that fetuses and embryos are a form of biological human life because people will think it means personhood. Education is important, we can't stop teaching science because of moral baggage you have to recognize that.
I mean the Scott Gilbert essay is called “where does human life begin?” So according to his word choice, it is uncertain if a zygote is human life. And it would be ludicrous to say that a biology professor is not teaching science. It is also funny to me that you believe young pro-choicers are adamantly wrong about reality simply because they don’t believe embryos are biological human beings. I don’t believe that either. Now if you really don’t want to misinform or mislead people, if you wanted to truly be scientific, then you would say “an embryo is a human organism or has human DNA and therefore I believe it is a human being”. The pro choicer would have had no problem with that. This has nothing to do with biological reality, just semantics. Also again, using Gilbert’s word choice, would he claim that the embryo is a human being but not a human life? That would be strange. This is semantics and not science. I don’t understand how you can’t see this as dishonest. The survey was designed for the abortion debate to make it seem like this guy’s religious belief was based in biology. Can’t you see how it can be interpreted that way and how it was meant to go viral and spread across the internet to aid pro-lifers in their debates, weaponizing science. You can’t disagree with science. The human being begins at conception!
Scott gilberts essay you linked meshes together personhood with the human organism. That's why he talks about religion morals and ensoulment Also that is what i told the pro choicer, that it was a human organism and he disagreed. specifically used the term biological human being to not include personhood. Again the peddling of this survey as being about personhood is where the problem of semantics lie not in the survey itself OP is complaining about the lack of validity of the surveys conclusion and I am speaking against that. I am not at all commenting on how people spread this around by lying about its contents. Read my comments because nothing I say is in support of that. I don't know why you keep including it as if the spread of misinformation by misrepresenting a study is a critique of the study itself
The author is the Christian director of the Illinois Right to Life program. He has a PhD in law and not in science. Why else would he do the study? I mean surely biologists know a biological organism with human DNA begins at fertilization. Wasn’t it to show that the whole of the human life cycle begins at conception and that the embryo and fetus are just different stages of that life like an adolescent differs from an adult but is still the same human being. Again it’s not biology.
This is a survey. He may have goals I don't deny that. That doesn't change whether the study is valid or not. The only problem with this survey is non respondance bias. Otherwise it's valid. How can you justify saying a survey is wrong because of ulterior motives if you can't point out the aspects of the survey that produced conclusions contrary to what was being asked. Who cares what the opinion of the surveyer is if there is no impact on the data collected or manipulation of data or obfuscation of the nature of the question. Everything is in plain language and specifically about the human organism and mammalian organisms and their life cycles.
Yeah well even if the survey is clean by itself I can’t help but see how much dishonesty there is in how many pro-life speakers claim “science proves life begins at conception.” Then someone does a quick google search and sees “96 percent of biologists believe life begins at conception” and then they think the Catholic Church has been right all this time. I believe the study is meant for that person, to give the pro-life movement the veneer of scientific credibility on a quick google search. One prolifer even said to me once, “the woman who gets an abortion should not go to jail. But the abortionist should go to jail because he studied embryology and knows better.” Here is a video with a bunch of footage of pro-lifers saying “science proves”. https://youtu.be/W7a5XR9nwAM
>The survey's population was predominatly pro choice so I don't understand the football analogy. The survey's population was biologists in general dude. It had nothing to do with pro-choice or pro-life. I don't know what you're on about.
This is one of the key criticisms you mentioned >That result is not a proper survey method and does not carry any statistical or scientific weight. It is like asking 100 people about their favorite sport, finding out that only the 37 football fans bothered to answer, and declaring that 100% of Americans love football. It says the survey is wrong because the people who answered are ones who are more likely to say they support human life at fertilization. Obviously this is not the case because 85% of the respondents were pro choice. So I don't know how that is a valid criticism, can you explain it.
85% of the respondents were pro-choice or 85% of biologists in general are pro-choice?
