When does Human Life Begin? A Secular View

Written on Sunday, September 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm | by chuck

When does human life begin? Before attempting to answer, for clarity, I included the above State Chart diagram that shows the various stages of human existence and the events that would lead to changes in state. The upper half (’Secular View’) shows the secular view as informed by science independent of religious belief systems. Within the framework of the discussion that follows, I have demarcated the points at which matters having to do with Contraception, Abortion, Homicide and Desecration are relevant with respect to the various states of human existence. (For example, it is clear from the above that contraception is not abortion because the former occurs before conception.)

When fellow FV-blogger DJB asked me this very same question in his previous post, I warned him that ‘human life’ is a loaded term. What I meant was that the concept is layered with meanings coming from religion, prevailing social values [aka morality], law, politics and available medical technology. As such, the meaning tends to shift.

We can see this more clearly when we talk about determining when human life ends. When medical technology to revive the heart and keep it pumping became available, the law had to modified to redefine death. In the same way, it was previously believed that each sperm cell had within a miniature fully formed individual (homonculus). Now we know that this is not the case. It is also a common tactic during war to consider the enemy (e.g. the MILF ‘lost commands’) to be less than human thereby justifying killing them so even after birth, the concept of human life is not free from redefinition.

Nevertheless, DJB rightly points out that we cannot just leave it at that. Given the pathological dominance of the Catholic Church which has allowed the continued suffering of thousands of women in the name of its belief system, arriving at a secular [aka Church free] definition of human life becomes all the more urgent.

When the sperm fertilizes the egg upon conception, it starts a process of cell division and differentiation which, if successful, eventually results in a human being. So at what point in this process does a human being emerge? Just as ‘brain death’ can be considered the off switch that marks the end of an individual’s life as a human, then the on switch would be when the fetus‘ brain starts becoming active. This is the point at which the fetus becomes an individual in its own right, with its own cognitive functions. (I specified ‘nn’ weeks in the diagram above where ‘nn’ stands for the point at which this generally happens as determined by the scientific & medical community e.g. at 12 weeks.)

What are the public policy implications of this? Beyond this point of brain activation (whether it be 12 weeks into the pregnancy or earlier or later), if there was a need to save the life of a mother, then it can be considered state sanctioned killing of another individual who already possesses his or her own thought processes. It also means that beyond this point, rape or incest can no longer be a justification for terminating the pregnancy. Moreover, even if it is discovered that the fetus has suffered brain damage and is going to have a mental defect, such finding should not be used as a reason to terminate the pregnancy.

Earlier than this point, there is no individual capable of thinking to speak of (apart from the mother, of course).

For completeness sake, I have included in the lower half of the diagram (below ‘Religious Views’) a consolidated view as held by various religions, e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. My own personal belief system happens to coincide with some portions (not all) of the lower half of the diagram. However, while I’m free to hold these beliefs, I recognize that i cannot impose these on others, especially when it comes to matters of public policy in a Secular State.

Tags: , , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: chuck is a veteran Information Technology professional with almost two decades experience in the Industry. He is currently based in Singapore. He blogs at The Placeholder.

Filed Under Science & Technology, Society

Related Entries:

Comments

33 Responses to “When does Human Life Begin? A Secular View”

  1. thenashman on September 28th, 2008 4:58 pm

    I’m not sold on accepting that 12 weeks thingy because the OTHER internal organs have not yet developed and the fetus is not viable outside the womb unaided. I think you are HARDLY an ‘individual’ at this stage…probably why the upper limit for countries which permit abortion is 22-24 weeks.

  2. cvj on September 28th, 2008 5:24 pm

    Nash, i think that once the fetus develops a functioning brain, he/she can already be considered an individual. I’m not convinced that ‘viability’ should be a criteria because i view the Mother as a life support system just like a hospital respirator. Once a fetus becomes an individual, its non-viability should be all the more reason to rely on its Mother’s life support system. In any case, the 12 weeks that i mentioned above is just an example, subject to determination by the medicine and science of a functioning brain stem. I’m open to it being later or earlier.

  3. thenashman on September 28th, 2008 5:48 pm

    which means he is not yet an ‘individual’ because of the need for the life support system…

    anyways, yes, difficult science this

    this is why CONTRACEPTION first, stop unwanted pregnancies at the source, gumamit ng lobo…then we avoid these question on abortion.

