NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, yeah, the poll says it all...

I see no poll.

I see no poll.

Yes, you do.

when does it begin or when is it viable?

When it begins.

i believe life starts at the same time everyone else thinks life starts

at birth


thats why we count the days of our life from birth not conception or other arbitrary point before birth.

When it begins.

oh......there isn't a poll option for me then.

When does it begin or when does it begin to matter?

Yeah, yeah, the poll says it all...

umm...birth...yea, final answer...

well we're alive all now so does it really matter?

Life ends with the death of the brain, so it begins when brain activity becomes perceivable, I think.

oh......there isn't a poll option for me then.

Wha? :confused:

it all depends on what you mean.

if you mean life....then it doesn't start anymore, it just continues. New living cells are made from previous living cells.

if you mean A life, then when the life mentioned before is capable of living independently outside the womb

i believe life starts at the same time everyone else thinks life starts

at birth


thats why we count the days of our life from birth not conception or other arbitrary point before birth.

Counting days and years from your date of birth is pretty arbitrary anyway. It's a useless measurement.

i believe life starts at the same time everyone else thinks life starts

at birth


thats why we count the days of our life from birth not conception or other arbitrary point before birth.

exactly...otherwise we would celebrate conception days instead of Birth days

By definition, life begins at birth. A zygote is no more alive than a retina cell. When a baby leaves its mother, then and only then is it alive in my eyes.

And before angry pro-life people start calling me a heartless monster, please bear in mind that I didn't say "and once it's alive, I'll eat it" or anything like that. Once a baby is alive, it should be treated with all the love and care any reasonable parents would treat it with.

Counting days and years from your date of birth is pretty arbitrary anyway. It's a useless measurement.

and yet it is used pretty thoroughly all over the world

even if you are born 4 months premature all the milestones of your life are counted from that date.

and yet it is used pretty thoroughly all over the world

even if you are born 4 months premature all the milestones of your life are counted from that date.

A lot of crap is used thoroughly all over the world. I agree with your point about the date of birth being counted as the first day of your life, but (I'm tempted to say religion, but I can't prove it's bad) cigarettes are also used over the world and yet they have no good effects.

and yet it is used pretty thoroughly all over the world

even if you are born 4 months premature all the milestones of your life are counted from that date.

yeah, and I still get mom's who don't understand why their baby isn't "developmentally online" with what their books say.....I try to explain, they need a few months to catch up, at some point it's the same, but not at 3 weeks old for a baby that came 8 weeks early. :headbang:

when you are conceived you are now existing in the world...
but you are truly living after you are born

What sort of life? Spermatozoa are alive, just not in any real meaningfull way. But in this sense life never begins; it only continues.
If you talk about some sort of life with value, well, then I'd say not before the foetus can viable live outside the womb.

and yet it is used pretty thoroughly all over the world

even if you are born 4 months premature all the milestones of your life are counted from that date.

A S. Korean friend tells me they start earlier than that.

/useless info.

If you have Aspergers like me, you're lucky if it ever begins.

yeah, and I still get mom's who don't understand why their baby isn't "developmentally online" with what their books say.....I try to explain, they need a few months to catch up, at some point it's the same, but not at 3 weeks old for a baby that came 8 weeks early. :headbang:

geeez youd think that such a traumatic birth would be forever etched in their minds so deeply that it would be the first reason for anything that happens to their child whether it makes sense or not.

on the order of 3 to 4 billion years ago.

oh, are we talking human personhood? birth, though even then it isn't full personhood, and infanticide is acceptable in certain limited contexts.

Birth. Before birth, a fetus is incapable of substantial interaction (and therefore warrants no rights of its own).

If your talking about when a child becomes alive it would be not long after conecption but if you mean when life starts as in when you really start living life then thats when people actually start doing things with there life.

Life ends with the death of the brain, so it begins when brain activity becomes perceivable, I think.

i'd go with that one too. i voted for the option i thought closest.

Surely it depends a little on how you define life? And if life is illusion then can we say it begins at all?:headbang:

A zygote is no more alive than a retina cell

...which one hopes is, in fact, alive

A S. Korean friend tells me they start earlier than that.

/useless info.

is it different from the chinese system where you are 1 year old for every year you have lived in? so that when you are born you are 1, when the next (calendar or lunar, depending) year comes, you are 2 even if only one month has passed since you were born?

Well.

Partial-birth abortions kind of frighten me; generally, by that time, babies are out of the womb, and I would consider them alive.

