When does life begin?

[JHAQ]

Maybe just an emergent property of matter ? So the universe can observe it self ? So an entity with God like powers can evolve ( to compete with "God " ) ? To me the biggest mystery is why is there an universe there in the first place --- vast , indifferent & dispassionate .

[YT2095]

please don`t bring "God" into this as with your other posts, this has been an interesting Thread so far, let`s not spoil it eh

[Guest Chargolith]

I really don't get the idea that a child is better off dead, than maybe living a miserable life, particularly from those that believe human life begins in the womb. I'm guessing that there's many miserable, unhappy children, that grow up to be very glad they are alive. I get this mental image of someone walking up to a starving child and saying "Don't you wish you had never been born?".

For the person that believes that human life begins at conception, but women should still get to abort them...when did women receive the power to end a human life. That usually requires a judge and jury. Also, that child isn't just hers, that is a man's child too.

As for the issue of when a human is considered human, I feel it has to be conception.

[Aardvark]

As for the issue of when a human is considered human' date=' I feel it has to be conception.[/quote']

 

Why do you feel that?

 

A fertilised egg has the potential to become human, but it seems to be stretching the point to consider it a fully fledged human surely?

[Guest Chargolith]

I feel that it must be conception because there is no clear, and obvious point when an embryo is considered human. For instance, you can't say when its heart starts beating, because I would say "Why?". What about someone who is having cardiac arrest, are they suddenly not human? Better yet, tell me when does a heart start beating? What happens in the one second before that that makes it human? Perhaps you would say brain stem activity, once again I ask, "Why?". Why would that make them human? Why were they not human one second before that? There is a surgical pocedure that chills the brain to the point that there is no activity, can the surgeon now kill the patient, though he knows he could easily bring them back?

At the moment of conception a human being has come into existance, it may not look human, but if allowed to mature, it will eventually take on the appearance of what we call human. But we can't say something isn't human because it doesn't look human. What about the myriad of diseases and disfigurements people have that make them not look human, but they are, and nobody would argue that.

[Callipygous]

your just drawing another arbitrary line by saying that...

 

you could argue that every girl that has her period is a murderer because she should have gotten pregnant. if she had only given it the oportunity by providing sperm that egg could have developed into a human being just like the rest of us. every guy who goes in the toilet instead of a woman is a murderer because each of those sperm has the potential to be a human being, if only we gave it access to an egg instead of haphazardly depositing it into a tissue.

 

i personally believe that it becomes human when it is capable of surviving outside of the womb. if we could remove it and have it survive to become a normal human, without any extra disfigurement or damage due to being removed, then it is human. before that it is nothing but a sperm and an egg.

[Ophiolite]

your just drawing another arbitrary line by saying that...

 

i personally believe that it becomes human when it is capable of surviving outside of the womb.

Looks like another arbitary line to me. How much support are we allowed to afford this 'entity' to enable ts survival? You could interpret your words to mean children are not human till they are six or seven. Quite an extreme position.

[Callipygous]

Looks like another arbitary line to me. How much support are we allowed to afford this 'entity' to enable ts survival? You could interpret your words to mean children are not human till they are six or seven. Quite an extreme position.

 

 

yes, it is another line. its based on my personal beliefs about peoples rights(which is the real issue up for debate here), not necessarily whether or not they are actually human. i personally believe that when a creature is ENTIRELY dependant on someone else, not just for feeding, but for oxygen and all other functions, then the one providing the support, not the one living off of it, is the creature with the rights.

 

as for how much support, as much as current medical technology will allow. if it is POSSIBLE for the "entity" to survive for a normal life...

[Mokele]

::Shakes a fist furiously::

 

How could you! You're all a bunch of Diploidists! Opressing the poor Haploids! Sure, they have a shorter lifespan, and are unicellular, but they're people too!

