CDZ When does human life begin?

[ding]

Science tells us that a human life begins at conception when a new human being - who has never existed before and will never exist again - comes into existence. How do we know? DNA

That's a tough question, I usually lean towards science on some debates, but science IS wrong sometimes. Being serious here, if you could break it down to play by play action, if you considered a zygote "alive", then when did it become "alive"? If you say when the sperm breached the egg wall, that could be true. But....what about the instant before the sperm got inside the egg, is the sperm and egg both not alive? Is it alive when the head is in the egg, or does the head AND tail have to be inside? Does it have to enter the egg and be inside for 1 second, 10 minutes, 1 day?

Myself I almost consider my sperm alive, I've been told this is why some religions don't want you jerking off in the shower and killing millions of babies. At least that's what a weirdo co worker told me once. I know personally my views on conception changed a little after I had my 2 girls. When you see them on the ultra sound it makes it pretty damn ridiculous to think that people are OK with aborting a fetus. And I'm for abortion!! Damn, I'm confused now.....

And I didn't mean to hijack the thread and talk about abortion. And to answer your question, I'd say your alive after about 1 month. Did I win?

We're cool. Nice post. Thanks.

Breaking it down, it's when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. I don't know exactly when that happens. I just call it conception as that is intended to convey the start or beginning.

 

[Care4all]

Science tells us that a human life begins at conception when a new human being - who has never existed before and will never exist again - comes into existence. How do we know? DNA

God said, he formed Adam(humans), and once formed He breathed life in to him....So life begins when their first BREATH is taken.... the breath of life.

Scientifically, a new creation happens after conception or maybe a little later.....when a woman becomes pregnant, when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus and begins forming..

Wow... I was not expecting that from you at all. Color me surprised. Bravo. This is me doing the Wayne and Garth, I am not worthy bow to you.

Can you please decipher what you just said?

 

[ding]

Science tells us that a human life begins at conception when a new human being - who has never existed before and will never exist again - comes into existence. How do we know? DNA

God said, he formed Adam(humans), and once formed He breathed life in to him....So life begins when their first BREATH is taken.... the breath of life.

Scientifically, a new creation happens after conception or maybe a little later.....when a woman becomes pregnant, when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus and begins forming..

Wow... I was not expecting that from you at all. Color me surprised. Bravo. This is me doing the Wayne and Garth, I am not worthy bow to you.

Can you please decipher what you just said?

I was thanking you very much for what you wrote and trying to give you praise for doing so.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Science tells us that a human life begins at conception when a new human being - who has never existed before and will never exist again - comes into existence. How do we know? DNA

The first time someone slap your fanny to get you to yell out I am alive through crying... Until then you're just part of another being that you need to survive on...

 

[Care4all]

Science tells us that a human life begins at conception when a new human being - who has never existed before and will never exist again - comes into existence. How do we know? DNA

That's a tough question, I usually lean towards science on some debates, but science IS wrong sometimes. Being serious here, if you could break it down to play by play action, if you considered a zygote "alive", then when did it become "alive"? If you say when the sperm breached the egg wall, that could be true. But....what about the instant before the sperm got inside the egg, is the sperm and egg both not alive? Is it alive when the head is in the egg, or does the head AND tail have to be inside? Does it have to enter the egg and be inside for 1 second, 10 minutes, 1 day?

Myself I almost consider my sperm alive, I've been told this is why some religions don't want you jerking off in the shower and killing millions of babies. At least that's what a weirdo co worker told me once. I know personally my views on conception changed a little after I had my 2 girls. When you see them on the ultra sound it makes it pretty damn ridiculous to think that people are OK with aborting a fetus. And I'm for abortion!! Damn, I'm confused now.....

And I didn't mean to hijack the thread and talk about abortion. And to answer your question, I'd say your alive after about 1 month. Did I win?

I think the sperm and egg are alive, before they die a natural death....that doesn't mean they are a life....a new life....they are simply alive, like a living cell....with your own DNA.

Not jerking off in the shower religious type rule, is the same as being against birth control pills religious type rule and really lies with the mentality of another religious rule, we are to produce and multiply....which gave humans, safety in numbers early on.