Now, if you plan on getting an abortion at a time specified earlier than `after my water breaks and I am being rushed to the hospital by my anxious husband/partner` then fine.

The fetus begins to suck his/her thumb after the 10th week (<<<THIS IS WHEN I THINK LIFE BEGINS), for your information, meaning it does think. So I would assume the best time for abortions, and feeling the least guilty about it, and all, would be before the 9th week or so.

Just my thoughts. Oh, by the way, I am in fact an inhuman, pot-smoking monster that eats babies, so you radical Christians can jump on my back about how every sperm is sacred.

A wise man once told me that it begins at 40.

geeez youd think that such a traumatic birth would be forever etched in their minds so deeply that it would be the first reason for anything that happens to their child whether it makes sense or not.

I have one who keeps saying "I just want my kid to be normal" I really really want to tell her "your kid isn't normal, get over it."

I mean my kids aren't normal......it's not like it's a bad thing, I would worry about a completely normal kid, like some big catastrophe is waiting to happen.

Human life begins at birth.

I think life begins at the conception.

But conscience doesnt. Nor the mind.

I believe it starts after about 3 to 4 months of conception. I´m not sure through.

Meaning I only acept someone as human after 3 to 4 months, which is about when the mind and the conscience starts.

The question is: when is abortion a murder? For me, its after the fetus has achieved conscience. Meaning I´m OK with abortion before that happens.

Well.

Partial-birth abortions kind of frighten me; generally, by that time, babies are out of the womb, and I would consider them alive.

Now, if you plan on getting an abortion at a time specified earlier than `after my water breaks and I am being rushed to the hospital by my anxious husband/partner` then fine.

The fetus begins to suck his/her thumb after the 10th week (<<<THIS IS WHEN I THINK LIFE BEGINS), for your information, meaning it does think. So I would assume the best time for abortions, and feeling the least guilty about it, and all, would be before the 9th week or so.

Just my thoughts. Oh, by the way, I am in fact an inhuman, pot-smoking monster that eats babies, so you radical Christians can jump on my back about how every sperm is sacred.


huh?

when did abortion come into this?

I have one who keeps saying "I just want my kid to be normal" I really really want to tell her "your kid isn't normal, get over it."

I mean my kids aren't normal......it's not like it's a bad thing, I would worry about a completely normal kid, like some big catastrophe is waiting to happen.

i suppose its because the baby had such a difficult start but "normal" is a pathetic goal for a child.

Well, in modern philosophy, life in it's most basic and simple biological form is the neuroelectric signals between asexual cells. Therefore, life is not the ability to feel emotion, you're alive if your body is processing information through the brain and central nervous system, have neuroelectric signals between cells, can reproduce, has limits (ie, fire is a danger and can kill you easily), and can adapt to its environment. So I think that its concieved when the womb is fertilized.

The fetus begins to suck his/her thumb after the 10th week, for your information, meaning it does think. So I would assume the best time for abortions, and feeling the least guilty about it, and all, would be before the 9th week or so.

actually, it just means it has reflexes. The thumb drifted by the mouth, and brushed the cheek, and it rooted (reflex) and then sucked (reflex)

As for the poll...I guess it depends on the reason...

Each time I have been pregnant, I have considered it a baby from the minute I've known I was pregnant. Each baby I have lost, I have grieved it as a BABY, not as a fetus, not as a clump of cells, etc, though each loss occurred before I was even 8 weeks along. THAT is the reason that I, personally, could never have an abortion. However, I wouldn't want that right taken away from any woman.

I would want someone who killed a mother and unborn baby tried for the murder of 2 people. It wasn't the mother who made the choice to "abort"

It's too hard to put by belief in the poll answers...because I guess that what I really think is that life begins at birth, but I want an unborn baby to have rights too.

A few billion years ago.

A few billion years ago.

Do you have a source?...:p

It doesn't.

huh?

when did abortion come into this?

Well, I guess its the only real reason to discuss this, isnt it?

What sort of life? Spermatozoa are alive, just not in any real meaningfull way. But in this sense life never begins; it only continues.
If you talk about some sort of life with value, well, then I'd say not before the foetus can viable live outside the womb.

I agree.

The question assumes that an individual life can be said to begin in the same definite, on/off way a life may end. An individual life does not begin at any time, it developes and becomes more human by recognizable stages, but the only stage which makes any sense to choose as the legal 'becoming' of a person is birth.