 

Seriously, while we're talking about arbitrary lines, why aren't sperm and eggs human? They're just the haploid phase of our life cycle. The sporophyte and gametophyte stages of a fern are both ferns, right? Why should we discriminate in what is nothing more than another phase of our life cycle?

 

IMHO, life has begun only once. Everything since then has been produced from life. My parent's living cells formed gametes (which are alive), which combined into a zygote (alive) which grew into me (alive). Trace back until life originated.

 

Thus, from my perspective, life does not "begin" anymore. It merely continues, changing form and mixing genes as it does.

 

Mokele

[rakuenso]

Well, at least most of us value it higher. The Chinese eat baby girls in the rural areas of the country.

 

Please... thats putting it to extremes, I can say White Americans like to skin little girls in various suburban parts of the country and it would be the same thing.

[Callipygous]

Please... thats putting it to extremes, I can say White Americans like to skin little girls in various suburban parts of the country and it would be the same thing.

 

 

im sorry, but which suburb is the little girl skinning taking place in? O.o

[Sayonara]

The one with the name that sounds like that Chinese village where they eat babies.

[Callipygous]

The one with the name that sounds like that Chinese village where they eat babies.

 

 

ah... gotcha.

[coquina]

..of when life begins.

 

2) when the following criteria, developed by the Harvard Medical School, are met: (a) response to external stimuli, (b) presence of deep reflex action, © presence of spontaneous movement and respiratory effort, and (d) presence of brain activity as ascertained by the electroencephalogram. These criteria would be met by the end of the third month in almost all cases.

 

This works for me.

[Guest Chargolith]

"you could argue that every girl that has her period is a murderer because she should have gotten pregnant. if she had only given it the oportunity by providing sperm that egg could have developed into a human being just like the rest of us. every guy who goes in the toilet instead of a woman is a murderer because each of those sperm has the potential to be a human being, if only we gave it access to an egg instead of haphazardly depositing it into a tissue."

 

This doesn't fit my arguement at all. No, this isn't murder, the egg will not form a human being ever on its own. Sperm will never form a human being on its own. Only when the two come together has the process started. Once the process starts, human life begins.

 

I fail to see the validity of your "survival" arguement. It is completely based on the level of medical technology. So a child aborted today at four months, is suddenly a human being ten years from now when the technology allows it?

 

I agree that we are talking about human rights. We are guaranteed the right to life by our constitution. Pregnancy, unfortunately, has two conflicting rights. The right to life by the child, and the right of the woman to her own body. I believe that the right to life supercedes the womans right to her body.

 

"creature is ENTIRELY dependant on someone else, not just for feeding, but for oxygen and all other functions, then the one providing the support, not the one living off of it, is the creature with the rights."

 

The problem I see here is, up until the umbilical cord is cut, and the child hasn't taken its first breath, the woman could kill her own child, and not be commiting murder. It could also be argued that people on life support aren't human.

[Kygron]

Might I add some phrases that may help out?

 

undeveloped human - completely recognized as human, but in early stages

unborn human - undeveloped human contained within the mother's body

potential human - group of cells that have the potential to become human without "unnatural" aid

failed potential human - group of cells that no longer have the potential to become human without "unnatural" aid

complete potential human - as opposed to:

partial potential human - a sperm or egg

potentially complete potential human - sperm and egg exist inside the same body

 

and then you can continue to add similar qualifiers all you like

 

using this terminology, I'll say that people seem to be trying to find a dividing line between potential human and undeveloped human. While I lack specific medical knowledge, this seems to be a VERY difficult task. But is it even worth it?

 

Since we seem to value human life with a passion uncomparable to that of any other form of life, why are we looking for a dividing line AFTER a potential human exists? I say if humans are so important then any potential human should be considered "human" and not just a "group of cells". There's a nice dividing line at the point of complete potential human (conception), let's use that!

[Deified]

 

This doesn't fit my arguement at all. No' date=' this isn't murder, the egg will not form a human being ever on its own. Sperm will never form a human being on its own. Only when the two come together has the process started. Once the process starts, human life begins.