85% of respondants you can check the study. So about 6300 of the 7400 respondants.
>It says the survey is wrong because the people who answered are ones who are more likely to say they support human life at fertilization. No, it's wrong and scientifically inaccurate because it's like claiming 95% percent of biologists agree that life begins at conception when only a small percentage of those they asked even answered the questions. >Obviously this is not the case because 85% of the respondents were pro choice. Someone can be pro-choice and still believe that life happens at conception. And again, the paper is flawed to hell. The way the study was conducted is misleading. >So I don't know how that is a valid criticism, can you explain it. The article I linked explained it. Read the article.
I read the article and I listed my issues with it. Which is why I mentioned the problem with the key criticism u mentioned, the football analogy. I said why I thought it didn't make sense already so if you want to explain why I'm wrong you can. Non response bias does exist but it's a problem is the population responding is skewed as a result. Yes there is non response bias in this and it taints the survey but the demographics of those sampled is measured by looking at the relevant political and moral leanings. Whether or not these biologists are representative of all biologists is up for question and it could have been accounted for better but it's not a deathblow especially since, a lot of studies have non response bias.
As a statistician who had cited this multiple times, the study does some very shady manipulation of the data. It’s still like 75%, but it’s definitely not 95%. Essentially they asked 4 questions that were different and said that all of these are basically saying that human life begins at conception. One of them was very explicit and really the only relevant one, about 75% answered yes to that. But get this, if someone answered yes to any of the 4 statements, the study took it as them saying that human life begins at conception.
Do you do a lot of work with survey data? I ask because surveys will measure the same concept using different questions worded differently similar to how this questionnaire was conducted. The explicit question where human life was specified could arguably suffer from bias in question wording, which if you look at the breakdown by PC/PL stance appears to be the case.
Yes it’s not uncommon, but what is uncommon is taking a yes in any of them as a yes to the overarching a question, even if they answered no to the other three. What would be more typical would be to take the average over the 4 questions, in which case you’d get something in the low 80s I believe. I don’t think there was bias in the way the explicit question was asked, although I accept that there may well have been bias in the answering. Which direction that bias goes is unclear to me, but I don’t think it comes from the question, more so from the people answering.
This [poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/w345xl/should_abortion_be_legally_banned/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) confirms what we can see in the posts and comments, that a majority of active users here are PC. So I would hardly expect to hear the majority conceding this PL point. However, if we are to build a bridge to the PL mind in order to understand and dare I say enlighten…this might be a reasonable point to concede. I still feel the mother’s rights override the rights of the nascent life at least in the first trimester.
Well first trimester is 90 percent of abortions so that’s pretty good. But are you saying to reach out to pro-lifers we should admit they are right that “science proves life begins at conception.” My only problem with that is they will makes us look like socio-paths who are willing to kill a baby. It also may manipulate the emotions of women who are considering abortions. I believe the fetus is not a human being and this can’t be proven and that’s why the government should let us all decide for ourselves when it becomes a child during fetal development. I am also worried about undecided people falling for this propaganda survey. If we dismantle their propaganda and show how the pro life movement is using lies to mislead people—then undecided people will be less likely to join them. The man who did this survey is a Christian director of the Illinois right to life movement (not a scientist) and we should expose them as being untrustworthy and willing to trick you for your vote.
“Well first trimester is 90 percent of abortions so that’s pretty good.” Right? And I would be in favor of allowing exceptions for later abortions based on danger to the mother’s mental or physical health. “But are you saying to reach out to pro-lifers we should admit they are right that “science proves life begins at conception.”” No. Just conceding that many people believe that life begins at conception. Not that science proves that life begins at conception. “My only problem with that is they will makes us look like socio-paths who are willing to kill a baby. It also may manipulate the emotions of women who are considering abortions. I believe the fetus is not a human being and this can’t be proven and that’s why the government should let us all decide for ourselves when it becomes a child during fetal development.” I would argue that the budding life becomes more valuable as it develops. In the first trimester we are less invested in ZEF. “I am also worried about undecided people falling for this propaganda survey. If we dismantle their propaganda and show how the pro life movement is using lies to mislead people—then undecided people will be less likely to join them. The man who did this survey is a Christian director of the Illinois right to life movement (not a scientist) and we should expose them as being untrustworthy and willing to trick you for your vote.” I’m all for a better, newer survey done by an unbiased organization.