An unfertilized egg is alive. A sperm is alive. Both of them in the sense of being functioning cells -- they are alive in the sense bacteria are alive. A newborn baby on the other hand is recognizably human, yet it is clearly not a full human (it's hard to imagine any society which would grant full adult rights and responsibilities to a newborn).

If the question is "when does a developing foetus/child become human" there is no answer. If it's "when does a foetus/child acquire it's individual genetic makeup" the answer is conception. If it's "when does a foetus/child become a conscious being" there may be an answer, but it won't be fixed to a particular time after conception, for all foetuses/children.

The time of legal 'beginning' is always going to be an arbitrary choice. Since giving any legal rights to a foetus creates a possible conflict with the legal rights of an adult (the mother) and since birth is a clearly-defined event, legal becoming should be set at birth.

Well, I guess its the only real reason to discuss this, isnt it?

we discuss all sorts of things that seem to have no reason to discuss.

life beginning at birth has little to do with regulating abortion.

In my opinion, it does.

The idea that life only starts at birth in quite stupid IMO.

Someone who thinks like that has no knowledge about how a baby develops, or chooses to ignore it.

In my opinion, it does.

The idea that life only starts at birth in quite stupid IMO.

Someone who thinks like that has no knowledge about how a baby develops, or chooses to ignore it.

*shrug*

everyone in the world counts the start of your life at birth. its a good enough standard for me.

that doesnt mean anything whatsoever about the regulation of abortion which only occurs before birth and thus has to have a different standard than "when does life begin"

A few billion years ago.

beat you to it

on the order of 3 to 4 billion years ago.

The idea that life only starts at birth in quite stupid IMO.

Someone who thinks like that has no knowledge about how a baby develops, or chooses to ignore it.

indeed. life has been continuous for billions of years. there is never any non-life break between one generation and the next, and it would be silly to think anyone meant to say otherwise. so they must be saying something else. now what might that be?

:confused:I think you're all off topic!

You seem to talking about belief in a soul, and at what point does that start.

Life began billions of years ago, (self-replicating DNA) and hasn't stopped yet.

Some will think I'm missing the point here. I'm not: I'm trying to look at "a life" from inside it, not by looking at ultrasounds of a foetus or making comparisions between a human life and other forms of life. Bear with me.

The origin of all our ideas about rights, and human qualities, springs from our own experience of life. We take on board the theories of others, yes, but at some stage these ideas had their basis in experience. Even such a seemingly fundamental principle as self-preservation relies on our experience of mortal fear, and all convictions about 'rights' would be sheer moonshine without the individual's interests which we have experienced in the course of living.

If one tries to remember one's early childhood, there isn't much there. Isolated memories if anything at all. From the individual point of view, there is no beginning. Personally I have no memories from before the age of four (and then very vague ones,) though this varies between people.

If my mother had drunk heavily during her pregnancy with me, or had conceived me by a close relative, or done some other bad thing which had left me with an impairment, I would be very resentful of that. If she'd aborted me, I wouldn't.

Whatever consciousness I might have possessed as a foetus (not at a high enough level to retain memories -- that's a pretty low level) doesn't bear comparison with adult consciousness.

I saw a commercial today that said "Life begins at 40", so if anyone needs me, I'll be off performing some late term abortions.
Never again will you be able to steal my newspaper with impunity, Mr Ted Laskins.

exactly...otherwise we would celebrate conception days instead of Birth days

Oh man imagine "Happy Conception Day to you, Happy Conception day to you, Happy Conception Day dear (insert name) happy conception day to you!!"..."Mommy whats a conception?"

awkward much :eek:
______________________________________________________________________________________

They'd probably still say birthday though, but still the joke stands. :p

i believe life starts...at birth...thats why we count the days of our life from birth not conception or other arbitrary point before birth.

No, we don't count the days of our life from the point of conception because many people cannot state with certainty the exact date of that occurrence. However, it is simple to determine on which day a baby was born.

:confused:I think you're all off topic!

You seem to talking about belief in a soul, and at what point does that start.

Life began billions of years ago, (self-replicating DNA) and hasn't stopped yet.

This means a new replicant of an already existing species. A new baby if you will.

Definately At Conception

Life bagan a couple billion years ago. A unique lifeform different from previous life begins at conception when it recieves it's unique DNA that is different from the parents'. After that there are no clear borders, specially not birth since the child has the same equipment a day before and a day after birth, it could have been born a day earlier without problem.

To give enough time for victims of rape and unwilling mothers to make a decision, the time when the heart starts should be considered as the beginning of human sentient life. which is about 28 days.

