The idea of life at conception

[afleitch]

I think ontology is important here.

First of all I've always found an irony in say, bodies like the Catholic Church making appeals to embryology as a scientific support for its position given what the study of embryology actually entails. Fetal personhood as a modern day ontological concept is only possible because people can actually see whats happening in the womb in it's earliest stages. Which as a pursuit of scientific understanding, involves the destruction of embryonic 'life'. Likewise with the backwards march of viability (which no one who is pro-choice has much issue with) due to advances in neonatology.

But that's not really what I take issue with. Ultimately what concerns me, is the pursuit of defining 'life' by some medical or scientific definitive point by which one can then martial morality around. This turns pregnancy and it's impact on a mother from what is a human experience, a female experience to something outside of that. I think many pro-life advocates are terrifyingly bleak on that proposition.

If you define 'life' at conception, then armed with the fact that 50 to 80 percent of even implanted embryos spontaneously abort, then those spontaneous abortions are the ending of a 'life', without anyone's knowledge. Something that happens as a natural cycle. This is before we even get to known miscarriages later in a woman's pregnancy. These are now 'deaths', even if you want to treat them or categorise them differently. You are then saying that the womb, that a woman's reproductive system effectively is a place where death occurs far more often than life. That's a dangerous psychological route to go down and a worrying subversion of womenhood and pregnancy.

Even from a scientific perspective there isn't a neat consensus. Gastrulation for example is the point at which an embryo can no longer divide to become identical twins. It can no longer become more than one thing. Surely before that point, then all that embryo is, is a 'potential'; potentially one thing, or two things or three things or nothing. I think Anthony's point on life v existence above is quite an important one.
 
I've always felt that the person who is pregnant should get to decide when it's a person and everyone can have different understandings of that and not be morally or legally judged. Which seems to be a strangely radical proposal these days.

A person's psychological health is vitally important to them. Pregnancy can be hell for women. For many women who fall pregnant, psychologically there is 'no child'. It's just a state of being. If a woman is pregnant and does not see it as a person, and does not wish to be in 'the state of pregnancy' and that is causing her psychological distress, then she has a right and her doctor has a right to respond to that harm.

Waving development charts about and talking about 'life' and being so clinical or scientific about what is happening inside 'women like her' without actually caring about whats happening inside her (and how she is responding to this) is of absolutely no relevance and no help to her. At worst, dismissing her psychological concerns in some weird utilitarian fashion, demanding the child be carried to term, then taken away from her if she doesn't want it, simply adds what could be a life long psychological response to pregnancy, delivery, post natal responses and removal of the child, onto what was already pre-existing.

[afleitch]

*snip*

This isn't really an "argument" I'm interested in having at great enough length or in great enough detail to respond substantively to a seven-paragraph post any more, because I've realized that I'm not familiar enough with either the life sciences or (obviously) what it is like to be pregnant to discuss it for more than a paragraph or so at a time (I know, I know, I probably should stop discussing it at all), but I just wanted to say that you've always been one of the voices on the forum whose ideas on this I've read with the most interest, and this post is no exception. Thank you for weighing in.

I only came back into this thread to correct what I think is an obviously false equivalency, but if I can't adequately explain why I think that then there really isn't any point.

It was just a general response from me. It wasn't aimed at anyone to respond to Someone very close to me (who I have to anonymise because people can get crazy about this stuff) is one of this countries top embryologists, which I say out of sheer swelling pride for them rather than anything else. We have good conversations about all this, which is a learning experience and has made it into something I like to ramble on about.

[afleitch]

I think ontology is important here.

First of all I've always found an irony in say, bodies like the Catholic Church making appeals to embryology as a scientific support for its position given what the study of embryology actually entails. Fetal personhood as a modern day ontological concept is only possible because people can actually see whats happening in the womb in it's earliest stages. Which as a pursuit of scientific understanding, involves the destruction of embryonic 'life'. Likewise with the backwards march of viability (which no one who is pro-choice has much issue with) due to advances in neonatology.

But that's not really what I take issue with. Ultimately what concerns me, is the pursuit of defining 'life' by some medical or scientific definitive point by which one can then martial morality around. This turns pregnancy and it's impact on a mother from what is a human experience, a female experience to something outside of that. I think many pro-life advocates are terrifyingly bleak on that proposition.