  4. cvj on September 28th, 2008 6:05 pm

    An example of an individual with a functioning brain without a viable body would be the late , a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Reeve”>Christopher Reeve after he was paralyzed and unable to breath on his own. For a time, he was hooked on a respirator that did the breathing for him. In the same way, i think a fetus who already has a brain is an individual even if it is hooked to its mother who acts as the life support system.

  5. thenashman on September 28th, 2008 6:16 pm

    yes but christopher reeve previously had a Fully functional brain…at 12 weeks, the fetal brain is still developing those ridges necessary beyond involuntary functions.

    anyways, indeed tough.

    i used to support euthanasia…then i realised it would have applied to stephen hawking…now i’m not so sure..

    kaya mabuti lamang na i-emphasise natin na ang RH bill ay isang information act and that it is not about abortion but contraception.

  6. Dean Jorge Bocobo on September 28th, 2008 6:26 pm

    cvj,
    Since your chosen topic is ‘human life’ and you are urging upon us this particular view of it as “secular” as opposed to “religious” are we right to interpret your meaning that before 12 weeks there is no “human life” and after that there is because a brain stem has turned on? What makes this a “secular” view? The Constitutional view (at present) is that human life begins at conception. Why is this a “religious view”?

    I have many more questions but I congratulate you for wading into difficult terrain.

  7. GabbyD on September 28th, 2008 6:51 pm

    Why when the brain becomes active? Why not conception, when the cells start on an inexorable path to development (assuming conditions are right) to become a human being.

    Check out this essay, real interesting: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2IxM2QzNDc4OTJhNmJjODEzMDBiYjRiZjQyOTg3YWM=

    Regarding ‘viability’ outside the womb. The fetus is a group of cells that is distinct from its mother and needs to exist in certain conditions. Naturally if you remove/change these conditions, the fetus will likely die.

    Any organism, if you remove it from the conditions that support it will die. Example: if you leave a human naked in the arctic circle, that human will die.

    A fetus takes its sustenance from the body of the mother. Many organisms live this way, finding a host to survive. The host can choose to kill the ‘parasite’ (the fetus here), but that doesn’t mean that the parasite isn’t a distinct organism. This is done because of power; we can kill parasites because we can and want to. The fetus cannot negotiate for itself.

    But shouldnt fetuses be accorded more respect because, if you allow them, they will eventually be born and become a person. More respect should be given, even if the ‘host’ (the mother) doesn’t want to be a host? Shouldn’t we do it, because the fetus cannot protect its own interests?

    Thought experiment: what if fetuses can develop via a ‘tank’. Do we have a moral responsibility to outlaw abortions then, and just take the fetus and ‘grow it’ in a tank? If the only problem is that the host get to decide what who feeds via her body, then yes, we do have a moral obligation to grow the child.

    Thought experiment 2: What if the host/mother is willing to be paid off for her discomfort at carrying to term. The fetus can borrow from his older self (his self that has a job) and pay for the right to be born. The question is how much? If the price is too high, this is tantamount to slavery. The fetus cannot negotiate for itself, so the state must set a price, which would probably be a function of the willingess to pay of the mother to escape from 9 months of discomfort.

  8. Dean Jorge Bocobo on September 28th, 2008 7:18 pm

    gabby, cvj,

    there is something bone chilling about your referring to mothers as “hosts” and “life support systems.” There is no question that they are full fledged human beings and that certainly cannot be diminished simply because they have gotten pregnant. If anything it increases their value to the human race because without procreation the race would die out.

    In order that this discussion doesn’t fly off into outer space, I would suggest that we focus attention on the issue of what rights, duties, and imperatives exist among mother, State and future citizen at all stages of human life. In particular:

    What does “equal protection” of the human life of the mother and human life of the unborn mean in Article 2 Section 12 of the Constitution? Does it mean that the two human lives are “equal” in the eyes of the State or that both are equally deserving of due process?

    Surely the reproductive state of a person does not endow the state with some kind of unlimited right “to protect the foetus” from her, unlike it does for a even a new born baby.

    There are deep, deep issues regarding the right to privacy too, because what right does the state have to know what is inside a woman’s body: a baby or cancerous growth. If a woman is not pregnant and decides to excise say an ovarian cyst, the State does not even have the right to know that. Eventually we would want to settle the business of the criminal nature of abortion, when, how and why such a crime ought to be prosecuted, or even if it should be a crime (even if we keep it illegal).