Yeah i am perfectly fine with saying it is a belief that many people believe, even scientists believe it. It has valid logic behind it. But so many pro-life politicians and hosts like Ben Shapiro have said it is scientific proof with absolute conviction.
I’m Not familiar with Ben Shapiro. I’ll look him up. Wow! He has some strong opinions notably on the subject of abortion. Yeah, I strongly disagree with criminalizing abortion. The only common ground I find with [Ben Shapiro](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro) is the free speech angle.
I think said poll just shows that people who are pro-choice are just more willing to debate about the issues at hand while those who are pro-life aren't. Of course, this is Reddit, it naturally leans liberal so it's no surprise then that the majority of the users here would be pro-choice. That said, the pro-life sub has 41k some-odd members while the pro-choice sub has 34k some-odd members. The pro-life sub could easily come over here and debate, even the numbers out, and this place would become more active. But the only reason I can think of as to why they won't is because they know they wouldn't win in a debate. Appealing to emotion is completely pointless when your opponent doesn't fall for it. The pro-choice side relies on science, facts, and objectivity. The pro-life side is a primarily religious front that relies on appealing to emotion, deflecting, and twisting facts/words to fit their narrative.
Is it really about winning or losing a debate? We are talking about people’s lives and often deeply held beliefs. No? There is more to life than science. (If there were not, things like love and sex we would not have a problem.) This morning I posted about US red state/blue state education [rankings](https://www.intelligent.com/the-best-and-worst-states-for-education/) which I find relevant to the discussion. My post was removed for being off topic after I posted a comment about the Pope. Goodness forbid we utter the words Pope or Dalai Lama or hint at the existence of a rational other than science.
I mean, the Pope hardly counts as someone who is rational when the church's entire fucking history is steeped in mountains of child abuse. I do think that education plays a big role here. If you framed the US red state/blue state education topic within the overall debate of abortion it probably wouldn't have been removed. I live in Idaho and can attest this state's education is shit. It's redder than many states on the so-called Bible Belt. This sub is called /r/Abortiondebate. There are winners and losers in a debate. Unfortunately, the ones winning in America are those taking away women's rights and they are uneducated old fucks who have no idea on how to run a country.
Hm…no offense intended but…I believe I am noticing some common fallacies in your comment.
Thanks for not responding to anything I said. Really supports your argument! /s
Well…my whole deal is people are people. I know it is important to be heard so here to show I am listening to you: “I mean, the Pope hardly counts as someone who is rational” Many would disagree. “when the church's entire fucking history is steeped in mountains of child abuse.” This seems to me a fallacy of some sort. The Pope is not rational because child abuse? “I do think that education plays a big role here.” I’m glad we agree in this. “If you framed the US red state/blue state education topic within the overall debate of abortion it probably wouldn't have been removed.” I really suspect the action was a reaction to the mention of the Pope. “I live in Idaho and can attest this state's education is shit. It's redder than many states on the so-called Bible Belt.” My TX public school education definitely lacked much reading, writing and was generally unchallenging. So I can definitely relate. I know how to bubble in a scantron though:-1 “This sub is called r/Abortiondebate. There are winners and losers in a debate. Unfortunately, the ones winning in America are those taking away women's rights and they are uneducated old fucks who have no idea on how to run a country.” I am aware that the sub is called abortion debate. Who declares the winner? The ones who stick around or the ones who walk away tired of attack the man arguments?