If you define 'life' at conception, then armed with the fact that 50 to 80 percent of even implanted embryos spontaneously abort, then those spontaneous abortions are the ending of a 'life', without anyone's knowledge. Something that happens as a natural cycle. This is before we even get to known miscarriages later in a woman's pregnancy. These are now 'deaths', even if you want to treat them or categorise them differently. You are then saying that the womb, that a woman's reproductive system effectively is a place where death occurs far more often than life. That's a dangerous psychological route to go down and a worrying subversion of womenhood and pregnancy.

Even from a scientific perspective there isn't a neat consensus. Gastrulation for example is the point at which an embryo can no longer divide to become identical twins. It can no longer become more than one thing. Surely before that point, then all that embryo is, is a 'potential'; potentially one thing, or two things or three things or nothing. I think Anthony's point on life v existence above is quite an important one.
 
I've always felt that the person who is pregnant should get to decide when it's a person and everyone can have different understandings of that and not be morally or legally judged. Which seems to be a strangely radical proposal these days.

A person's psychological health is vitally important to them. Pregnancy can be hell for women. For many women who fall pregnant, psychologically there is 'no child'. It's just a state of being. If a woman is pregnant and does not see it as a person, and does not wish to be in 'the state of pregnancy' and that is causing her psychological distress, then she has a right and her doctor has a right to respond to that harm.

Waving development charts about and talking about 'life' and being so clinical or scientific about what is happening inside 'women like her' without actually caring about whats happening inside her (and how she is responding to this) is of absolutely no relevance and no help to her. At worst, dismissing her psychological concerns in some weird utilitarian fashion, demanding the child be carried to term, then taken away from her if she doesn't want it, simply adds what could be a life long psychological response to pregnancy, delivery, post natal responses and removal of the child, onto what was already pre-existing.

To a large extent I agree with you here. Where I differ with you is, as usual, over the absolute priority you seem to give the individual, without any concern of the effects of actions on society. Or rather, on your apparent assumption that one can maximize social good by having a society where each individual is free to act to maximize their personal good. It's a good starting position, except for your point of view that if a woman doesn't think that if what is inside her is not a child, then it isn't one, regardless of the views of others. That sort of logic can easily lead to the justification of dehumanizing various groups of humans. It's why the individual perspective should be the starting point, not the finishing point for determining social positions.

My own viewpoint is that personhood begins at some point between when the embryo becomes a fetus and viability. I don't have any strong views on where therein to define the point where under the law a life becomes a human life. Biblically, quickening might seem like a good point except we now know that the perception of quickening does not happen in every pregnancy at the same point of fetal development. Still, the fact that point rather than once a pregnancy was known to be was used seems a strong argument to me against claiming conception as the point for those arguing from religion.

I don't think 'society' has a claim to the destiny, or finality if you will, of a womans embryo. That sort of thinking can lead to eugenics; decisions taken by the state or authorities to force a woman to abort against her will. Do not assume that 'society' or rather who exerts influence within it, is benevolent in that regard.

You raise an interesting point with 'the quickening'. As much as women now can know much earlier of their pregnancy, the point at which she knows and accepts her pregnancy as her 'future child' then barring medical issues that require an induced abortion, that to me is her moment of defining it's personhood. For some women that is early. For others it's after thought for the future of herself and her family. For some, it can be never because cannot, in her own mind and of her own volition cannot carry it to term.

[afleitch]

I believe neither that society is inherently good or evil nor that individuals are inherently good or evil. Relative benevolence is not a factor here. Rather it is that individuals don't function in isolation. They are part of a society, and thus restrictions on individuals that benefit society as a whole are generally a good thing. (I'm aware that not every such restriction put forth with that claimed goal actually is beneficial to society as a whole.)

Not only that, but I doubt that even you would argue in favor of allowing infanticide if a woman gave birth yet felt no connection to the infant. So clearly there's something beyond the woman's point of view to be considered in deciding when a life becomes a human life. Something determined by society.

When a woman gives birth the baby is clearly a human with associated rights. I'm talking about defining personhood before the point of viability which I think rests with the mother. I have no idea what you are trying to argue about.