When Does Life Begin?

Pro-life advocates often make the claim: "Science proves that life begins at conception." But how much truth is there really behind this argument?

SOURCES + FURTHER READING:

#abortion #conception

[SubAnima]

A point of clarification since some people have missed the main point of the video.

In most circumstances in everyday life, it makes common sense to separate humans out by their boundaries, namely by drawing a border around the cells that contain their DNA. I am not denying that "human organisms begin at conception" is a useful perspective to take. It is often taken by many biologists and philosophers alike (hence the '96% of biologists' statistic that people keep citing below).

But what is crucial is that this perspective faces problems when it comes to twins, polaroid metaphors and the other things I talked about in the video. At a fundamental (i.e. metaphysical) level, there is no reason to place the border at conception. That is just a useful (epistemic) convention that is often taken to simplify the world for us humans and has allowed us to theorise about biology via population genetics and other similar fields.

There are many other possible conventions we could take to understand where the beginning of life might lie. Some of these include: the "quickening" (when the baby first kicks), when the umbilical stump falls off, when the baby takes its first breath, or say that no border truly exists at all (my personal view). Each of these may have their use or purpose. But none will be "proven" by empirical data.

*There is no experiment you can do to prove that one perspective is correct over the others.*

That, I hope, was the main takeaway of the video: science does not "prove" that human organisms begin at conception. It is but one perspective.


Jake

[pummisher]

I've heard that life begins at 40.

[masa]

If we continue this logic, then we have to accept that life doesn't begin after birth, because newborns need a lot of support, they are not fully developed, there is no guarantee that they will fully develop and they have no consciousness, at least no consciousness at the same level as an adult has. The same can be said for toddlers and young children, as well as some adults with certain disabilities. Is it ok to “abort” a newborn, toddler, or even an adult with developmental and/or mental health issues? I mean, they require constant care, rely on others for survival, haven't reach a fully functional "adult organism " standard, and there's no guarantee they ever will...

[Fulle]

1 minute in, he's saying that life does not start at conception, because it takes at least another 24 hours for the genes from the egg and sperm to start to mix. That would mean that after an egg is fertilized, its not a seperate human life for another 24 hours. That seems like a great argument in favor of the morning after pill. Not abortions though!

[verogonzalez]

Human life is a cycle of development. A newborn is not fully developed, the body continues developing. Humans grow to different stages of the life cycle, and in none of those stages are we less human, we are just DEVELOPING. No matter how long it takes the genomes to fuse and form a new DNA, the cycle of life already started and, unless it is interrupted, will continue to develop and grow into new stages. A sperm by itself will never grow into an embryo.

[Haveuseenmyjetpack]

The polaroid metaphor is no where NEAR as good as Bill Burr’s Baking Cake metaphor!

[SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

Life doesn't "begin" at conception, or at birth, they are confusing "continuation" with the "beginning of life"

which has never been truly observed in any living mammal species in the true since of what actual "new beginning living life" happens to be.


But in reality "life" began long before anyone had the ability or the cognitive abilities to even contemplate the question.

Living cells from your father mixed with living cells from your mother, and in doing so your mother and father created their continuing which is in the different form then the form they are currently in IE "you"

So in a way you are immortal so long as you continue evolving and changing form (having kids) .

[OldOneTooth]

maybe we should be asking when does a separate consciousness exist? What is meant by a lay person saying when does a person's life begin and end? What is a person? Something I learnt from mathematics is that when something is seemingly impossible to answer like what is 3apples minus 5 apples, or the square root of -4 adding a new dimension to the context, or shifting a limit or just asking a better question can help you find the answer you need to resolve the dilemma

[robertjohnson]

Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Priest: "Life begins at conception." Blasé Could-Care-Less Episcopalian Cleric: "Life begins at birth." Orthodox Rabbi: "No, no, no my sons. Life begins when the children have graduated from medical school, and the dog has died."

[thecaribbeanbookworm]

Thank you for this stellar video on an interesting (and I’d imagine rather controversial) topic! I really enjoyed the clarity of the tie-ins of different points of view with current stances on the subject. Keep up the great videos!