With the heart starting, the brain has obviously developed enough to control major processes.

Saying birth is completely stupid, as the mother is in no way giving the child life at that time, as such a fetus can be taken out, with no induction into labor, by a C-section and the fetus then becoming a baby with no will of the mother, and by no biological factor of it becoming alive at that moment.

After that there are no clear borders, specially not birth since the child has the same equipment a day before and a day after birth, it could have been born a day earlier without problem.

could have, but wasn't. birth is a very stark and clear dividing line. you can't get much clearer a border until death.

To give enough time for victims of rape and unwilling mothers to make a decision, the time when the heart starts should be considered as the beginning of human sentient life. which is about 28 days.

With the heart starting, the brain has obviously developed enough to control major processes.

It would follow that you can stop your own heart beating by a conscious "sentient" intention. You can, can you?

Saying birth is completely stupid, as the mother is in no way giving the child life at that time, as such a fetus can be taken out, with no induction into labor, by a C-section and the fetus then becoming a baby with no will of the mother, and by no biological factor of it becoming alive at that moment.

My own position was that Birth is the best time to draw any line which needs to be drawn. The main reason to draw any line at all is to make legal decisions on the rights if any which a foetus has.
I say birth because the rights of the mother trump those of the foetus. If we don't have rights within our own bodies, it makes no sense to speak of rights at all.

I think the way your argument is crafted specifically to address abortion makes it in fact weaker. Are you really arguing from principle, or simply building a structure to support a political point?

I would say life start with the creation of the spermatozoon. But drawning a line between an unicellular and a fully functionnal/learning entity is a really hard question.

Yeah, yeah, the poll says it all...

Life begins when a cell splits in two.

The time of legal 'beginning' is always going to be an arbitrary choice. Since giving any legal rights to a foetus creates a possible conflict with the legal rights of an adult (the mother) and since birth is a clearly-defined event, legal becoming should be set at birth.I agree with this, both on birth being a good dividing line, and that the dividing line is arbitrary.

Life begins when a man and a woman love each other very much...so much that they call the stork and bring a new born baby to your doorstep...

Conception. But personhood begins sometime during infancy, and that's what really matters.

Until about 13 years old, before then there are smarter animals, and since many people don't really consider animals to have souls, ergo children don't have souls.

A wise man once told me that it begins at 40.

Another year and a half and I get to see what it's like. I'll let everyone know, as I'm sure I'll still be around here.

I say 3rd trimester.

Life ends with the death of the brain, so it begins when brain activity becomes perceivable, I think.

Basically this is where your life does begin. I also do not agree with the people that say at birth. If that were the case then the legal system would not recognize the death of an unborn child during a commission of a crime. They also would allow abortions up to the birthing process.

Life begins at conception.. or before, since the sperm and egg are hopefully alive..
When it becomes a person (which is no doubt what this topic has diverged or will diverge into), is beyond me.

Why?

Well I don't know when it begins, but I sure as hell know when it ends!

*Raises plunger*

Life begins at conception, legal personhood at birth. As others have said, it's an arbitrary yet necessary dividing line.
I don't go for all that "rights of the mother" stuff. Mostly because coming from so many people who are opposed to so many other forms of selfishness it seems hypocritical. Especially since, except in cases of rape or failed contraceptives (a small minority overall and the latter usually being unprovable) the life was created due to the actions of the mother.

Abortion is a necessary evil. In general, for most of the people seeking it, it saves two lives. There are scarce other circumstances involving death in which the greater good is so easily perceivable.

At conception

Since I last posted I actually met a woman I knew before (partner of a RL friend) who has become pregnant. I'm not as sure about my position as I was six hours ago. :eek:

Well, that fetus is alive the whole time; what matter is when it becomes a human being. Personally, I feel that occurs when the brain begins to form, so that would be during the second trimester. That's also why I support banning abortion after that point except in medical emergency.

Well, that fetus is alive the whole time; what matter is when it becomes a human being. Personally, I feel that occurs when the brain begins to form, so that would be during the second trimester. That's also why I support banning abortion after that point except in medical emergency.
QFT

Well, that fetus is alive the whole time; what matter is when it becomes a human being. Personally, I feel that occurs when the brain begins to form, so that would be during the second trimester. That's also why I support banning abortion after that point except in medical emergency.
Having a bunch of brain cells doesn't make it human. It doesn't have a human mind until it develops human intelligence. Skills like personality, abstract thinking, logic reasoning, creativity and language. But that is quite some time after birth and never happens for people with severe mental retardation so brain intelligence would be a cruel place to draw the line.

