When does life begin?

[Kygron]

Wow, Callipygous, thanks. You see, I'm a VERY productivce member of society, but recently I've discovered that my four children are getting in the way of my productivity by demanding my attention and consuming my monetary assets. Lucky for me I'm also intellegent and have understood your previous post. It's going to be so fun "getting rid" of those brats. I can't wait 'til they get home from school....

 

 

 

(the above in NO WAY represents my actual opinion!!!!)

[Callipygous]

Wow, Callipygous, thanks. You see, I'm a VERY productivce member of society, but recently I've discovered that my four children are getting in the way of my productivity by demanding my attention and consuming my monetary assets. Lucky for me I'm also intellegent and have understood your previous post. It's going to be so fun "getting rid" of those brats.

 

obviously not since the whole point of the post is that ending any life is a more complicated and serious action than people should ever make. im aware that you are joking about offing your children but you seem to be making fun of my post by saying your going to get rid of them because you have decided they are holding you back. the point is that you cant decide.

 

that post focusses on the human side of killing. as for killing the chicken, in the human side of it an exception would be in self defense. that member of society is 1. violating the rules himself, and 2. ending your life in the process. killing him and letting him kill you both involve the code of conduct being broken, you are entitled to make it end in your favor. when you kill the chicken to eat it you are doing it so that you can survive. we have no one above (in a judge-esque position) to decide if the chicken or the human should get to live that day, so it goes down to the same situation as selfdefense, where both fight for their survival and only one gets it.

[Kygron]

the point is that you cant decide.

 

your post seemed to make it clear that SOMEONE can. and that that decision should be based on productivity in society.

[reverse]

Wow' date=' Callipygous, thanks. You see, I'm a VERY productivce member of society, but recently I've discovered that my four children are getting in the way of my productivity by demanding my attention and consuming my monetary assets. Lucky for me I'm also intellegent and have understood your previous post. It's going to be so fun "getting rid" of those brats. I can't wait 'til they get home from school....

 

 

 

(the above in NO WAY represents my actual opinion!!!!)[/quote']

 

 

thats good , I think 60 months is way too late for an abortion.

[reverse]

I'm sorry, I missed the point. Why is killing wrong, again? (I know about the 10 commandments thing, but that is a convenant between man and god, not a moral law.)

 

 

Killing is wrong because when you get put in prison for murder it really limits your social life, (well with the opposite sex that is).

[malagen]

i'm new here and i've just interested in science. so, here's my theory...(i read the book, by the way)

 

there was a single cell which divided thousands times then they become an individual with diffrens morfology and anatomy(well, there's more than that but, my english not very good. no wonder 'coz i'm still 15)

[Phi for All]

so, in summary, killing is wrong because you are a dunderhead who doesnt have the perspective, motivation, or liscence, to decide whether killing that person is right or not.

Name calling, while it may satisfy some deep inner need for you, actually detracts from your credibility.

 

You have shown many times in the past that you are better than this.

[Callipygous]

Name calling' date=' while it may satisfy some deep inner need for you, actually detracts from your credibility.

 

You have shown many times in the past that you are better than this.[/quote']

 

i didnt mean anyone specifically, it is only meant to show that humans have to many distractions, are too corrupted and are too interested in furthering themselves to make a good fair decision on such things.

 

(i too am a dunderhead)

[Callipygous]

your post seemed to make it clear that SOMEONE can. and that that decision should be based on productivity in society.

 

not quite. its more like the decision should be based on what is best for society. thats not necessarily whether the member is productive, but whether they are detrimental to overall societal health to the point where it is worth the time, effort, and money to remove them. also, whether or not it is possible to remedy the individuals flaws so they can be beneficial in the future.

[Kygron]

not quite. its more like the decision should be based on what is best for society. thats not necessarily whether the member is productive, but whether they are detrimental to overall societal health to the point where it is worth the time, effort, and money to remove them. also, whether or not it is possible to remedy the individuals flaws so they can be beneficial in the future.

 

Lol, now relate that right back to the topic of the thread, and you become pro-life! Perhaps I missed your original meaning? Is that what you were trying to say all along? You sure picked a round-about way of doing it!

[reverse]

http://www.johnkyrk.com/meiosis.html It has an animation of the process. During the first round of meiosis' date=' the homologous chromosomes form tetrads, and in this they can exchange genetic matierial leading to recombinant chromosomes and variation. Also, when aligning on the metaphase plane the side which the maternal vs. paternal chromosome go on is random. So, with 23 chromosomes there are 2^23 possible arrangements. You get 4 different sperm in the end.

