When Does Human Life Begin?

ksen · Oct 18, 2004

Re-open for discussion.

Evee · Oct 18, 2004

It begins at conception.

aimejl · Oct 18, 2004

conception

HRE · Oct 18, 2004

Explain, please, how a zygote is any different from a malignant tumor.

Potential to be human?

DrBubbaLove · Oct 18, 2004

We were all once zygotes. No one that I am aware of was ever a tumor, though we may sometimes think of someone as unwanted.

flicka · Oct 19, 2004

Because it's an unknown we are forced to make our own definitions of human life based on our beliefs and feelings. For me it's having a functioning brain and the ability to live independent of another human (ie: outside the womb). Note: This is not the same as being dependent on other people to do things for you, anyone can perform the necessary functions either temporarily or permanently.

Some people don't agree with me but I'm OK with that.

doubtingmerle · Oct 22, 2004

Evee said:
It begins at conception.

I see. You are simply going to declare the way things are. Do you realize that some people differ from you? How do you know that you are right and they are wrong? Can you tolerate those who differ?

doubtingmerle · Oct 22, 2004

Carico said:
So human life now depends on a vote? VERY scary, indeed!

Huh? Where did anhybody ever suggest that human life depends on a vote? Why do you make things up, and then declare that the imaginary world you made up is scary?

Yes, I think your imaginary world is scary.

We should look at the facts, not at a vote to determine when life begins.

It is a no-brainer that an egg or a sperm by itself HAS NO CHANCE of becoming a person!!!

And neither does a fertilized egg.

Once an egg and sperm are fertilized, it then has ALL the components of a human being!

Huh?

A zygote has no heart. It has no brain. It has no lungs. It has no thoughts. How can it have all of the components of a human being?

A fertilized egg is in a stage of development just as a 4-yr.-old, teen-ager, and any human being!

Iron ore is a stage of the development of a car, just like metal plate and formed components. But that does not mean iron ore is a car.

So why do people even want to argue about it...unless they're looking for a reason to get rid of it.

Because a zygote has no brain, that is why. Why do you insist that a zygote with no brain is a living human being?

There's absolutely NO reason to question that otherwise. NONE.

Huh? I gave the reasons in the OP, and you simply ignored them. Why not answer the opposing arguments, instead of pretending they don't exist?

doubtingmerle · Oct 22, 2004

JohnnyV said:
Threads like these are really a waste of time. Because no matter what either side says, the other side is not going to change their minds.
For every one like me that thinks abortion is wrong, there are equally as many who think it is a fine alternative to pregnancy. All these threads do is make people angry.

I don't understand. Some people love to discuss the facts, and make decisions based on the facts. Why do you say it is a waste of time to discuss the facts on this thread? Why do you insist that nobody would change their mind? I would change my mind if the facts showed me that I was wrong. What about you? Would you change your mind if the facts showed you that you were wrong?

doubtingmerle · Oct 22, 2004

DrBubbaLove said:
Actually what you said twice, was that it was "your understanding" that PBA was restricted to being used for the health of the mother.

Yes, that was my understanding of what partial-birth abortion means. I now understand that it means many different things to different people, and is not a medically defined term.

That was Kerry's alledged excuse for voting against a federal ban, that the proposed ban did not allow it in those "health" cases.

I think that those who allow late term abortions allow it because the mother's life is in danger. But I do not know the details of what was on that bill.

What my post showed was that even in places where the law has such a provision, some doctors were doing it for "health" to be within the law as a treatment for depression.

People abuse all laws. We should not stop making laws because people abuse them, should we?

Nothing in my post indicated any spliting hairs on what Partial Birth Abortion is.

That is the problem. PBA means different things to different people. It is wrong to think that because one allows PBA in one definition of the word, that he agrees with it in all possible definitions of the word.

And, as I said before, it is doubtful if the bill even uses those words since they are not a defined medical term.

As for your problem with Bush decisions and death because of it, are you suggesting that you do not have the freedom to bring these things to light? That would make you the only liberal on the planet that had not heard of Michael Moore and his movie. The funning thing about liberals in this country is they scream about freedom of speech, unless the person speaking does not agree with them, then they want to silence that voice.