When does life begin?
It doesn't.

Life can end, but "life" has already begun. There is no point in the human life cycle at which non-living material magically becomes living material. Sperm and eggs are alive. Fertilized eggs are alive. Zygotes are alive. Fetuses are alive. Infants, toddler, etc etc etc are alive, all the way up until the time the individual dies.

If you are asking when personhood begins, then I guess that would be when the defining characteristic of a person is present: the functioning brain. When an individual is physiologically capable of possessing consciousness, then their personhood has begun.

The first brain waves can be detected around week 7 of gestation, but the more "primitive" brain regions are the ones that become active first (mostly autonomic functions). I'd say at least another several weeks would be required for the uniquely human regions of the brain to even be present in an immature state, so that would be the absolute earliest that personhood could begin.

I'd go with:
In the event it is seperated from it's mother/host, would it be able to survive. If not, then no as it would only be supported by the mother's body/organs/systems.

Until then, in my opinion, it fits the definition of a parasite.

It may sound cold, but to me it works.

Life ends with the death of the brain, so it begins when brain activity becomes perceivable, I think.

Well you get to the problem of children that are born with no high thinking or are born with half a brain (a fetus that had that was mentioned a couple of weeks ago).

Well you get to the problem of children that are born with no high thinking or are born with half a brain (a fetus that had that was mentioned a couple of weeks ago).

Also, an earthworm is alive but doesn't have a brain (in the traditional sense). Therefore having a brain does not seem to be a condition for 'life'.

Also, an earthworm is alive but doesn't have a brain (in the traditional sense). Therefore having a brain does not seem to be a condition for 'life'.
Biologically speaking, a brain is not required for life. Many things which are alive do not have brains. (Though, as a neuroscientist, I happen to think that life sans brain can't possibly be worth living! :D)

(Though, as a neuroscientist, I happen to think that life sans brain can't possibly be worth living! :D)

I tip my hat to you :)

Also, an earthworm is alive but doesn't have a brain (in the traditional sense). Therefore having a brain does not seem to be a condition for 'life'.

I wasn't really talking about it beinga prerequisite about life.

What we need is more intelligent octopuses. That would solve all our problems.

A few billion years ago.

*Puts on tinfoil hat* How do you know the aliens didn't just seed us here? Think about the aliens, man *Removes tinfoil hat*

:confused:I think you're all off topic!

You seem to talking about belief in a soul, and at what point does that start.

Life began billions of years ago, (self-replicating DNA) and hasn't stopped yet.

Ahh, so you're a subscriber to the DNA world hypothesis and not the RNA or Peptide/Protein world hypotheses.

Personally I'd go with RNA or Peptide/Protein.

could have, but wasn't. birth is a very stark and clear dividing line. you can't get much clearer a border until death.

Even then death is a bit random. Some mosses can go into a cessation of all functions when there is almost no water available and only resume functions when rains arrive. They can be considered as dead but can come back to life.

Even our brains, if preserved properly (like chilling) can slow down (or halt if you're part of the cryogenics crowd) any apoptosis that would ocurr.

(Though, as a neuroscientist, I happen to think that life sans brain can't possibly be worth living! :D)On the other hand, life without a brain is not worth not living either.;)

Life ends with the death of the brain, so it begins when brain activity becomes perceivable, I think.

Brain development cells specialized for brain tissue begins around 24 days and brain activity is perceptible at 6 weeks.
But even dead people don't get the same treatment at aborted embryos.
Genetically speaking (at least), a human is a human at conception.

I'd go with:
In the event it is seperated from it's mother/host, would it be able to survive. If not, then no as it would only be supported by the mother's body/organs/systems.

Until then, in my opinion, it fits the definition of a parasite.

It may sound cold, but to me it works.

The problem with that is that in nature many parasites are able to survive separation from their hosts. So why would a human only be considered a non-parasite because of its independent status.
Furthermore, what is 'separation', and are any of us truly separated from humanity? If not, then are we all parasites? Mr. Smith would say yes.

The problem with that is that in nature many parasites are able to survive separation from their hosts.
Not for long, which was my point.

So why would a human only be considered a non-parasite because of its independent status.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Culd you re-phrase or clarify it? Human is just a term to describe a type of animal.


Furthermore, what is 'separation', and are any of us truly separated from humanity? If not, then are we all parasites?
I don't know, do you suck goodness directly from some other being?