 

[/quote']

The foetus will not form a human being ever on its own.

 

I agree with Mokele. Life doesn't begin, it continues.

[Nevermore]

::Shakes a fist furiously::

 

How could you! You're all a bunch of Diploidists! Opressing the poor Haploids! Sure' date=' they have a shorter lifespan, and are unicellular, but they're people too!

 

Seriously, while we're talking about arbitrary lines, why aren't sperm and eggs human? They're just the haploid phase of our life cycle. The sporophyte and gametophyte stages of a fern are both ferns, right? Why should we discriminate in what is nothing more than another phase of our life cycle?

 

IMHO, life has begun only once. Everything since then has been produced from life. My parent's living cells formed gametes (which are alive), which combined into a zygote (alive) which grew into me (alive). Trace back until life originated.

 

Thus, from my perspective, life does not "begin" anymore. It merely continues, changing form and mixing genes as it does.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

There! Right there! Pure truth!

[Callipygous]

This doesn't fit my arguement at all. No' date=' this isn't murder, the egg will not form a human being ever on its own. Sperm will never form a human being on its own. Only when the two come together has the process started. Once the process starts, human life begins.

 

I fail to see the validity of your "survival" arguement. It is completely based on the level of medical technology. So a child aborted today at four months, is suddenly a human being ten years from now when the technology allows it?

 

I agree that we are talking about human rights. We are guaranteed the right to life by our constitution. Pregnancy, unfortunately, has two conflicting rights. The right to life by the child, and the right of the woman to her own body. I believe that the right to life supercedes the womans right to her body.

 

The problem I see here is, up until the umbilical cord is cut, and the child hasn't taken its first breath, the woman could kill her own child, and not be commiting murder. It could also be argued that people on life support aren't human.[/quote']

 

i also agree with mol... whatever his name is. life doenst begin, it continues. the thing has human dna at all stages of developement, it always has life (unless its dead : P) so "human life" never begins, its just always there.

 

which brings us back to my point that this discussion isnt really about when the thing is alive, its about when it has rights.

 

 

"So a child aborted today at four months, is suddenly a human being ten years from now when the technology allows it?"

 

no...

for one thing: "as for how much support, as much as current medical technology will allow."

and for another, we already said the thing is always human, it just doesnt have rights. it doesnt BECOME human when technology improves.

 

 

 

"The problem I see here is, up until the umbilical cord is cut, and the child hasn't taken its first breath, the woman could kill her own child, and not be commiting murder. "

 

again, no. the baby is not dependent on the mother. if you were to sever all ties between the child and the mother the baby would still survive. the mother cant kill it, it has rights.

 

 

i would like to note that a womans right to her body sometimes IS her right to life in this scenario. but aside from that, if your going to say that this little blob of undeveloped cells has more of a right to live than the mother does to not endure pregnancy and child birth, then i have to ask again. why does this blob have more rights than the same blob back when it was in two pieces? why are we drawing the line at conception? a sperm is a living thing, it has human dna, does it have less of a right to live than a single cell?

 

 

normally i would draw my line without the technological aid, that is to say "if the baby can survive without unnatural intervention" as in, no incubation, no breathing pumps, none of that kind of thing. but the problem there is you would all be asking me what counts as "unnatural intervention" and bringing up stupid examples like "anyone who cant survive with out a grocery store has no rights." so i decided to just leave it at, "if the thing has any chance to survive."