HUh? Where did I ever suggest that I did not have the freedom to bring such decisions to light? Where did I ever try to silence those who disagree with me? If you will read my posts, you will see that they are filled with questions encouraging those who disagree with me to speak out.

an7222 · Oct 22, 2004

Human life early stages begins undoubtedly at conception. But human sentient life begins later, I don't know when... And human self-constious life begins even later, maybe even after birth!

Shianne_33 · Oct 22, 2004

I used to agree that abortion was okay because the fetus wasn't a baby yet, but I changed my mind a few years ago. I may not have the facts to argue why I believe this but I can offer the thought that always bugs me when I think about abortion. I put myself in that fetus' place, I am so happy to be alive and knowing that my parents could have decided not allow me to born, not to allow me to live because I wasn't technically a baby makes me very sad. I consider the fetus to be a human being and I am not going to argue that a fetus doesn't have a heart or the ability to think because there is no arguement, it is the truth. I guess my point is that we all started out that way and look at what that little glob of cells can do.

DrBubbaLove · Oct 22, 2004

DoubtingMerle,

Have a piece of iron ore my dad found when he was a kid. Looks the same to me today, perhaps a bit more rust, as it did when first shown to me many years ago. You could say it has the potential to be a car, but left alone all these years it is still just a lump of iron ore.

Could not say the same about a zygote. It is alive, growing. Sperm or eggs are just like the car, nothing by themselves. However if allowed to come together and then left in the womb, the zygote will grow rather than just sit there. It is possible that life will end either naturally or unnaturally before birth, but there is no question that is the beginning of human life. It cannot be anything else. Even if that life is ended before birth it will never be anything but a human life. It cannot become something else. If you say it is not human you would have to acknowledge or explain what else it might be. A car? Same as skin cells? Are you saying we are all non-human from our begining then magically become human sometime before or at birth?

Why must we distinguish if we end that life as a zygote or when it is 33 years old or anywhere in between? To me a human life is to be valued and treated with respect whether you are talking about the beginning (a blob of cells) or the worst mass murderer.

Are we going to say brain activity defines life? It is rare, but seem to recall people that have been declared brain-dead walking around today. It just seems arbitrary to me to attempt to make such distinctions, and worse out of ignorance we could error.

tcampen · Oct 22, 2004

an7222 said:
Human life early stages begins undoubtedly at conception. But human sentient life begins later, I don't know when... And human self-constious life begins even later, maybe even after birth!

I believe life does begin at conception, but I have not been convinced that "life" automatically is afforded the status of a "person" with all the rights of any of us contributing to this forum. Qualitatively, the fertilized egg is nothing like a grown adult, an infant child, or even a fetus at 5 months of development. While it may have the capability of growing to attain any of these advanced stages, it certainly cannot be considered the same as any of them.

Making conception the point at which a person exists is certainly easy and convenient, but that alone fails to make the case. Unique DNA is a novel argument, but that argument also would criminalize in vitro type proceedures, where a number of fertilized eggs will necessarily be lost or destroyed in the process of bringing a child to an otherwise infertile couple (like my brother and his wife did to get their son). That I just don't see many pro-lifers advocating for the criminalization of in vitro procedures demonstrates the inconsistency of the position.

I don't claim to know when that life becomes a person, but I do believe it occurs sometime before birth. When? Like I said...I don't know. Gray areas are scary because of their difficulty and uncertainty - but that doesn't mean they are wrong or don't exist. The bible itself can be reasonably interpreted to find a human life begins at either conception or at birth - so that text cannot provide the answer to this complex question.

I just we'll just have to continue on...

DrBubbaLove · Oct 22, 2004

Actually scripture is specific about it being before, though it does not specify when. God is said to know someone while still in the womb for example. Punishments for causing the death of a fetus are equated/similar to causing the death of the mother.