    The issue of when human life begins is germane, but I don’t think it should be decisive when it comes to the relationship between State and Individual, for if we grant the State supernal rights to protect foetuses, might that not open it up to the opposite possibility, where the State also controls, who gets to have children, how many, and when?

    I think we have to treat it as constitutional issue and not just a philosophical one so we can get to the practical consequences in such hot button issues as abortion and contraception.

    The 12 week thesis might save things like the Morning after pill, but scientifically I think it is untenable. I’m not at all religious, so I can tell you that in fact the scientifically soundest position is that human life begins at conception.

  9. Jon Limjap on September 28th, 2008 7:39 pm

    The main problem with the uber-conservative Roman Catholic viewpoint is that contraception = abortion.

    To them, preventing conception is no different than removing a conceived child, and that’s where the disconnect and, consequently, the level of confusion unscrupulous individuals want to occur (confusion which leads people to favor the status quo) to prevent the RH bill from being passed.

  10. Dean Jorge Bocobo on September 28th, 2008 7:57 pm

    You give the church too much credit Jon. But I think to be fair, it’s not really as simple as that with the Church. I think they fear that if contraception becomes acceptable and widespread that somehow that would “cheapen” the value of human life for many people and it would therefore lead to abortion also becoming legalized or decriminalized.

    I believe this fear is completely unfounded and is a remnant of the childhood of our race when human life was indeed devalued–certainly when constitutions did not exist with State power to enforce idealisms such as we find here at Filipino Voices.

    We must engage the church in a titanic intellectual struggle–for it is the only way to break its ideological stranglehold on society. We must present better, even more humane arguments that the Church does if we are to succeed in that enterprise. This process goes way beyond reproductive issues straight into the heart of what human civilization should be all about.

    Even as purely scientific or secular people, we must claim the high ground of Morality from an institution that has nothing but infantile theology and superstition on its side, when we have biology and chemistry and physics–and that innate altruism and goodness that predated organized religion any how.

    We must separate the uhmm, Chaff from the Wheat!

  11. thenashman on September 28th, 2008 8:06 pm

    this ‘fear’ you mention probably stems from the fact that the church is slowly realising that it’s no longer the middle ages and people are no longer that ‘devout’.

  12. Blackshama on September 28th, 2008 9:14 pm

    If human life begins when the brain is organized, then anyone can say that human life only begins when say for instance, a person passes the umbrella professor’s course (in the UP discussion thread)? This line of argument is dangerous since Hitler and many genocidists have used it.

    The reason why it is reasonable to assume that there is a human life when the zygote of Homo sapiens has been formed is that this zygote has all the potential to become human.

    So far the theories of developmental biology supports this assertion.

    But developmental biology cannot define what a person is. This is left to philosophy and if you are religious,theology.

    My philosophical position can easily grasped by environmentalists if they are logically consistent.

  13. thenashman on September 28th, 2008 10:22 pm

    “Potential” is a dangerous word. It is exactly this that the Church exploits.

    As I type this 1 gazillion sperm cells are in my scrotal sac with the “potential’ to be human…

  14. Blackshama on September 28th, 2008 11:08 pm

    Nashman

    “potential” is also what environmentalists exploit. I agree it is a loaded word.

    Your gadzillion sperm would have potential if there is an egg that they can fertilize right now!

  15. cvj on September 29th, 2008 2:04 am

    GabbyD, it could not be during conception because a human being (as a system) is only able to perceive and consequently react to the world (i.e. the environment) via its brain. On the premise that it is brain activity that makes an individual, at point of conception, the fertilized egg is as yet without a brain so there is no self or individual to speak of. At best, we can say that what we have is a template that is configuring itself towards a human life. On the matter of viability, I agree with what you say.

    DJB, can you provide your reason(s) for believing that ‘human life begins at conception’ is the scientifically soundest position? BTW, i agree with what you say about the need for a Secular morality (at 7:57 pm). For example, it’s ridiculous that what takes place among consenting adults is given more priority than corruption by public officials.

    Blackshama (at 9:14pm), re: humanity on the basis of passing the umbrella professor’s course, someone can make that line of argument but we have to deal with it on its merits (and demerits). In the same way, the proposition that human life begins when the brain is organized has to be dealt with on its own merits/demerits. If not, we’ll get dragged into Slippery Slope-type discussions?