[Spearmint]

I appreciate how you expand on the concept of conception, and point of the details of the process, that’s fair, but I feel like your getting hung up on the metaphors and missing the point of the argument, in the instances of twins pretty much every pro-life person would agree that even though the genetic variation isn’t unique between the two, that they still deserve life, or in the other points you called out, like with miscarriages, or the child not having the nutrition it needs in development, pro-life people aren’t arguing against those things cause they don’t fit the specific unique genetic model metaphor, or don’t care about the other things involved in the child’s development, the main argument is that it’s a life, it should have the right to develop. In cases with miscarriages most pro-lifers see that as a loss of life, even in the case of the zygote failing to get to the womb, most pro-lifer are trying to give significance to the development of the embryo as a human life, yes there are more factors that play into developing the child, but just because you have a womb doesn’t mean you have a child, nor does just having the right nutrients, the zygote has to be there for a human to start developing, and it’s going to need help till birth and after, Pro-lifers want people to see it as it’s own life for at least 150 years (usually humans don’t last that long lol).

[TheLobsterChannel]

Well made and researched video I was surprised to see it only has 86 views.

[Ikescicle]

1:15 like... Who cares? So what, the DNA fuses precisely at 24hrs after spermal penetration of the egg cell. Okay? So "Life begins 24hrs after Spermal Penetration of the Egg cell"? But like, isn't this an entirely automated process anyway? Destined to happen? How does this refute the point?

1:35 Okay but the twins may share identical DNA but they're still unique individuals with unique DNA? Do we really have to put in an asterisk there for you to understand that clones share DNA with the host?
"At least one of them were produced by the splitting of the Zygote.." No? The both starting from the fertilization of the egg? And which one was that began only at the split? Can you even tell?

2:22 No, the argument always was that given the appropriate amount of time and assuming you don't die, development to maturity is all but guaranteed. Note the phrasing.
*(Side Note: what's with the strawman? You seriously can't counter the most sincere interpretation of the argument?)*

3:54 yeah but embryos are not the only things that need support. Also strawman, see point above. *(With hints of Ad Hominem?)*

4:23 see 2:22? Like think about the life cycle of a person! Of course there are failures along the way at certain stages from Toddlers, to Preteens, Teens, Young Adults, Adults, and Elderly. It's the Life Cycle of a person? The Pro-life argument is that Fetal development is not merely apart of this Life Cycle, but a vital part of it. How does Failure in Development refute this?

5:21 okay so undefined terms therefore equal wrong? Also note the asterisk; "...an immature member of a species to a mature member of a species..." Completely omitted from you're counterpoint. But as you've said yourself, the egg changes it's fundamental properties from fertilization. The Zygote is neither Egg nor Sperm. Pro-lifers don't argue for these, they argue for the Zygote. Especially because it has so much in common with human development outside the womb. Are you seriously arguing the Born are not organisms? Pretty sure you're in that boat. *(Strawmanning once again)*

6:06 Where do you draw the line?

6:38 Moving the Goalpost? What does this have to do with the value of a Zygote? (Also conjoined Twins, 2 individuals or 1? ANSWER: Yes)

7:47 I sort of agree. Both pro-life and pro-choice both argue using science tho. Just as you did 🤷🏼

TL;DR: Is this guy deliberately being belligerent?

[jdmitchell]

I find it quite confusing that the same people who believe abotion is not killing a baby, also believe that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer should be charged with two murders.

[PaulRezaei]

This video reminds me of people who argue in detail about how tables don’t really exists, or how all people are the same and individuality is just an illusion. I think you can complicate any topic to the point where you lose sight of simple truths. Having said that, well put together video.

[alacrity]

This is why philosophy is the overseer of the sciences as David Hume said "you cannot get a ought from a is" and it's obvious that there are larger over arching issues with this topic and its implication on say the issue of abortion for example. Defining accurately the beginning of human life is only important to people who value it and our culture does very little to teach this and what the ancient Greeks called "Eudaimonia" which should be the chief aim of all the sciences. Yet we find ourselves here. Debating something rather irrelevant to the bigger picture questions.

