posted
In the context of a abortion debate, someone brought up the fact that identical twins often don't twin until some time (I think it was around a week) after fertilization and implantation. Is this actually accurate? If it is accurate, does it raise interesting "When does life begin?" questions for anyone else?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had the same thought occur to me a few days ago.
Porter, one might argue that the fetus should not be considered alive at any point where twinning is still possible. Otherwise, up to that point, are their two souls in one fetus?
This might move the parameters in the where does life begin debate to somewhere between the end of the stage where twinning is possible and the stage where the fetus is viable outside the womb.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's why I don't think it will make much difference -- it seems to me that most pro-lifers don't actually believe that human life begins at conception, so this wouldn't really make them change their preconceptions. I am very pro-life, and I don't think abortion is "murder" for quite a while.
Of those that believe that human life *does* start at conception, it seems that most believe that because of religious and not scientefic evidence. Again, this news wouldn't make much difference to most of them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:most pro-lifers don't actually believe that human life begins at conception,
Really? Then why are they opposed to it?
I am opposed to abortion because I think we simply don't know enough about the nature of life to rule out the possibility that it is murder, and so I think we should err on the side of protecting life.
If I felt pretty certain the act was not murder, I would be less opposed.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am opposed to abortion because I think we simply don't know enough about the nature of life to rule out the possibility that it is murder, and so I think we should err on the side of protecting life.
If I felt pretty certain the act was not murder, I would be less opposed.
I didn't make myself clear. I don't believe that very early abortions are mureder. But I also am not certain that it isn't.
But even if it isn't, then it's still pretty close to it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right, Hobbes, but if we could say, it definitely begins after THIS point
I don't think we'll ever be able to do that.
edit: Some people will have answers to this that they are satisfied. But people won't agree on this. Some people believe that it doesn't begin until birth. Some people believe it starts at conception. I can't imagine any scientific discovery that will change the beliefs of the extremes on either side.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Let me turn this question around . . . are pro-choicers who are not extremists okay with outlawing or severely limiting abortions after the current viability point? If not, why not?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't calling anybody an extremist. I was saying that there are people, in regards to when human life begins, that are on the extremes of the scale from conception to birth.
In other words, there are people that believe that human life begins at conception, and there are people that believe it begins at birth.
I think that most pro-lifers and pro-choicers believe that it is impossible to know when human life begins. Many pro-lifers believe that since we don't know, we should err on the side of the baby. It seems that many pro-choicers believe that since we don't know, we should err on the side of the mother.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll always be pro-choice (to a certain extent - I'm against late and partial-birth abortions), but every since I saw my baby's heartbeat, I've felt that life starts before birth. Seeing that tiny flickering light was the most beautiful experience of my life and I couldn't imagine snuffing it out.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
The "fetus" is genetically different then the mother. Therefore it is not "part" of the mother like a wart is.
That is the scientific reason I have to oppose abortion.
On religious grounds, as a Catholic, God can put a soul into a fertilized egg at the moment of conception and put in another soul when the twinning happens. He is God.
posted
adam613, if you believe that a fetus which could clearly survive outside of the womb if delivered at this instant--say, for instance, a thirty week fetus--is not alive, for the technicality of not having yet passed through the little bit of skin separating it from the outside world, then aren't you, technically, an extremist?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:* It's been a long time since someone on Hatrack has given a definition of the "other side" that a member of the "other side" would willingly subscribe to.
posted
Identical twinning can occur up until 14 days after conception. (I may be the one who brought that up). I consider it fairly impossible that there is a spirit in the body at that point, at least in that specific embryo.
Now, every case may be different, or there may be a standard; we don't know. I recently miscarried, probably within that two-week range, maybe a little after. I don't really feel that I lost a baby, knowing what I know about pre-natal development. More like losing the possibility of a baby, which is sad, but not as sad as losing a baby farther along. But I don't feel there was a spirit in that body at that point.
But since I don't know, my feelings on abortion are very complicated.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to be with you, there, KQ. When I had my very early miscarriage, I felt exactly the same: not a baby I lost, but the possibility of a baby, the hope of one. I don't particularly feel that a soul was irrevocably tied to that almost-embryo, but I don't believe one way or the other either. I chalk it up to "I don't know".
I tend to think of a blastocyst as a bunch of cells. But what potential that bunch of cells has! It is awe-inspiring. I don't like the idea of purposefully stopping that potential, but I am ambivalent on this subject as on many others.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, I don't really get what you're saying. Do you think god inserts souls at a certain moment in development, or not until he's sure they'll survive? It seems a pretty random way of distributing souls for an omnipotent being, the way you're making it sound.
But on subject, the twinning thing doesn't make much difference to me. I believe the Right to Life begins at conception, regardless of when the being gets labeled "alive" or "self-aware" or "conscious" or whatever.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Life begins at birth" strikes me as an extreme statement, given that fetuses are viable well before birth. It strikes me actually as a much more extreme statement than "life begins at conception," which is a fairly natural assumption given that we don't agree on exactly when it does begin (or what life is), clearly. An more appropriate might example of a counter extreme might be "every sperm/egg is alive." So I was asking him to defend the notion that the statement was not extreme. (A defense which, to be honest, I was not able to follow.)
