When does life begin?

[Luminous]

Life begins when something can acknowledge its own existence and/or has the will to live/stay alive.

 

-not sure if that has been said yet, kinda skipped a few pages =P because was a bit too much reading.

[SorceressPol]

There used to be a saying "As safe as a baby in its mother's womb."

 

 

A long time ago.

[In My Memory]

Life begins when something can acknowledge its own existence and/or has the will to live/stay alive.

So, life for human beings right around the age of 4 or 5 years old, you say?

[Luminous]

So, life for human beings right around the age of 4 or 5 years old, you say?

First of all,babies have the will to live before birth. Every living thing with a brain has the instinct to survive...even if it doensnt totally understand it yet. If somethings brain isnt developed far enough to know that it is even alive and/or to want to stay alive(which means it doesnt experience pain or fear either because these are also survival instincts) then i doubt its going to care (or even realize) about dieing/ being aborted. Not quite sure at how many months the brain starts forming though.

[Commie_Pinko]

I think a new life begins at conception, but I don't think moral personhood begins there.

[Daecon]

Life begins at the 160th trimester?

[tejaswini]

life begins right from the time the single celled zygote begins to divide.it carries out all the processes like during the cell cycle replication of dna , synthesis of proteins etc. so i think life begins with the single celled zygote.

[bombus]

Life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies!

 

Nyuk nyuk, The old ones are the best!!

[AshleyBarbie]

I recently got into a debate with someone over when life begins. I suppose this question has no real answer, only our own opinions.

 

So, whats yours? When does life begin? I'm not talking about life as in 'bacteria are alive'. When does a ball of cells become a human life, something we value higher than any other life on this planet?

 

This is a very interesting question to me for a couple of reasons. I recently got into a very heated debate with a number of people who believe that human life has no value, that it doesn't matter if a person is snuffed because there are many people alive to continue the human species.

 

Anyway, I think life begins AT THE LATEST conception, which plays into the abortion debate. I feel that once a female is pregnant, the baby human inside of her has as much right to life as the adult human. Actually, the baby human has MORE right to life, because the babies' life has more years. When a baby dies, 80, 90 or more years are lost. When an adult dies, less years are lost. Therefore, in my opinion, an adult life isn't as precious as a baby's life.

 

Of course, there is another chain of thought that life never ceases; therefore, it is impossible to pinpoint a beginning.

[bascule]

Life began over some 3 billion years ago

[JHAQ]

To me "life" began about 3.5 million years ago. Individual specific life in sexual organisms at the moment of conception .

 

-- Excuse me - 3.5 billion years ago ---

[AshleyBarbie]

-- Excuse me - 3.5 billion years ago ---

And what was before that? And why?

[Royston]

And what was before that? And why?

 

With respect to the Earth, or with respect to life on Earth...the latter, not a lot, there's numerous ideas on abiogenesis, I'll try and find the thread where this was discussed. As to why...well you need water for life (full stop) and the earth was too hot over 4 billion years ago, it didn't even have a crust.

 

This was the one I was thinking about...I think halfway through it talks about the various scenarios that could of kickstarted life on earth

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20128

[ParanoiA]

I feel that once a female is pregnant, the baby human inside of her has as much right to life as the adult human. Actually, the baby human has MORE right to life, because the babies' life has more years. When a baby dies, 80, 90 or more years are lost. When an adult dies, less years are lost. Therefore, in my opinion, an adult life isn't as precious as a baby's life.

 

See I don't get this viewpoint. The baby is apart of the mother's physiology and is inside her body. I don't see how the growing fetus has any more rights than what the mother chooses to give it. Once it's separated, then it should receive the rights that all us enjoy. But as long as it is feeding off of the mother, being created and grown by her physiology - by her will, I don't see how anyone has a right to assume she is now required and obligated to continue the creation process.

 

I guess I don't see it so much as a life being taken, but rather the creation of a life being halted. Forcing someone to continue that process is about as oppressive as forcing them to get pregnant in the first place. The creation, development in the womb may not be sparks and machinery, but it's still a baby being built.

[Cyanide]

Unfortunately, in a scientific view...an 'organism' is considered alive when it performs the 7 functions.

 

This is part of the reason they haven't determined viruses as 'alive'.

[Mokele]

As has been pointed out, being 'alive' is not the same thing as being a person. A person who suffered an accident that destroyed all but the most basal portions of the brain would be alive, but everything that made them a person (personality, memories, emotions, etc) would be gone. Is it OK to kill them? After all, they don't care, they're just a sack of chemical reactions.

 

Life is not enough to grant something rights.

[Phi for All]

Anyway, I think life begins AT THE LATEST conception, which plays into the abortion debate. I feel that once a female is pregnant, the baby human inside of her has as much right to life as the adult human. Actually, the baby human has MORE right to life, because the babies' life has more years. When a baby dies, 80, 90 or more years are lost. When an adult dies, less years are lost. Therefore, in my opinion, an adult life isn't as precious as a baby's life.

Any other reasoning I could put down to opinion and be cool with it but this argument just doesn't work at all. Think of the ramifications if the baby is in danger late in the pregnancy. If the choice is between saving the mother and saving the baby (assuming you can't do both) you would choose to save a baby that will have no mother. You condemn a person with life experience and mature thoughts and feelings who is most likely a productive societal member for the longer *potential* life a baby might have.

 

Mothers make a choice to be a host. If the baby they host has more rights than the mother how long do you think having babies will be a sound choice? Every miscarriage would need to be investigated to ensure the mother didn't violate the baby's superior rights. What a nightmare!

 

The *potential* life of a baby shouldn't be a factor. Babies aren't guaranteed 80-90 years of life and the mother has already proven herself as a vital human being. Most parents would sacrifice themselves for their children anyway but setting a legal precedent that gives the kids more rights than the parents absolutely wouldn't work.

[xnebulalordx676]

When the parent wants the child. As all situation are so different why on earth would everybody bark up the skirt of would be mother. I am pro life since I want fellow man to eat right (eat hunted game and not be harassed by PETA) and not be denied giving birth for any degree of diseases or a mental illness (thinking without patriotism and if the list of government mandates reads someday if disagree with some government war support and not patriotic enough then are found mentally incompetent). I do not buy that being pro life be an anti abortion stance alone. The Pro life of looking out for fellow man should occur everyday and not enough leaders activates enough or encourage this enough for the lives already on the planet. [i do not think the worlds overpopulated no not one bit either so thats not part of this reasoning.]

 

I'll let each family do as they wish.