When does life begin?

[Pleiades]

Oh, ok then, I wasn’t sure, so I thought I’d clarify my statement.

[Yakuzi]

If ebola was capable of considering self preservation, it would not utterly destroy its host.

 

A Human or non-human primate is not it's natural host, it'll probably won't work like this in it's natural reservoir (wherever that may be).

When looking at humans; in some third world countries humans reproduce even when there's not enough food available for themselves let alone their offspring. That's not really considering ones self preservation or value of life, is it?

 

That would be the most logical answer; however, others say that when an egg is fertilised, the potential is already there for the brain to become active. And when it comes to things like abortion, how do we know for sure that the baby is clinically alive? It's a very complicated issue - it has to be down to your own personal opinion really.

 

Very complicated indeed, as you can take the "potential" concept as far as you want. (Some) Christians are for instance for the abolition of anti-conception since a potential human life will be wasted. And you could even go further by accusing a woman for not having sex after her ovulation, since the egg could've been a potential human too.

 

As for the question, a human life begins at conception, but I truly don't believe you can differentiate between human life and other forms of life on a "life" basis. You could however, differentiate on a "self consciousness" basis. But that would mean a human life would begin roughly between the first and second year.

On a logical basis I think YT's awnser is the best atm: when brain stem activity commences.

[Sayonara]

A Human or non-human primate is not it's natural host, it'll probably won't work like this in it's natural reservoir (wherever that may be).

Where did you get that from?

 

 

When looking at humans; in some third world countries humans reproduce even when there's not enough food available for themselves let alone their offspring. That's not really considering ones self preservation or value of life, is it?

I think that has more to do with you not understanding the application of the word "considering".

[Yakuzi]

I think that has more to do with you not understanding the application of the word "considering".

 

That is all too true

 

I read it somewhere some time ago... can't remember where, but I looked it up on the WHO page:

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

[Sayonara]

I meant in the way that you related the ebola thing to the human thing. Doesn't really matter I suppose.

 

Are you sure that is who.int? Browser says it can't be found.

[Yakuzi]

Yeah I know, I was just being abit of an @ss relating it to humans.

 

I'm pretty sure it's who.int, try the main site http://www.who.int or http://www.who.int/en/

The links works for me

[DoorNumber1]

Where did you get that from?I think that has more to do with you not understanding the application of the word "considering".

 

Sayonara³: I'm trying to understand your stance on this issue. There was an original post that stated the opinion that human life is no different than bacteria and that kicked off some of the self-preservation argument. But does that mean you disagree with the stance that there's no real difference between human life and other forms or that you are just trying to ensure that anything said is factual?

[Sayonara]

Posts #23, #48 and #49 are relevant.

 

Yakuzi's reply made me wonder because he seemed to be equating the lack of consideration for one factor with the lack of consideration of any factors, regarding human reproduction in some countries. This could be seen as analagous to an ebola infection, which has no means of considering anything, but it is clearly not the case that no consideration will be involved where humans are concerned, even if that consideration is of little consequence.

 

...if you follow me.

 

 

I should really have come back to the original post at the time, and didn't. Post #23 should have included the explanation that it is not the destruction of the host per se that smacks of a lack of self-preserving notions, but the manner in which the destruction takes place (hence the term "utterly destroy".)

[Sayonara]

Hold on a sec... I just managed to confuse myself so the above is not really going to help. Argh, thinking back to what I originally meant all that time ago is not good

 

When I said that ebola would not utterly destroy its host if it were capable of notions of self preservation, my assumption was that this is the only variable that changes.

In the case of humans it would certainly not be the only variable to consider.

[DoorNumber1]

Yes, I follow you.

 

I think that human beings, in general, are subject to many, many more of these bacteria-like behaviors (okay, maybe not that low on the food chain) than we admit to ourselves. The majority of our actions aren't all that complicated. I guess it's when it's crunch time that we pull through and exhibit that tiny little spark of intelligence that sets us apart (at least in the degree to which we possess and exercise it).

 

btw, I was reading an article a while ago after a pretty bad nightclub accident (in PA, USA I think) in which the scientist was baffled at how much human beings, in situations of panic, behave like mice in labs. Specifically in the context of how we don't make the rational choice when it comes down to getting out of a place with few exits. When they look at what humans do in practice, it's to rush blindly for the door although reason would tell us that we stand a more likely chance of getting out (and more people with us) if we didn't clog the door so we wouldn't slow the number of people that are exiting at a given time.

[john5746]

I think Life begins at conception and there is intrinsic worth at that point. There is potential - human potential, not pig or Ebola, but human potential. Obviously, the worth increases with age.

 

Just because life begins at that moment, doesn't mean it is wrong to destroy that life. In my opinion, until this life can grow independently, the woman has the right to destroy that life.

 

The right to destroy the life lies in the keeper of the womb. I think it wrong to do so carelessly, but unless I can become the keeper of the womb or the fertilized egg with no inconvenience to the original keeper, I have no say in the matter.

[Kedas]

just a thought:

 

Life begins when it can generate information (for self use) that is based on stored data AND new data.

 

Then we should make different levels of life based on how 'good' they can do that.

(this can be a variable during your life)

 

I shouldn't include 'self-preservation' because someone that is trying to kill himself is still a lifeform, or not?