The "life begins here" is quite difficult.

Imho, an embryo is human life as much as a finger is. It is alive, it is human (adjective), hence it is living tissue of H.Sapiens; but it isn't a human (noun: an individual of the H.Sapiens species), just a part of it - a part of the mother, to be accurate, since if separated from her, it would die, while the mother would survive.
When a foetus is able to survive (at least, to breathe the atmosphere with his own lungs, I won't stretch that to require the ability to feed), I'd say that the foetus has become an individual of the H.Sapiens species.

a part of the mother, to be accurate, since if separated from her, it would die, while the mother would survive.

but what happens when we remove a heart from somebody and keep it alive even when the rest of that somebody dies in the process? does that make the heart the person, and the rest of them just the part?

but what happens when we remove a heart from somebody and keep it alive even when the rest of that somebody dies in the process? does that make the heart the person, and the rest of them just the part?
No, because our standard for death of an individual is brain death.

If you remove an organ from a person, the organ itself may remain alive, but it is not a human individual. It doesn't have a brain; it is a (former) part of a human individual, but it is not an individual.

Think about heart transplant patients. They have received their heart from another human being, yet they remain themselves. They do not suddenly become two people, nor do they turn into the person from whom they received the heart.

Brain development cells specialized for brain tissue begins around 24 days and brain activity is perceptible at 6 weeks.

The existence of neurons and glia does not equal presence of a brain.

The thing about the human central nervous system is that you need the parts AND the whole. You could take a billion neurons and stick them in a jar, and they wouldn't be a brain. The whole reason neuroscience is such a complicated subject is because the organization and interaction of all the parts is absolutely essential to the function of the whole. All the parts have to work, AND they have to work together correctly.

Additionally, "brain activity" is very, very vague. Are you talking about spontaneous firing of action potentials in neurons? Are you talking about release of transmitter and the evoked firing of action potentials? Are you talking about coordinated brain function?

Remember, too, that "brain cells" are quite active long before there are any "brain waves" to detect at all.


But even dead people don't get the same treatment at aborted embryos.

?


Genetically speaking (at least), a human is a human at conception.
There is absolutely no reason to use genetics to define human personhood. Indeed, if you do that, then identical twins must be defined as a single person.

The existence of neurons and glia does not equal presence of a brain.

The thing about the human central nervous system is that you need the parts AND the whole. You could take a billion neurons and stick them in a jar, and they wouldn't be a brain. The whole reason neuroscience is such a complicated subject is because the organization and interaction of all the parts is absolutely essential to the function of the whole. All the parts have to work, AND they have to work together correctly.

Additionally, "brain activity" is very, very vague. Are you talking about spontaneous firing of action potentials in neurons? Are you talking about release of transmitter and the evoked firing of action potentials? Are you talking about coordinated brain function?

Remember, too, that "brain cells" are quite active long before there are any "brain waves" to detect at all.

The last source I saw on this stated that the first detectable synapses form during weeks 5 and 6 - in the spinal cord (not the brain). After that, you get random firings, often causing full body convulsions. The first evidence of any coordinated brain activity (ie. non-reflexive responses) was around 10-12 weeks.

It's been a while, so I'm not sure I can find it....

The last source I saw on this stated that the first detectable synapses form during weeks 5 and 6 - in the spinal cord (not the brain).

Active synapses? That seems a bit early...could be, I suppose. I haven't done a lot of work at the individual synapse level just yet. (That's Aim 3 of my thesis :P)

But structural synapses I could certainly believe. I mean, a synapse is technically just a special kind of gap between two cells. You could have immature synapses pretty quick, I would imagine.

From studies of the chicken embryo, I've learned that the formation of synapses is, in some ways, actually less important than the "pruning" of synapses. What happens (at least in the vestibular system) is that cells initially make craploads of connections, basically reaching out and contacting anything they can possibly get to. But over a critical developmental period these connections are pruned back so that the network will be composed of meaningful connections.


After that, you get random firings, often causing full body convulsions. The first evidence of any coordinated brain activity (ie. non-reflexive responses) was around 10-12 weeks.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I study vestibular reflex pathways, and I know that these pathways are functioning relatively early in embryonic development (compared to "higher" systems).

Life starts tomorrow. Be ready.

There is absolutely no reason to use genetics to define human personhood. Indeed, if you do that, then identical twins must be defined as a single person.

Hmm...one of my roommates calls twins "sames". Maybe he is on to something...

Last Tuesday.