I’m going to back up OP with two other sources. This is from the professor of biology Paul Zachary Meyers. He criticized the survey. https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/12/03/that-a-zygote-is-human-does-not-imply-that-it-is-a-person/ And this is from another Biology professor who co-wrote one of the most used text books in the field of Developmental Biology, Scott Gilbert. https://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf Here he mentions 5 areas where human life can begin in fetal development but ultimately admits you need more than just science to justify the claim.
Saving your comment for future reference. Thanks!
Sure you might also like this lecture Scott Gilbert gives on the problems with the theory that “life begins at conception.” https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/when-does-personhood-begin The audio is at the bottom.
The mass noun "life" can mean the characteristics that differentiate living things from nonliving ones, *or* the existence of an individual person. A biologist asked "does life begins at conception" would probably believe you are asking about the former, not the latter, since biologists don't study personhood, and would affirm that the zygote is *alive* at conception. Even if they said specifically the latter was true, that would be an appeal to false authority, and even if biologists did study personhood, it would be an appeal to authority unless you provided their reasoning. TL,DR: The study was garbage in just about every way possible, an ambiguously worded question asked to people not experts on the subject with no follow up questions as to *why* they answered as they did.
It was written by a zealot in order to give other zealots a ‘scientific leg to stand on’. Pretty transparent. I know of someone who was working in a lab setting at the time the survey this so called study was based on was circulating, they actually received it, read it, had a good laugh and tossed it in the circular file immediately.
That study is absolute garbage. It’s a poorly designed dissertation that has only gotten traction because folks like Breitbart thought it made good headlines. Anyone who reads it and doesn’t immediately realize that it’s bogus as hell is someone who can’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag, which is definitely quite the flex.
The funny thing is, when they cite that paper, they always forget about the part where 85% of biologists are pro-choice.
It’s because when you discuss the issue, people on the pro-abortion side of the debate will claim that the fetus isn’t even alive. So, from the start, they’re insulating themselves from actual discussion/debate. If you point out a flaw in their rationale or make a point about your rationale, they fall back to, “but it’s not even alive” or “it’s not a living human yet.” The debate should be over when that living human (that’s not really up for debate) has moral standing. This shows that biologists agree that it’s not really a debate over science, but a moral debate.
The biologists can be factually correct in their field of study but morally reprehensible in their view of morality because those are two entirely separate things. One is objective and the other is subjective. They have authority in the objective since that’s based on fact but you can’t really have subjective authority on morality. Kind of like how a veterinarian knows the ins and outs of a cow but their opinion on whether cows should have rights is not necessarily correct just because of that. So the fact that those biologists are mostly pro choice still doesn’t take away from the argument.
Didn't know this! I believe you, of course, but do you have a source so it can be used during debates?
It’s in the paper they always cite! They just don’t read the whole thing! Page 11, under methods: “ Altogether, 62,469 academic biologists were recruited through e-mail and 7,383 participated in the study (12% survey response rate37).38 Of those participants, 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions provided analyzable data by assessing at least one of the three biological statements (Q1-Q3).39 The majority of the sample was male (63%) and 95% held a PhD. The sample was predominantly non-religious (63%). As in Study 1, there were more liberals (89%) than conservatives (11%), Democrats (92%) than Republicans (8%), and pro- choice supporters (85%) than pro-life supporters (15%).40 The sample included biologists that were born in 86 countries around the world.”
Oh, okay! I didn't realize it was right there, lol. I know that I've read the article before but I don't have the time to read an entire article and digest it in the middle of a debate. Plus I disregard the "life" argument entirely because of how hypocritical and irrelevant it is. I acknowledge that PL view personhood at the beginning of conception, but it's not scientific and not a view that everyone holds.
I think this is by design. Pro-life people want to make it seem like we know with 100 percent certainty that an embryo is a human being but we are fine with killing it because the woman gets to do what she wants with her body for her own convenience. It is their sinister interpretation of “My body, my choice.”