In all animals, organism, and the pleasure of such.....was strictly for survival of the species...reproduction....by masturbating you reduce the chances of that happening....sperm count goes down depending on how often you exercise your hand.....before doing the naughty with a woman.

I don't remember anything being written about women not being allowed to do such, because we do not lose our once a month egg, by pleasing ourselves.....

So basically the labeling of IT being a sin, was strictly due to the "produce and multiply" command....

 

[ding]

I think the sperm and egg are alive, before they die a natural death....that doesn't mean they are a life....a new life....they are simply alive, like a living cell....with your own DNA.

Agreed. They are technically alive but not life. I'm not touching the rest. No pun intended.

 

[ding]

Science tells us that a human life begins at conception when a new human being - who has never existed before and will never exist again - comes into existence. How do we know? DNA

The first time someone slap your fanny to get you to yell out I am alive through crying... Until then you're just part of another being that you need to survive on...

Science says otherwise.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Science tells us that a human life begins at conception when a new human being - who has never existed before and will never exist again - comes into existence. How do we know? DNA

The first time someone slap your fanny to get you to yell out I am alive through crying... Until then you're just part of another being that you need to survive on...

Science says otherwise.

Science once said that the sun revolved around the Earth and the world was flat... So science is wonderful when it suit your point of view. Without the mother the unborn child can not survive when first conceived and doctors do not attempt delivering a child before certain amount of weeks because they know the chances of the unborn surviving outside the mother is slim in most cases.

So when does the unborn actually become life that can live outside it mother?

The moment she become pregnant or a certain amount of weeks in the pregnancy?

You want to argue abortion is bad and believe the moment the unborn is conceived they are life, but seeing at the moment of conception the child is not able to survive and need it host to grow in and without the host they would not become human life.

 

[ding]

Science tells us that a human life begins at conception when a new human being - who has never existed before and will never exist again - comes into existence. How do we know? DNA

The first time someone slap your fanny to get you to yell out I am alive through crying... Until then you're just part of another being that you need to survive on...

Science says otherwise.

Science once said that the sun revolved around the Earth and the world was flat... So science is wonderful when it suit your point of view. Without the mother the unborn child can not survive when first conceived and doctors do not attempt delivering a child before certain amount of weeks because they know the chances of the unborn surviving outside the mother is slim in most cases.

So when does the unborn actually become life that can live outside it mother?

The moment she become pregnant or a certain amount of weeks in the pregnancy?

You want to argue abortion is bad and believe the moment the unborn is conceived they are life, but seeing at the moment of conception the child is not able to survive and need it host to grow in and without the host they would not become human life.

You are making a viability argument. Viability arguments are a slippery slope. I'm not arguing abortion at all. In fact, if you go back and read my comments, you will find that I am trying very hard not to argue about abortion. You are the one who is arguing abortion. Go create another thread if that's what you want to do. Fair enough?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Conception. Obviously.

And I'm pro-choice.
.

There are really two different questions here, aren't there?

There is a strong tendency among those who support abortion to define the developing fetus as non life so they can assuage the quilt they might otherwise feel for taking a life. IMO, an argument has no merit, however, if people have to go to absurd length to reinvent the meaning of words. The initiation of cell mitosis is an indication of life -- I mean, what else COULD it be?

How to deal with the new life and at what point that life becomes sentient is a quite different matter.

 

[Mac1958]

Conception. Obviously.

And I'm pro-choice.
.

There are really two different questions here, aren't there?

There is a strong tendency among those who support abortion to define the developing fetus as non life so they can assuage the quilt they might otherwise feel for taking a life. IMO, an argument has no merit, however, if people have to go to absurd length to reinvent the meaning of words. The initiation of cell mitosis is an indication of life -- I mean, what else COULD it be?

How to deal with the new life and at what point that life becomes sentient is a quite different matter.

Yes. Unfortunately abortion is a hyper-political matter, which means that intellectual honesty is no longer required, and "debate" on the topic will largely be bumper-sticker sloganeering and personal attacks.