If someone says, I'm not prejudiced, but blacks are less intelligent than whites, would it be in bad form to ask them to explain how they reconcile that belief with not being prejudiced? (By the way, I don't think this analogy is a good one, because I don't think being an extremist has anywhere near the bad connotations that being prejudiced does.)
I'm all for polite discussion, but have the standards gotten to where you basically can't say anything anymore?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're making a hell of an assumption there.
Actually, no I don't. I think you're projecting like mad.
The evidence of my attempt to see both sides is all over this thread, both in my pointing out why the twinning thing could be an argument in favor of keeping abortion legal, and in my asking you about your beliefs, along with a hypothetical so that you could explain them to me in a specific case where we could agree on what the basic parameters were.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we call nothing extreme? Is this a new relative of Godwin's law? Heaven help us, if we call something extreme, somebody might feel insulted, so lets not call any position extreme.
What about aborting fetuses within the first six months of life after birth? Would believing in that be considered extreme? Or is that still too offensive a word?
Jesus.
EDITED to clarify.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:kq, I don't really get what you're saying. Do you think god inserts souls at a certain moment in development, or not until he's sure they'll survive? It seems a pretty random way of distributing souls for an omnipotent being, the way you're making it sound.
No. I think souls go into bodies when they're ready to, or when they're told to, or maybe they go in and out. But I don't think that God would make a soul experience the process of splitting into two bodies. I have very complicated beliefs about genetics, the nature of souls, embryological and fetal development, etc., which I would rather not discuss right now.
And it's still a little sore to talk about the miscarriage, so do you think you could be a little more gentle next time? Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did. But the tone with which he was talking about it just hit me a little hard. All I was asking for was gentler phrasing next time, so as not to broadside me with the emotions I had thought I'd dealt with already.
*smiles through tears*
I wasn't blaming. Just requesting a little empathy.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the tone with which he was talking about it just hit me a little hard
Don't you mean the tone in which you read it? I didn't mean it harshly, and I figured it was a safe question to ask since you were talking about the subject so nonchalantly.
But thanks for making me feel guilty. I promise, I'm trying to be sensitive, but I think I'm missing the gene.
"Brenden, let me tell you a little something about women. Women are like men. But I'll tell you somethin'. Men are not like women. And when you grow up, you'll understand what I'm talking about."
posted
It seems to me that we could be a little more clinical for legal purposes. There is a point that we declare a body dead based on several criteria including heart beat and brain waves. It is clear that we can detect heartbeats in fetuses, but can we get brainwaves? If so, at the point that the fetus is producing those things that define life at the back end it should be by definintion, alive.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't you mean the tone in which you read it?
Probably. Thanks for trying, but I know it's harder for most men than most women. (((hugs))) I love you anyway. And I'm recovering.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The twinning thing doesn't bother me at all either. I choose to believe that a fetus is indeed alive before birth and has a soul before birth. The Bible actually makes it pretty clear that God knows the child before it's born - there's the lovely verse "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" in Romans where Paul clarifies that God knew the babies and chose one over the other before either had been born or had done anything good or bad. He knows us before we're formed in the womb, he numbers the hairs on our head according to the passage in Jeremiah.
At this time, I believe that aborting an implanted embryo is murder. I have no reason to think that at some magical point after implantation it becomes alive if it's not alive at implantation. As to whether or not a fertilized egg that is not implanted is alive - I don't know. I honestly don't know how I feel about that, I'm still wrestling with it. But once it's implanted, once a woman is really, officially pregnant, that's a baby.
I too most probably miscarried early. Don't know for sure, because the doctor told me that I'd have to come see him so he could examine me to be certain and I chose not to know for sure. And I wept, and I mourned the child that was most probably beginning to grow in my body, and yes I did believe it was a child (sorry if this is painful for you kq, but I wanted to express my own feelings)
As for whether there are two souls in an implanted embryo that hasn't twinned yet or not - that's not an issue for me. God has control over that, all I know is that they indeed do have souls and are living humans before birth. Because I don't know the exact instant that occurs, I choose to err on the side of life and assume it begins with implantation, because that is the point where the embryo begins to exert control over its environment - it sends chemical signals to the mother's body and implants so it can grow. That's something that living things do, and that's enough to establish it as life for me. And if it's life, then it's a human life and if it's a human life it deserves legal protection.
The morning after pill doesn't bother me so much because it works in most cases by preventing ovulation. That makes it no different in my mind than taking regular monthly birth control pills. I of course think it should only be used in emergencies, like in the case of a woman who has been raped, because I think anyone who is sexually active should be practicing more regular birth control if they don't want to become pregnant. But, since no method other than abstinence is 100% they should also be ready to accept the responsibility of a baby if a pregnancy happens.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't a matter of when life begins -- life never ends; dead cells don't make live ones! -- but when personhood begins. I'd say a person is human (I'll revise this if we meet alien life!) and perceives something. 6 weeks.
