When does life begin?

When do you think life begins? Is a fertilized egg already something that should be treated as "alive" (in the legal, moral and ethical sense - i.e. not the biological sense)? If you answered no, then morning after pills and intra-uterine devices are not abortifacient in nature because they merely make the uterine lining non-viable for implantation.
«13456789

Comments

  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PExer
    personally, i would consider human life (in the legal, moral and ethical sense - i.e. not the biological sense) fully present once the umbilical cord is severed. before that, life develops in a fuzzy manner... have you ever seen a dead sperm cell fertilize a dead egg cell? :smokehead:
  • AE89AE89 Member PExer
    For me, once the baby is out of its mom's tummy, its life begins..
  • faaip_de_oiadfaaip_de_oiad PEX GOD PExer
    Iscaramoochie, that was the reason why I made the caveat. ;)

    AE89: Just making sure. So you're implying that abortion is not murder? (no matter how far along the fetus is?)
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PExer
    now we must ask... "what is life?"
  • blehbleh blahbitty blah PExer
    hmm... i think partial birth abortions are murder. the baby is no longer a potential life, but can live outside the biological mother. abandoning it is another discussion.

    life begins after school... woohooo PARRRRTTEEEYYY.

    but if we seriously love life, we would despise abortion for the principle behind it.
  • MordecaiMordecai Mordecai PExer
    When do you think life begins? Is a fertilized egg already something that should be treated as "alive" (in the legal, moral and ethical sense - i.e. not the biological sense)? If you answered no, then morning after pills and intra-uterine devices are not abortifacient in nature because they merely make the uterine lining non-viable for implantation.

    Life begins at conception.

    What is moral and ethical is not necessarily legal.
  • mac_bolan00mac_bolan00 Banned by Admin PExer
    yeah, it has to be a 'viable fetus' for one to recognize its right to life.
  • MordecaiMordecai Mordecai PExer
    Humanity begins at conception too.

    "Viability" is dependent on the latest technology.

    In 1973, viability was at 24-28 weeks.

    Now, viability is as early as 20 weeks.

    Assuming a fetus is non-viable until 20 weeks -- all that's saying is that it is non-viable outside its natural environment, namely the womb.

    But we can also say that everyone here is non-viable outside his/her natural environment. Let's place everyone here on the moon. Does everyone's dependence on his environment, the Earth, make anyone here less of a human being?
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PExer
    a person is considered clinically dead once heart and brain functions cease. could a zygote lacking a heart and a brain be considered a live human? assuming it is alive, it is not human. assuming it is human, it could not be considered alive. :D
  • Alt+Ctrl+DelAlt+Ctrl+Del Member ✭✭
    Life actually begins when a human entity reaches the age of forty years, baby!
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PExer
    not forty-two?
  • Alt+Ctrl+DelAlt+Ctrl+Del Member ✭✭
    Not so. Ask Vilma Santos.
  • my_identitymy_identity ATheist ✭✭✭
    Ischaramoochie: You have a point there. About the zygote thingy. ;)
  • Alt+Ctrl+DelAlt+Ctrl+Del Member ✭✭
    Living terrestrial organisms
    • grow
    • maintain homeostasis
    • are composed of at least one cell
    • require energy & matter in order to continue living
    • contain molecular components such as carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids & protein
    • move
    • respond to stimuli
    The question is, as soon as conception occurs, when does it exhibit all of these characteristics?
  • Alt+Ctrl+DelAlt+Ctrl+Del Member ✭✭
    When do you think life begins? Is a fertilized egg already something that should be treated as "alive" (in the legal, moral and ethical sense - i.e. not the biological sense)?
    Oh crap, I didn't see that.
  • MordecaiMordecai Mordecai PExer
    a person is considered clinically dead once heart and brain functions cease. could a zygote lacking a heart and a brain be considered a live human? assuming it is alive, it is not human. assuming it is human, it could not be considered alive. :D

    A zygote is alive because its GONNA have a heart and brain function.