The pro-choicers refuse to admit that a fetus is a life, because they don't want to put forth the effort to explain their position fully. They regularly fall into the standard partisan "admission of anything is capitulation" trap. No thanks. I'd rather be honest, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue.

Indeed, whether a fetus is a human life, and what we choose to do once it exists, are separate issues. If we're honest.
.

 

[JoeMoma]

Conception. Obviously.

And I'm pro-choice.
.

There are really two different questions here, aren't there?

There is a strong tendency among those who support abortion to define the developing fetus as non life so they can assuage the quilt they might otherwise feel for taking a life. IMO, an argument has no merit, however, if people have to go to absurd length to reinvent the meaning of words. The initiation of cell mitosis is an indication of life -- I mean, what else COULD it be?

How to deal with the new life and at what point that life becomes sentient is a quite different matter.

If sentience is the requirement for legal protection against termination, then a large can of worms are opened. I am sure if can be argued that most newborn babies are not sentient. Are people temporary not sentient while under the effects of very strong anesthesia?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, National Geographic (or maybe it was PBS), aired a show that tried to answer that very question.

2 qualifiers have to be met to answer the question though, it has to be "human", and it has to be "alive".

Now..........defining what is "alive" is fairly easy, but defining what makes us "human" is a bit fuzzier.

Some people say that it is because of our brains and our ability to think that makes us "human", but there are several stages of brain development that happen. First one is when it starts to develop in the womb and becomes able to control your body. Second one is between birth and about 2 years old, because the part of the brain that stores long term memories doesn't develop and start working until the child is between 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 years old. That is why almost nobody remembers much about being a baby or a toddler. Then, there is the stage that happens between being a child and keeps going up until full development at age 18 to 20 years old.

You want to get kids to understand why they shouldn't drink or smoke until they are adults? Tell them not so much that they will stunt their growth, but rather tell them they will stunt their intelligence, because their brain is still developing and growing.

Then, some would also say that one of our defining characteristics is speech and the ability to communicate with each other. In that case, children who haven't learned to speak yet don't qualify as "human", because they are unable to communicate with others effectively.

Me? I still take the Bible's view of it, and look to when God created Adam and Eve. They weren't "alive" or "human" until they took their first breath.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I guess not getting pregnant when having consensual intercourse is really difficult for some people, and their lifestyle means more than life itself. A more selfish act does not exist.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Conception. Obviously.

And I'm pro-choice.
.

There are really two different questions here, aren't there?

There is a strong tendency among those who support abortion to define the developing fetus as non life so they can assuage the quilt they might otherwise feel for taking a life. IMO, an argument has no merit, however, if people have to go to absurd length to reinvent the meaning of words. The initiation of cell mitosis is an indication of life -- I mean, what else COULD it be?

How to deal with the new life and at what point that life becomes sentient is a quite different matter.

If sentience is the requirement for legal protection against termination, then a large can of worms are opened. I am sure if can be argued that most newborn babies are not sentient. Are people temporary not sentient while under the effects of very strong anesthesia?

As to a can of worms, I figure it just comes with the territory any time people are asked to engage in moral reasoning,

 

[ding]

Conception. Obviously.

And I'm pro-choice.
.

There are really two different questions here, aren't there?

There is a strong tendency among those who support abortion to define the developing fetus as non life so they can assuage the quilt they might otherwise feel for taking a life. IMO, an argument has no merit, however, if people have to go to absurd length to reinvent the meaning of words. The initiation of cell mitosis is an indication of life -- I mean, what else COULD it be?

How to deal with the new life and at what point that life becomes sentient is a quite different matter.

Yes, it is hard to remove bias. With that said, it is really really hard to ignore two key aspects; the genetically distinct DNA and the scientific definition of living things.

 

[ding]

Conception. Obviously.

And I'm pro-choice.
.

There are really two different questions here, aren't there?

There is a strong tendency among those who support abortion to define the developing fetus as non life so they can assuage the quilt they might otherwise feel for taking a life. IMO, an argument has no merit, however, if people have to go to absurd length to reinvent the meaning of words. The initiation of cell mitosis is an indication of life -- I mean, what else COULD it be?

How to deal with the new life and at what point that life becomes sentient is a quite different matter.