[jdurg]

Topics like this can only spurn arguments and flame wars. There is no way that someone's viewpoints on this topic can be changed. If someone believes that life begins at fertilization, then they will ALWAYS feel that way. You will not be able to change their opinion no matter what you say. The same is true for those who believe that life begins 7 weeks after conception, or something like that. No matter what you say, they will ALWAYS feel that life begins at that point and not at conception. Trying to make people believe along the same lines as you will only lead to arguments and flame wars. People need to remember is that peoples answers to this thread are all their opinions. There are no facts. There can be no 'facts' since there is no solid definition of 'life'. So saying that someone is 'wrong' is just downright foolish. The same can be said if you feel that you are 'correct'. What you are stating is an opinion and nothing more, nothing less. With that disclaimer out of the way, here is my opinion:

 

I believe that life begins when the fetus is able to survive outside of the mother's womb without any medical help/intervention. So if the fetus was born in the middle of the Amazon Jungle to some competent parents, it could survive.

[Cadmus]

People need to remember is that peoples answers to this thread are all their opinions.

This is a very important point. It pertains not only to this one thread.

 

There are no facts. There can be no 'facts' since there is no solid definition of 'life'. So saying that someone is 'wrong' is just downright foolish.

I personally have no interest in the question of when life begins, for the very reason that you say. The question of when life begins can only be addressed within a specific context. I think that the most common context on a forum such as this is when life begins in the context of when can abortion be condoned. I don't care when life begins in the context of abortion, because I have nothing at all against abortion, in the sense that I have no interest in legislating when someone that I do not know has the legal right to have an abortion.

[Phi for All]

I agree with Mokele, that life started only once, and all the births and deaths since are but continuations of that cycle. We have to own the responsibility for life, and the taking of life. It's never justifiable to take a life, but sometimes it is necessary.

 

We kill to survive. If we kill for any other reason, we must be prepared to face the moral consequences. If we decide to abort a foetus, we can't justify taking that life away by saying it is not alive. We can decide to abort the foetus because it was necessary, and then we must live with that decision and face the consequences of our actions.

[jdurg]

Another common argument that is heard in threads like these is that abortion and murder are the same thing. That is something that I tend to disagree with. If you look at murder, it is something that could possibly happen to you, to me, to anybody around to read this post. If murder were legalized, we'd all have to fear being murdered at any point. With abortion, abortion cannot happen to you, it cannot happen to me, it cannot happen to anybody who is alive in this world. None of us here have to worry about being aborted. The fact that abortion is legal does not put your life in danger. If you look at the vast majority of the laws in existance, they are all designed to protect us looking forward. They are there to prevent things that might happen to us in the future if they were not illegal. With abortion or 'gay marriages', it's not something that will harm you now or in the future. That's my belief on this/these subjects.

[Cadmus]

It's never justifiable to take a life, but sometimes it is necessary[/i'].

I wonder what you mean by the word justifiable. The way that I understand the word, there are many conditions under which it is justifiable to take a life, such as in self defense.

 

If we kill for any other reason, we must be prepared to face the moral consequences.

I wonder what you mean by moral consequences. The word moral is such a subjective word that I have no idea what you might mean by this.

 

If we decide to abort a foetus, we can't justify taking that life away by saying it is not alive.

And why not. People can justify it in any way that they want, and one excuse is just as valid as another, in my opinion.

 

We can decide to abort the foetus because it was necessary, and then we must live with that decision and face the consequences of our actions.

I wonder what you mean by the word necessary. Is it necessary if a person decides that a child would not be desirable? I wonder what you mean by the phrase face the consequences of our actions. What might this entail in your mind?

[Aardvark]

If you look at murder, it is something that could possibly happen to you, to me, to anybody around to read this post. If murder were legalized, we'd all have to fear being murdered at any point. With abortion, abortion cannot happen to you, it cannot happen to me, it cannot happen to anybody who is alive in this world. None of us here have to worry about being aborted. The fact that abortion is legal does not put your life in danger. If you look at the vast majority of the laws in existance, they are all designed to protect us looking forward.

 

The majority of posters on this site are human. They do not have to worry about the consequences of animal cruelty, and yet it is generally accepted that it is right that laws exist to prevent animal cruelty. The suggestion that laws should only exist to protect the framers of those laws seems selfish and unjustifably selective.