[Thales]

Which is crueler;

Destorying an unborn embrio or

Bringing a human into the world when it is unwanted or cannot be properly nutured?

[budullewraagh]

I think Life begins at conception and there is intrinsic worth at that point. There is potential - human potential, not pig or Ebola, but human potential. Obviously, the worth increases with age.

well, as long as you speak of potential, i think i'll speak of potential. every sperm cell has the potential for fertilizing an egg. i, as a male, have wasted quite a bunch of sperm cells in my life. but then again, wouldn't you rather have them wasted than have me use the full potential of all my sperm cells? if i fertilized an egg cell for every sperm cell i have ever produced, the world would be swamped with humans. and i'm only 15 and 359 days, so that's saying something.

 

personally, i do not know where life begins. sometimes i just go along with the ideals of the regressive party (refer to: http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=regressive)

 

on a more serious note, i am pro choice because i cannot condemn people for making their own minds up on having children. it's not like unborn children are actually developed, so i cannot call it murder.

[Kedas]

on a more serious note' date=' i am pro choice because i cannot condemn people for making their own minds up on having children. it's not like unborn children are actually developed, so i cannot call it murder.[/quote']

 

So you were undeveloped when you were born?

So the day before you were born it's OK to 'terminate' you while it isn't the day after?

 

What if the baby is forced to come 2day's earlier does that mean that that baby isn't developed for the next two day's after it's born?

 

In our law it's murder after 6 months. (registred as a child from you)

but there is reseach to make that time even lower to 4 or 5 months.

[budullewraagh]

So you were undeveloped when you were born?

humans never develope to their full potential.

[john5746]

well, as long as you speak of potential, i think i'll speak of potential. every sperm cell has the potential for fertilizing an egg. i, as a male, have wasted quite a bunch of sperm cells in my life. but then again, wouldn't you rather have them wasted than have me use the full potential of all my sperm cells? if i fertilized an egg cell for every sperm cell i have ever produced, the world would be swamped with humans. and i'm only 15 and 359 days, so that's saying something.

 

Some people believe this viewpoint. When the egg is fertilized, it begins multiplying, growing. To me that is the point when life begins.

 

on a more serious note, i am pro choice because i cannot condemn people for making their own minds up on having children. it's not like unborn children are actually developed, so i cannot call it murder.

 

That is fine, but if late term abortion isn't murder, it is as close as you can get. Justifiable homicide in some cases.

[deltanova]

Hmmm, i think this is one of those things where people need to agree to disagree.

 

I think murder would be better than a life of torture (phsycological)

if you dont want the baby chances are you wont love it as much, making it feel unworthy, (yes babys can sense that stuff) and therefore leading to a sad life. depression, etc,

[budullewraagh]

Hmmm, i think this is one of those things where people need to agree to disagree.

join the regressive party!

[Sorcerer]

I`de then say that`s not living then it`s existing (and yes that is semantics and philosophical' date=' and make no excuses for it).

 

this was ripped from a previous post I made today in a different thread:

life here is defined roughly by 7 characteristics

Movement

Resiration

Sensitivity

Nourishment (requiring food)

Excretia (waste products)

Reproduction

and Growth

and so IMO, at or shortly after conception it obeys these criteria of "Life".

so I`m with NSX on this one [/quote']

 

Eggs and sperm do all these things too. Life never ends..... only consciousness begins, I beleive this is around 7 weeks of development, but I'm not sure, I never asked a foetus.

[Sorcerer]

Do you then consider someone unconscious or in a coma to be dead?

 

They once had consciousness and so have experience, in a coma, or unconscious their brain is still active (arguably) so they can still be remembering these experiences (dreaming) if there is a chance they can still awake then declaring them dead and pulling the plug would be murder, but if not then why not. They are still alive, but they are not "living" by the definition that living is consciously experiencing things. Much like the sperm, eggs, blastula and embryo are all alive, but they are not living untill they can consciously recall their experience.... this need not necessarily be a long term thing either, I don't think recollections of experiences in the womb hang around in the conscious for very long.... perhaps they do in the unconscious... e.g. sound of mothers voice etc.

[Sorcerer]

perhaps it might be worth inverting the question' date=' obtaining the answer and then inverting that!

I often find it works when the direct route doesn`t.

 

so; "Where or when does life end"?

AFAIK, clincaly it`s when brain stem activity ceases. so an answer inversion would be when Brain Stem activity Commences

 

or am I being too logical again?[/quote']

 

Well, u contradict ur previous post, but theres no such thing as too logical..... I agree.

[YT2095]

well as a good many on here will attest to (incl myself) I`m not too clever with words exactly, I KNOW what I mean, but sometimes have problems expressing it as well as I understand it or would like to, just accept it as a limitation/flaw on my part

[Kedas]

Originally Posted by budullewraagh

on a more serious note, i am pro choice because i cannot condemn people for making their own minds up on having children. it's not like unborn children are actually developed, so i cannot call it murder.

humans never develope to their full potential.

So you say any termination/murder is OK?

or can you define your 'developed' for me?

[JHAQ]

Human life or all individual species life at conception ( unless via cloning ); all biological life began when the molecule capable of metabolism & self replication came to be ( about 4 billion years ago ) . Prokaryotes the eukaryotes ---- protozoa then metazoa --------