I can't see the twinning time as relevant. Imagine if we had a duplication device that could copy you. Would such a device make you a non-person? I wouldn't think so.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a duplication device would raise some interesting questions about the nature of the soul for religious people, though. Don't you?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it hard to say life does not begin at conception. There are cells reproducing extremely quickly. How can we say it is not life if there are cells reproducing?
Ketchup queen and Beverly, and I mean no offense by this because I know a miscarriage is difficult, just a question I want to ask. Do you think that your feelings that the misscarriage was not a baby, but potentially a baby is because you had not been pregnant for a long period of time? I guess I am trying to say, maybe you had not started to think of this as your child? I didnt mean to be a jerk if I asked an innapropriate question. I am genuinely interested in your answer I am not trying to prove some sort of political point at your expense.
The reason I am pro-life is because I do not see an area where we can intelligently draw a line. I think the time to decide to have a child is before a person has sex not after the person is already pregnant. If you have sex there is a possibility you will become pregnant
As to the twinning issue I do not see how this would do anything with the abortion debate. I dont think the ability to make two lives from one makes a fetus less alive.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it hard to say life does not begin at conception.
Of course a fertilized egg is alive. But so are my hair folicles. The question is whether or not it is a life that we consider human.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by adam613: * It's been a long time since someone on Hatrack has given a definition of the "other side" that a member of the "other side" would willingly subscribe to.
I'm coming to this discussion a little late, but I completely agree with what adam said here. Kudos, mph--that's, essentially, how I feel, though there's a handful of complications thrown in with that.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ketchup queen and Beverly, and I mean no offense by this because I know a miscarriage is difficult, just a question I want to ask. Do you think that your feelings that the misscarriage was not a baby, but potentially a baby is because you had not been pregnant for a long period of time? I guess I am trying to say, maybe you had not started to think of this as your child? I didnt mean to be a jerk if I asked an innapropriate question. I am genuinely interested in your answer I am not trying to prove some sort of political point at your expense.
I appreciate that.
I didn't even know that I was pregnant when I miscarried. I know bev did. However, I know how I would have felt, had it been a planned pregnancy. I would have felt sad, as I did, and it's a physically and emotionally exhausting process, at least it was for me, but I know that almost all miscarriages at that point happen because the pregancy is not viable. I have a child, and when I was two months along with her, a little further than the miscarriage I had, I started bleeding. Not heavily, but enough that I was on bedrest until it stopped. I would have taken it harder if I had lost the baby at that point, but I would still have known that the baby wouldn't live outside the womb. So while I was scared to lose her (the odds we were given was about 50/50), my biggest concern was that I would not be able to have any children, not losing that particular one (even though I was attatched to her). I think when it really became real and I started to think of her as "Emma" instead of "the baby" was when I started to be able to feel her kicking and moving. I loved her before that, but she became real when that happened. That was when I was about 16 weeks along, a month before a baby becomes "viable", able to live outside the womb. It's no wonder that in many cultures, this "quickening" is heralded as the moment when the soul enters the baby, when the baby becomes truly alive. It's probably different with every woman and every child, but for me, that's when it happened.
It is probably also a factor that I felt "very pregnant" with Emma; I was sick all the time, felt changes going on in my body, very early on. With the miscarriage, I felt "kind of a little" pregnant. (Probably has something to do with me miscarrying.) I didn't even have enough HCG to turn a home pregnancy test. I think feeling the possibility of motherhood is, for me, part of what makes me able to think of this bundle of cells as a potential baby. But, again, until it's past a certain point, that's all it seems to me to be-- potential. The "baby" part comes after.
I hope I said that right. I'm sometimes not even sure what I'm feeling about all this, much less able to articulate it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't see the twinning time as relevant. Imagine if we had a duplication device that could copy you. Would such a device make you a non-person? I wouldn't think so.
But see, it's not the same thing. I believe in an order to the universe, one created by God. Twinning is not (usually) a function of man saying "let's make a copy of this embryo!" It's something that's part of the function of the human body, naturally. An aberration from the majority, but still not something we control, but rather something that is part of our nature. I believe that the soul exists before the physical body, and so I have to believe that God has a plan and order for the creation of said bodies. What we do is part of the plan, and can be turned to His purposes, certainly (as in IVF.) But ultimately, I believe that He has an order and plan for twins as well as everyone else in their creation.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Megachirops: I think a duplication device would raise some interesting questions about the nature of the soul for religious people, though. Don't you?
I have a religion, and since I'm also an SF writer, I'd like to think we'd get some interesting questions. But nothing that I think would make a theological difference. Maybe someone else can think of some, and we'll get some cool story ideas.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to the duplication machine and twins, maybe the soul divides into two just like the egg divides with twins? They are the same soul up until a point and then their experiences become their own and serve to make a truly unique soul? That was my first thought as to how this might work.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I promise, I'm trying to be sensitive, but I think I'm missing the gene.