If sentience is the requirement for legal protection against termination, then a large can of worms are opened. I am sure if can be argued that most newborn babies are not sentient. Are people temporary not sentient while under the effects of very strong anesthesia?

There are medical ethicists making that argument about new born babies today. I don't know about anyone else but their title reminds me of something out of Orwell's 1984.

 

[ding]

Indeed, whether a fetus is a human life, and what we choose to do once it exists, are separate issues. If we're honest.

Which is why I am trying to separate the two issues here. It is easier for me to respect someone's choice when they are not rationalizing that choice. There really is no need to do so. That's why I appreciated your prior comment.

 

[ding]

You know, National Geographic (or maybe it was PBS), aired a show that tried to answer that very question.

2 qualifiers have to be met to answer the question though, it has to be "human", and it has to be "alive".

Now..........defining what is "alive" is fairly easy, but defining what makes us "human" is a bit fuzzier.

Some people say that it is because of our brains and our ability to think that makes us "human", but there are several stages of brain development that happen. First one is when it starts to develop in the womb and becomes able to control your body. Second one is between birth and about 2 years old, because the part of the brain that stores long term memories doesn't develop and start working until the child is between 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 years old. That is why almost nobody remembers much about being a baby or a toddler. Then, there is the stage that happens between being a child and keeps going up until full development at age 18 to 20 years old.

You want to get kids to understand why they shouldn't drink or smoke until they are adults? Tell them not so much that they will stunt their growth, but rather tell them they will stunt their intelligence, because their brain is still developing and growing.

Then, some would also say that one of our defining characteristics is speech and the ability to communicate with each other. In that case, children who haven't learned to speak yet don't qualify as "human", because they are unable to communicate with others effectively.

Me? I still take the Bible's view of it, and look to when God created Adam and Eve. They weren't "alive" or "human" until they took their first breath.

I can respect your opinion while still disagreeing with it. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Albeit a human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle, but a human being nonetheless. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You know, National Geographic (or maybe it was PBS), aired a show that tried to answer that very question.

2 qualifiers have to be met to answer the question though, it has to be "human", and it has to be "alive".

Now..........defining what is "alive" is fairly easy, but defining what makes us "human" is a bit fuzzier.

Some people say that it is because of our brains and our ability to think that makes us "human", but there are several stages of brain development that happen. First one is when it starts to develop in the womb and becomes able to control your body. Second one is between birth and about 2 years old, because the part of the brain that stores long term memories doesn't develop and start working until the child is between 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 years old. That is why almost nobody remembers much about being a baby or a toddler. Then, there is the stage that happens between being a child and keeps going up until full development at age 18 to 20 years old.

You want to get kids to understand why they shouldn't drink or smoke until they are adults? Tell them not so much that they will stunt their growth, but rather tell them they will stunt their intelligence, because their brain is still developing and growing.

Then, some would also say that one of our defining characteristics is speech and the ability to communicate with each other. In that case, children who haven't learned to speak yet don't qualify as "human", because they are unable to communicate with others effectively.

Me? I still take the Bible's view of it, and look to when God created Adam and Eve. They weren't "alive" or "human" until they took their first breath.

I can respect your opinion while still disagreeing with it. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Albeit a human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle, but a human being nonetheless. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Yes, a fertilized human egg is a separate human life.

The only question that is really relevant tot he abortion issue is whether that human life is intrinsically sacred or is it just tissue?

Some like to argue that a human being is not just living human tissue, that much more is required for that status. They would argue that the early first trimester child is merely a blob of tissue and not a true human being, despite the full potential for human life in a well formed human unborn child.

Pro-abortion people have to create criteria that dehumanizes the unborn child, such as whether it can exist outside of the womb independent of the mother, or whether it has all of its organs, etc. And they try to dodge the plain moral ban on the murder of children by not referring to it as an unborn child but instead use medical technical terms like 'zygote' and 'fetus' which are merely labels for an unborn baby at different stages of development.

The negative impacts of abortion are fairly plain as well as our nation is so short on respect for all human life now because of abortion that people get attacked int he streets these days just for fun and games.

And trust me, things are going to get much worse than this.