 

In egg formation only 1 gamete is procuded in the end rather than 4, but it is very similar.[/quote']

 

ok I need to do some reading here.

above is what you said, this is waht I understood,

 

1 Click here for a good cartoon of it.

2 At the start of the split,

3 the data strings change shape,

4 these shapes allow for wider possibilities.

5 when you match up the mothers data with the fathers data some part of it is random.

BLANK BLANK BLANK???

So there are 2 to the power of 23 possibilities.

 

that’s a really big number if I remember the old rice and the chess board story correctly.

[Kraft]

ok I need to do some reading here.

above is what you said' date=' this is waht I understood,

 

1 Click here for a good cartoon of it.

2 At the start of the split,

3 the data strings change shape,

4 these shapes allow for wider possibilities.

5 when you match up the mothers data with the fathers data some part of it is random.

BLANK BLANK BLANK???

So there are 2 to the power of 23 possibilities.

 

that’s a really big number if I remember the old rice and the chess board story correctly.[/quote']

 

I'll do my best to explain. The animation is only of the process of meiosis which produces the sperm. The data strings condense, and you'll notice when they come together a coloured bit is exchanged, this give 2 recombinant chromosomes in the gametes made at the end. In a real cell, instead of just 1 pair coming together there would be 23. So when they line up at the center of the cell in metaphase I of meiosis the maternal and paternal chromosomes could align on either side of the plane. This leads to the variation known as independant assortment. All of this is in the production of the gametes, this has nothing to do with fertilization. Each of the gametes ends up as a haploid cell, has a single set of chromosomes, while a normal set of DNA has pairs of each chromosome (diploid).

 

When joined with the egg the nucleus of the sperm enters and joins with the chromosomes of the female gamete resulting in a full set. With this joining of the gametes there isn't any of the assortment stuff. In the case where it is a female child XX, at the point of X deactivation that is mostly random, giving more possible variation (one X chromosome becomes a barr body that does not express most of its genes). This variation accounts for spotting patterns in some animals such as female rats due to some types of colouration being X linked genes. There are also other factors of inheritance such as influence of cell products of the mothers diploid cells during development and maternal mitochondrial inheritance, but I don't see a need to cover them. (mainly paraphrased from my genetics prof and text: Brooker, Genetics Analysis & Principles, 2005)

 

Hope that makes sense. The point is that the variation comes mainly from the process of making the gametes, not the event of fertilization. If it's still unclear, try a search for meiosis on google, there are sites that likely explain it better and have diagrams/animations to clarify.

[reverse]

thanks,

yup I'm starting to get it.

 

I will just keep re reading it until I get it totally.

[Callipygous]

Lol, now relate that right back to the topic of the thread, and you become pro-life! Perhaps I missed your original meaning? Is that what you were trying to say all along? You sure picked a round-about way of doing it!

 

 

no, i am pro choice. the previous posts merely establish that killing is wrong. it is also wrong to force a woman to bear a child she does not want. i believe, before a certain point of developement, the fetus is nothing but a blob of cells, no higher on the chain than the chicken we kill to eat. at that point it is ok for the mother to kill it. its not that i want the chicken to die, its not that i want the fetus to die, its the that rights of the other parties involved in the situation are more important. however, after that point, the fetus becomes a human with the same rights as the rest of us. i believe it is wrong to abort a baby in the third trimester because at that point i believe it has rights and the mother had 6 months to get it done. now its too late and she needs to just deal with it.

[klanger]

They need to control their population.

 

Anyway' date=' in my opinion, life begins with the first unaided breath (as in, not through the umbilical cord).[/quote']

 

If life only begins when the baby is able to breath unaided, then I guess for anyone needing to be ventilated or needing a trachiotomy (?) you would class them as dead?

 

We watched a very interesting programme on TV the other day, basically from conception to birth. It was on the discovery channel and was called "Life before Birth".

 

They showed in this through the use of a 4 dimensional ultrasound scan, that babies in the womb dream. The eyes though closed would move in exactly the same way as ours do when we dream. They also showed that the baby swallows a good proportion of the waters surrounding it, and is capeable of taste, if mum eats something strongly flavoured the expressions on the babies face clearly showed dislike. It also showed the reflex actions and startled actions as the mothers belly was prodded and pushed in order to get a better pic of the baby. It was truely fascinating.

[Callipygous]

just because life starts with the first unaided breathe doesnt mean it ends when that ability goes away.

[Iceman]

Personally, i'd say life exists as soon as someone is aware in anyway, although i have no idea about baby's minds, i would assume they are at least aware that they exist (they know when they are hungry/etc? [ofcourse that could be an automatic reaction by the brain i guess]). That's my view on it at least, if you know you're alive, that's when you're alive. Until then, you just exist.