    A zygote is human because of the Law of Identity: whatever a thing is it remains what it is for as long as it exists. If something is human then it will always be human all the way back from conception. Humanity is an essential nature that does not change regardless of stage of development (zygote, fetus, infant, child, adult). No one becomes more human or less human as they grow up and grow old.

    There's also the Law of Biogenesis: everything recreates according to its own kind. It is not possible for two human beings to produce an offspring that is not of the same kind, that is non-human.
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PExer
    Mordecai wrote:
    A zygote is alive because its GONNA have a heart and brain function.

    A zygote is human because of the Law of Identity: whatever a thing is it remains what it is for as long as it exists. If something is human then it will always be human all the way back from conception. Humanity is an essential nature that does not change regardless of stage of development (zygote, fetus, infant, child, adult). No one becomes more human or less human as they grow up and grow old.

    There's also the Law of Biogenesis: everything recreates according to its own kind. It is not possible for two human beings to produce an offspring that is not of the same kind, that is non-human.

    these arguments are irrelevant for the sole reason that we have a fixed criteria for determining whether a human being is alive or dead. of course, this means that whatever entity which does not pass our criteria should not be considered as human. you have assumed humanity from the start when you shouldn't have. your first argument is based on potential: "GONNA have a heart and brain function" but you can never predict what would happen to an embryo. will it necessarily have a heart and a brain function and can you be absolutely sure of that? further, an argument from potential is useless in an actual scenario: should we entrust a patient to a brain surgeon or a neurology student, considering that the latter has the potential to become the former?

    second is an argument from identity: "whatever a thing is it remains what it is for as long as it exists" but perhaps you are unaware of its two interpretations, namely, the identity of the indescernible and the indiscernability of the identical. the first assumes identity based on empirical evaluation, while the latter assumes empirical indescernability from the assumption of identity - both of which you have misused. you argument also falls into the sorites paradox: if a zygote is human, then should a sperm and an egg be considered human, considering that "Humanity is an essential nature that does not change regardless of stage of development?"

    another thing is that your arguments go both ways: should we consider every human as dead since their heart and brain functions are going to stop eventually? it appears that your arguments ought to be polished a little more.

    so again, in using the criteria from determining whether human life is presen or not in an entity, a pre-blastocyst embryo fails the test.
  • GlockGlock Mikey PExer
    I think the primary considerations for me would be Reason; awareness; and the ability to exercise any of the rights bestowed upon it.

    Actually reason is only one criterion among many that I consider as a basis for being a Human being. Human and human being are two different concepts-- A human is something that exhibits likeness or characteristics typical of human beings; hence a fetus as an appendage to a human being is human-- just like a human heart, a human brain, or a human testicle.

    A human being is a person in actuality-- As per my criteria for being classified as a human being, a living thing must be: 1.)Rational 2.)Aware 3.)Capable of conscious thought(for the verbatim proof reader; yes an infant's rationality is debatable, but do note, that an infant/child is a separate physical entity, only its conceptual faculty is underdeveloped--This is the reason why a seven-year old girl doesn't have the right to enter a sexual relationship and an adult does.)

    And no the Zygote is not alive because all it has is potency prety much the same as an acorn--an acorn has a the "potential" of being an oak tree, and a zygote has its to become a human being.

    Something alive needs to be independent; a zygote is not since It survives through the sustenance PROVIDED by its host.

    does that make sense?
  • dikomagetsdikomagets Banned by Admin PExer
    When do you think life begins? Is a fertilized egg already something that should be treated as "alive" (in the legal, moral and ethical sense - i.e. not the biological sense)? If you answered no, then morning after pills and intra-uterine devices are not abortifacient in nature because they merely make the uterine lining non-viable for implantation.

    "The life of the flesh is in the blood."

    Simple!

    So, once the cells combine and multiply and has blood flowing, then it has become human being. I know we're talking about human beings anyway. If only you people read the Bible, you would not be confused in this issue. The problem is the judges and the lawmakers are totally ignorant of the Creator and His Word. I know why they are blind. They are led by the blind also.

    Listen to the blind telling the govt that it's wrong to practice family planning. Then watch the govt's subservience to the blind.

    May God release us from these shackles and the truth keeps us free.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file