    But developmental biology cannot define what a person is. This is left to philosophy and if you are religious,theology. - Blackshama

    I agree, which is why as i mentioned to DJB, i think it’s difficult to define what a person (or human life) is because it’s more than just a scientific concept. This is where the disciplines of philosophy and the social sciences would help. On relying on theology, that can be used as personal guidance, but the Bill of Rights prevents imposing a set of religious beliefs on the general public.

  16. benign0 on September 29th, 2008 6:15 am

    I think they fear that if contraception becomes acceptable and widespread that somehow that would “cheapen” the value of human life for many people and it would therefore lead to abortion also becoming legalized or decriminalized.

    You can appreciate the irrationality and utter pretentiousness of such “fears” when we consider that it is in societies where religious edicts (enacted in the so-called “morality” systems of such societies) reign that the value of human life is IN FACT cheap.

    In the Philippines, thousads of kids eat and live off mounds of garbage and thousands of people die in shipping “accidents”. Where is the church and our “morality” in those scheme of things? Where is the “church”? Hanggang dasal lang ang solusyon.

    Just from looking at cvj’s diagram, one can see how straightforward the question of life is from an objective view compared to the tortured and convoluted framework that emerges when religion and its pseudo-ethical framework (so-called “morality”) is introduced into the picture.

    Time and again it’s been demonstrated that the most simple frameworks are usually the ones that are most robust and valid.

  17. Karl Garcia on September 29th, 2008 8:50 am

    Occam’s razor should be changed to benign0’s razor.

    If I have my own razor, I would say:

    IF and only IF Conception = life
    AND Contraception = contraconception
    THEN contraception is not equal to removal of life

  18. Jeg on September 29th, 2008 10:17 am

    Life begins at conception. That’s when the cell gets its 23 pairs of chromosomes that distinguish one as human.

    cvj’s question isnt really ‘When does life begin?’ but ‘At what point can we kill the life and not feel guilty?’ Hence these consciousness and self-awareness discussions. I agree with blackshama and others who say that there is no scientific answer to this question; the question is philosophical. The constitution declares that human life begins at conception. There is no scientific way to prove that, just as there is no scientific way to prove that we have inalienable rights that do not depend on the State’s generosity. It is a secular faith we all have to abide in. In declaring that the embryo is human, we would also have to abide in the belief that it has a right to life. It cannot claim this right for itself just as an infant cannot claim this right for itself but we all agree that killing an an infant is bad. (Ok, probably not all. There may be some of us who think that killing babies is ok.) There is no rational, scientific answer to this question. A faith-free, ‘rational,’ scientific answer is one provided by the eugenicists and Peter Singer and I find their views abhorrent. I dont about you but secularist science cannot help us with this question, unless youre a eugenicist or a Peter Singer fan.

  19. cvj on September 29th, 2008 10:35 am

    I agree with blackshama and others who say that there is no scientific answer to this question; the question is philosophical. - Jeg

    Jeg, that was my point as well when, as i mentioned above, i warned DJB that ‘human life’ is a loaded concept. I think on this point we are all in [violent] agreement [again].

    There is a distinction between a stage in the development when an embryo does not have a brain and a point where it finally acquires one. It is this threshold that is important in terms of demarcating one as an individual. (I’m not even talking of higher brain functions of the cortex, only the brain stem that provides basic limbic functions.) Before that, nobody’s home, unless you believe in the soul, which would fall under religious belief and therefore should not count in formulating public policy in a secular state, even if that state is made up in the majority of believers.

    BTW, i’m not talking about killing infants. I also specifically stated in my post above that brain damage should not be grounds for abortion. So it is not accurate (nor fair) to associate me with eugenicists.

  20. Jeg on September 29th, 2008 10:39 am

    Got it, cvj. Far be it from me to associate you with eugenicists. Youre not the type.

    I go with chromosomes: Youve got human genes, youre human, and have the right to life. It’s simple, really. ;-)

  21. cvj on September 29th, 2008 10:42 am

    Thanks Jeg, i wouldn’t want to encroach on Benign0’s domain ;-)

  22. sparks on September 29th, 2008 12:02 pm

    If I haven’t said it yet, can I say now how much I love Filipino Voices? XD

  23. The Jester-in-Exile on September 29th, 2008 12:55 pm

    i’m going to go out on a limb here, but my personal view is (after a long process of ruminating over the idea) that the woman has the right to choose whether or not she will bring the fetus to term.

    (seriously — i often wonder what standing do we men have when we are not the folks getting pregnant? :D )

    with that, i’m going to take cvj’s diagram and think on it some more.