[In My Memory]

Metabolism seems to be the most universal feature of life, so I choose to limit my definition of life at that point. Plants, trees, fish, ova, sperm, gametes, blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, and human beings are all living things. Yes, from the moment of conception, whatever blob of cells that is created is "alive".

 

The debate of when life begins is what I consider to be a discredit to the pro-choice movement. I cannot understand by any standard, scientifically acceptable definition of life, something that metabolizes nutrients for growth isnt considered a life - which a pre-embryo blob of cells certainly can do.

 

"When life begins" isnt morally meaningful. Pro-life and pro-choice should focus their efforts on defining how a being attains moral worth.

 

However, pro-life is maken if they claim to believe "life" is intrinsically of moral worth in itself, and certainly mistaken if they believe something being a "life" implies an absolute moral imperative to protect the life. I think this point proves itself over and over again at the dinner table.

 

When I consider the question "when is something morally valuable", I have a tendency to consider a utilitarian approach (such as the utilitarian arguments presented by Peter Singer). Unless I am terribly mistaken, it is very difficult to give much moral weight to a being that cannot suffer, is not sentient, has no interests at all - therefore, I do not believe the fetus (regardless of the fact it is a life) has any moral status until it achieve some level of sentience, and I dont think pro-life can be defended coherently unless it seriously reconsiders its moral foundations.

[Mokele]

IMM, while I agree, I'd like to point out (as I did somewhere deep in the depths of this thread and I can't be bothered to look) that, just as a zygote is alive, so are the haploid precursors, ergo conception itself merely means that the life forms involved undergo fusion and genetic alteration. With the possible exception of a zygote created in the lab from genetic material of a deceased individual, life doesn't actually "begin" except once, about 3.8 billion years ago. Ever since then, it's been an unbroken chain of life.

 

I'd also add that I think the question of "When does a developing human become a 'person', and what are the criterion to assess that?" is of value to the discussion.

 

Mokele

[Kleptin]

I know i'm late, but i'd like feedback. Speaking scientifically, I think life begins upon contact of sperm and egg. Speaking legally, I think life begins once the baby can survive outside the mother's fetus. What do you guys think?

[-Demosthenes-]

Scientifically speaking the sperm the egg and the embryo are always alive, I don't think that that is what the discussion is about.

Personally, i'd say life exists as soon as someone is aware in anyway, although i have no idea about baby's minds, i would assume they are at least aware that they exist (they know when they are hungry/etc? [ofcourse that could be an automatic reaction by the brain i guess]). That's my view on it at least, if you know you're alive, that's when you're alive. Until then, you just exist.

Does anyone know? Can anyone know?

[ecoli]

I would consider a baby a seperate entity when it's completely seperate from the mother, at birth. This is just my opinion, and I'm not advocating abortion for abortion's sake.

[scientistsahai]

I guess the debate has gone too far and at times deviated from the actual concept too. Well I have question to those who feel that at just the conception the "human" starts, and that he deserves the rights as other humans.

Well let me ask u can anyone ask for human rights even before he/she is born?? Well the laws are made for humans that are existing on earth and not that propose to be humans??

I strictly hate these people as they are the roadblocks for any scientific development & have put up several hindrances in the way.

The embryonic stem cell research is one such area where the extensive potential has not been trapped due to the ethical & religious issues. Well an embryo is alive but definitely not "human" and shud b used ,i'm for it and those who are against it calling it murder etc shud tell me what wil they call it abortion or a murder if a miscarriage occurs?? It results in an undeveloped human being .....................

 

As far as the topic on when does life enters a mass of cells cannot b proved as it develops slowly with time and each passng second adds life to it so that after 3 months reasonable amount of life (that cud b detected) is found.

[EL]

This issue is a very intricate one, and may not be judged superficially.

What the law must focus on is the consciousness of the human beings affected by any verdict.

It is not the neonate's consciousness that worries the society as much as that of those who feel hurt by the acts of treating neonate's as if they were dog-meat. While Bush-Junior is an emotional idiot, he is accidentally right on this issue, because his strong emotions were devastated by the issue.

 

If a mad psychopath held a live kitten against a sensitive woman's will and began to snip its limbs and cut its guts in front of her, is it the kitten's rights that are obviously violated or is it hurting the woman's feelings that compose the damage in a court case? The act demonstrates a bi-cruelty and disrespect to all moral standards.

However, the same Bush-Junior does not seem to be equally affected by the numbers of dead American soldiers in Iraq or their pictures! He did not seem too concerned by pregnant women dying during bombers' raiding civilian zones.

 

That is why hypocrisy and double-standards are doing great damage to the credibility of civility and moral standards, when it comes from top executives who are chosen by the people.

 

We need to make up our minds about the world we wish to live in. What shall it be, a brutal jungle of cannibals or a civilized peaceful world?

[Nicholas]

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