When does life begin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rlg94086

Guest
This is primarily from a comment Liberalsaved made on another thread:
And here’s my answer, for all the people who somehow think despite laying it all on the line that I dodge questions: the ability to think and act is required for a life to be complete. At a certain point in a pregnancy the fetus gains this ability, contrary to the misinformed opinion that it gains it only at birth. This is scientific, proven, verifiable; that is what a human is.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard a scientist claim that the ability to think and act are required for a life to be complete. It is not true in the plant world, for example. How is this different for human beings? Life begins at conception. Are you saying that human life doesn’t begin until the ability to think or act? Based on what? Please give some reference, other than your opinion for this stance. It seems contrary to common sense and science.

My understanding is if you take a zygote and test it’s dna, you will find it identified as human. That’s science.
 
I like to reason backwards.

We humans are not finished growing until around age 25 or so.

Is it murder to kill a 24 year old, because he or she is not “finished” yet??

Is it murder to kill a teenager, whose brain is growing by leaps and bounds?

Is it murder to kill a 9 year old, since they aren’t fertile yet?

Is it murder to kill a toddler, because they can’t read or write yet?

Is it murder to kill an infant, because they can’t speak yet?

A zygote has the entire DNA “blueprint” for all stages of growth.

If it’s wrong to kill a human at any stage of growth, then it’s wrong to abort.

HTH!
 
It’s a trick question.

The sperm and egg are alive already. When they are united, they will continue on living and develop into a more and more recognizable human being, more recognizable in accordance with its stage of development.
 
40.png
Ruthie:
I like to reason backwards.

We humans are not finished growing until around age 25 or so.

Is it murder to kill a 24 year old, because he or she is not “finished” yet??

Is it murder to kill a teenager, whose brain is growing by leaps and bounds?

Is it murder to kill a 9 year old, since they aren’t fertile yet?

Is it murder to kill a toddler, because they can’t read or write yet?

Is it murder to kill an infant, because they can’t speak yet?

A zygote has the entire DNA “blueprint” for all stages of growth.

If it’s wrong to kill a human at any stage of growth, then it’s wrong to abort.

HTH!
Click to expand...
AMEN!!!
 
What about anacephalic babies? Are they not human because they have a undeveloped organ?

How about those in comas? Do you become unhuman if you can’t think?
 
The question of when life begins is unquestionably answered by science. The dispute has become when does a human being become a person. This cannot be answered by science. It then becomes a philosophical and religious debate.

Bioethicists, such as Peter Singer, are trying to impose stricter criteria for who can be regarded a ‘person’ who has rights such as the right to live.

Singer defines a “person” as an animal (human or otherwise) who is actively exercising “rational attributes” (self-consciousness, knowing, choosing, loving, willing, autonomy, relating to the world around one, etc.) and/or who is actively exercising “sentience” (feeling pain or pleasure).

Singer has said that because newborn babies have no sense of their own existence over time, killing a newborn baby – whether able-bodied or not – is never equivalent to killing a being who wants to go on living.
 
Eileen T:
Bioethicists, such as Peter Singer, are trying to impose stricter criteria for who can be regarded a ‘person’ who has rights such as the right to live.

Singer defines a “person” as an animal (human or otherwise) who is actively exercising “rational attributes” (self-consciousness, knowing, choosing, loving, willing, autonomy, relating to the world around one, etc.) and/or who is actively exercising “sentience” (feeling pain or pleasure).

Singer has said that because newborn babies have no sense of their own existence over time, killing a newborn baby – whether able-bodied or not – is never equivalent to killing a being who wants to go on living.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that, since Peter Singer has abandoned using his brain, killing him would not be equivalent to killing a “sentient human being” - he is condemned by his own “thinking”! However, since he is still a creation of God, he is entitled to live, even when he rejects that right for others.
 
Joan M:
It seems to me that, since Peter Singer has abandoned using his brain, killing him would not be equivalent to killing a “sentient human being” - he is condemned by his own “thinking”! However, since he is still a creation of God, he is entitled to live, even when he rejects that right for others.
Click to expand...
Good observation!
 
Life begins when metabolism begins. Metabolism is “the chemical changes in ***living cells ***by which energy is provided for vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated.” (Merriam-Webster). Thus, as I understand it, all living things metabolize. Non-living things do not metabolize.

When does human life begin? "***Scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple **part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple *part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life”, to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). " (Dr. Dianne N. Irving, When Do Human Beings Begin? “Scientific” Myths and Scientific Facts, 1999).

"***Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. ***A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). " Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), pg. 2]

Thus, according to embryologists, human life begins when a zygote is formed from the union of an oocyte and a sperm.
 
Thanks Dave! I’m still waiting for the scientific to the contrary… :whistle:

itsjustdave1988 said:
Life begins when metabolism begins. Metabolism is “the chemical changes in ***living cells ***by which energy is provided for vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated.” (Merriam-Webster). Thus, as I understand it, all living things metabolize. Non-living things do not metabolize.

When does human life begin? "***Scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple ****part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple **part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life”, to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human *being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). " (Dr. Dianne N. Irving, When Do Human Beings Begin? “Scientific” Myths and Scientific Facts, 1999).

"***Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. ***A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). " Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), pg. 2]

Thus, according to embryologists, human life begins when a zygote is formed from the union of an oocyte and a sperm.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with others here, a defense of life beginning during the process of conception can be made purely on the basis of science. With the advent of DNA technology, we’ve learned that an embryo carries a separate and distinct DNA code from it’s mother. We can also observe that a the zygote->embryo->fetus is self-directed in it’s growth. It has been provided a DNA blueprint by the mother and father and is susceptible to environmental forces, but it’s growth is driven by an internal force with a clear sense of purpose. This is in keeping with the very spirit of life, also observable. We are naturally ordered toward creation and survival.

When open-ended concepts like personhood and viability become the benchmark for discerning human life, the arguments shifts into the realm of relativism. And we see how quickly the definition expands from the beginning of life to the end of life.

If we refuse to divorce “personhood” from our physical being, we save ourselves the unconscionable positioning of applying worthiness of life to individuals. (Even if we DID do this, aren’t we morally obligated to protect the weakest among us, namely those unable to care for themselves?)
 
When speaking with Christians on the matter I just ask, “If Mary were to have changed her mind, at what point would she have aborted Jesus from her womb?”

Which leads to the real question here, when did Jesus become Man?

The answer, from all scriptural reference is when Mary gave her “Yes” to the angel and she conceived of the Holy Spirit…in that instant The Word became flesh, no ifs ands or buts about it…and so it is with all human life.

Conception is when human life begins.

I can’t imagine any scientist actually being able to prove a point at which Mary could have taken a potion to induce an abortion and not have been guilty of killing Jesus, the Son of God. Can you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top