  24. Jeg on September 29th, 2008 3:53 pm

    i often wonder what standing do we men have when we are not the folks getting pregnant?

    It’s part of the defending-the-defenseless duty we as members of society have. That’s why we’re so concerned with our fellow Filipinos not having enough information on how their reproductive systems operate even though we have no standing to complain when Jenny from the block gets pregnant with her eighth child. We care about Jenny and her kids. When every Filipino has enough information on what to do to prevent conception, maybe jester would revisit his position on women having the right to choose whether or not to bring the fetus to term, knowing that she couldve prevented said pregnancy. (’Fetus’ is an interesting choice of term, btw. I use the more archaic term ‘baby’. ;-) )

  25. The Jester-in-Exile on September 29th, 2008 4:04 pm

    When every Filipino has enough information on what to do to prevent conception, maybe jester would revisit his position on women having the right to choose whether or not to bring the fetus to term, knowing that she couldve prevented said pregnancy.

    i certainly would.

  26. cvj on September 29th, 2008 4:31 pm

    ’Fetus’ is an interesting choice of term, btw. I use the more archaic term ‘baby’ - Jeg

    I’ve heard some women refer to human sperm as ‘baby’ which shows how far we still to go in terms of education.

  27. The Jester-in-Exile on September 30th, 2008 11:16 am

    on a quick revisit of my stand re jeg, i suppose it would be this:

    unless and until RH programs that promote access to contraceptives and promote effective RH education have finally reduced RH-related metrics significantly (i.e., slowdown of HIV cases, decreased infant mortality, reduction of the population growth rate, reduction in abortion rates), then i will continue not be strongly opposed to the woman’s right to choose.

  28. Bruce in Iloilo on October 1st, 2008 8:22 pm

    Brainwaves are actually detectable at 56 days, but detectability doesn’t tell you when the brain started function.

    There is more then one measure for when someone dies: for instance, a stopped heart. So, shouldn’t a beating heart — at 28 days — be a measure for life beginning?

    But neither brain waves or heartbeats defines a human being. A human being is simply an organized collection of cells sharing a unique DNA that then grown and multiple, take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. That starts at conception. From then until you read this blog, you — your cells — have been growing and multiplying, taking in oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide. That ends at death, which thanks to modern technology is not an easy a line as it used to be.

    As for Catholic teaching, we should not misrepresent it. Catholic theology does not equate contraception with abortion. The latter is killing a human being already alive and the former is interfering with nature. They are not the same in Catholic theology even if some of the advocates confuse the issue.

  29. Dean Jorge Bocobo on October 1st, 2008 9:04 pm

    Yeah, Bruce, some of those “advocates” even include Bishops and Cardinals who claim condoms don’t protect against HIV/Aids, and who do proclaim such plain untruths as that contraception is tantamount to abortion. I happen to believe that human life does begin at conception, but much as the Church tries to make it seem like a scientific question, it’s really all about power based on ignorance and dogma. It’s a truly wicked teaching that causes untold human suffering while they smoke their holy incense…like that bit about limbo…, just before they trot out the argument you do denying that something is part of “Catholic theology.” Puhleeze. The jig is up. It’s an evil Church that lies to its faithful.

  30. The Catholic Magisterium on Contraception | Filipino Voices on October 3rd, 2008 3:31 pm

    […] a lively discussion of the Reproductive Health Bill  in a series of posts by several contributors (1, 2, 3 , 4, 5) primarily from the legal, philosophical,   political  and scientific standpoints.  […]

  31. I Support Reproductive Health Bill & Population Development Act of 2008 (HB 5043) | A Filipina Mom Blogger on October 11th, 2008 8:07 am

    […] When does Human Life Begin? A Secular View by Chuck […]

  32. Little Brown Brother Press on October 12th, 2008 9:12 am

    […] When Does Human Life Begin? […]

  33. adam on November 17th, 2008 1:18 pm

    this is stupid…..its human its alive thats “human life”….i know your just starting to emerge from your huts but dont let these people fool you. they will soon use the same arguments to justify killing you, under the guize that personhood is a social construct and if the majority does not recognize it than it is not equal. human life begins when there is a unique DNA structer that formed from 2 different DNA structures, or even cloneing,once development begins. thats what makes it “individual” . many of the “brain arguments” given here would also justify killing people in there sleep. your not garentied to wake up but its probible. just like an embro isnt garentied to develope but its probible.

Leave a Reply