Using science to define life is like using sticks and stones to break apart grandma's family heirloom to find out what makes it valuable.

Defining life at conception is a close approximation to an answer. The best we got in fact. This answer isn't pleasing to the scientific mind. But as far as I can tell it's a displeasing answer to the devil as well.

[LP-zcgy]

The dilemma I have always had with the abortion argument is for cases where the mother’s life is in danger (ecoptic pregnancies, the mother having a medical condition where labor or even later stages of pregnancy could kill her, a mother being a child herself).

If this is an argument about life, how could you say the the life of something not even breathing, feeling, or thinking is more important than the life of the person in front of you, the terrified individual who knows that without an abortion, they will die.

In every other case: pregnancy through rape, an unplanned pregnancy, not having enough money to raise a child, not being ready to raise a child, there are other things we can do. We can give counseling, financial support, social services, etc. But in the case of that mother who will die? Who might have to leave other children who will be alone after her death? Who is scared and wondering what kind of God would forsake her like this? What am I going to give that will really help? Hold their hand? Tell them it’s all a part of “God’s plan”?

That one, I struggle with.

[ceshorty]

Genuinely great video. It goes straight into the heart of the question, and then is humble to admit we're not cabaple of defining it due to it's complexity, and any position taken is based on a subjective approach. The most compelling argument I've heard about it, and the one I have taken for myself ever since I've read it, is that based on our incapacity of defining when does a human life begins, one must take the safe approach which is to not disturb life while it's doing it's thing. Maybe it's just a bunch of cells with no human life behind it, but maybe it is. Would you pull the trigger of a firearm with your eyes closed? Maybe nothing happens, but maybe you end the life of a child. In most scenarios, it's better to put the gun down and do nothing.

[cipherhost]

I believe the term "fertilization" is when the pro-nuclei of the sperm enters the egg. Conception is when both pro-nuclei merge into one nucleus. That does not determine when life begins for everyone, because we each choose to accept a particular convention. Not that it matters to anyone, but I subscribe to the moment of conception described above as the when life begins. Peace!

[danielboone]

Steelman your opponent's arguments.

1:15 A steelmanned version of the pro-life argument would probably focus on the process or separateness of the zygote. A new genome is in the process of being formed. Still, it appears you have a valid point. To me, I don't think that a new genome is necessary nor sufficient for new life because I think life is fundamentally immaterial and grounded in the mind and/or soul. So whenever that human spirit and/or soul begins to exist (they're not the same thing) is when a new human begins to exist. Whether that corresponds neatly to the physical development, I do not know.

1:35 If by unique you mean unique genetic information, then I don't think you're being fair to the spirit of the argument. The claim is not that a unique genome means a unique individual. The claim is that a separate genome (referring to the physical structure) or a new genome belongs to the new individual. This explains why twins can have identical genomes while also being separate individuals. A separate genome is indicative of a separate individual.

4:21 Appealing to failed implantation or miscarriage doesn't seem to negate the spirit of the polaroid argument. The focus on the polaroid argument is on the function of the development of the embyro, that is the process itself and the end of the process. Saying that the process can be disrupted doesn't somehow indicate that a human is not developing. The steelmanned argument would not say a fully conscious creature is being yielded "by default" but that the process, if uninterrupted and functioning according to its telos, will result in a fully conscious human.

5:25 Trent's argument is referring to the Zygote. Comparing a zygote to a man and a woman runs into issues because they are two separate persons (minds, not referring to their physical bodies) and thus separate entities (i.e. they're discrete and so do not constant a single thing in the same sense Trent is talking about). I think you're playing fast and loose with Trent's use of the word "something" and equivocating two separate concepts of the word "something."

6:50 Mereological fuzziness and indeterminacy is resolved by recognizing the entities as separate due to their possession of a soul and/or mind. I think Alvin Plantinga's Essay "Against Materialism" is relevant here.

8:05 Whether life begins at conception is objective because it's either true or false, not subjective.

As for me, I do not know when life begins for certain (though it has to begin at some point) and I'd rather not endanger another human when I lack such certainty.