And some Christains believe and the Catholic Church teaches that such in vitro procedures are equally wrong for the reasons you state.

doubtingmerle · Oct 24, 2004

DrBubbaLove said:
God is said to know someone while still in the womb for example.

Well, actually the bible says God knows them before they are in the womb. So if you are going to use this verse to prove that the zygote is human life, you would also need to use this verse to say that the unfertilized egg is human life. And that would mean that it was wrong for teenagers not to get pregnant, for not getting pregnant deprives this cell of the sperm it needs to develop. So I don't think this verse means that cells in every early stage of human development are equal to human life.

Punishments for causing the death of a fetus are equated/similar to causing the death of the mother.

Well, actually, no, the penalty for destroying the "fruit" in the womb is similar to killing a neighbors cow. According to the law, you pay a fine if you hit a woman and cause an unwanted miscarriage. But you are killed if you kill the woman. The penalties are quite different.

Exodus 21
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Abortion was quite common in Greek culture, but the NT has not one verse condemning it. If the issue is so important, why does not the NT mention the issue?

And some Christains believe and the Catholic Church teaches that such in vitro procedures are equally wrong for the reasons you state.

That would be a more consitant view.

Also, many Christians--including George Bush--allow for abortion if the embryo was the result of rape or incest. This view is totally inconsistant with the view that the embryo is human life.

But for the person who believes the embryo is not yet a living person, both in vitro fertilization and abortion after a rape are possible choices.

doubtingmerle · Oct 24, 2004

DrBubbaLove said:
Could not say the same about a zygote. It is alive, growing. Sperm or eggs are just like the car, nothing by themselves. However if allowed to come together and then left in the womb, the zygote will grow rather than just sit there.

But an egg will also grow into a human if it is in a womb full of sperm. What is the difference?

It is possible that life will end either naturally or unnaturally before birth, but there is no question that is the beginning of human life. It cannot be anything else.

I have said this many times. Are you listening? It is the beginning of human life. It is not yet a person.

A caterpillar is not yet a butterfly; A chassis on the assembly line is not yet a car; A med student is not yet a doctor; And it seems that a zygote is not yet a human. They are in the process of becoming something, but they have not yet become that something.

Would it help if I repeated that paragraph yet one more time?

Even if that life is ended before birth it will never be anything but a human life. It cannot become something else. If you say it is not human you would have to acknowledge or explain what else it might be. A car? Same as skin cells? Are you saying we are all non-human from our begining then magically become human sometime before or at birth?

I have responded many times. Why do you ask again?

It is the beginning stage in the development into a human life, but many think it is not yet a person.

Would it help you to understand me if I repeated that sentence again?

To me a human life is to be valued and treated with respect whether you are talking about the beginning (a blob of cells) or the worst mass murderer.

That is fine. But why impose this belief on others?

And humanists seem to do quite well in promoting self-esteem. Haven't you noticed?

Are we going to say brain activity defines life? It is rare, but seem to recall people that have been declared brain-dead walking around today.

Huh? Brain death is defined as irreversible loss of brain function. Nobody has ever lived after they had irreversible loss of brain funcition. (If they did live, than it was not irreversible, was it?)

It just seems arbitrary to me to attempt to make such distinctions, and worse out of ignorance we could error.

Yes, we could be in error. You may be mistaken that an unfertilized cell is not a human. Do you lay up late at night worrrying about that. No! We live the best we can with the knowlege we have. How could we do otherwise?

doubtingmerle · Oct 24, 2004

Shianne_33 said:
I put myself in that fetus' place, I am so happy to be alive and knowing that my parents could have decided not allow me to born, not to allow me to live because I wasn't technically a baby makes me very sad.

Does it also make you sad that your parents could have used contraception on the night you were conceived, and you might never have been born? Does it also make you sad that your Dad could have done something else the night you were conceived, and you would have never existed? Does it also make you sad that this magical night could have been slightly different, and a different sperm could have fertilized your mother's egg? If that had happened, you would not exist. The resulting person would be quite different from you genetically, and would be like a sister to the "you" that never existed.

So I cannot see why this would make you sad. It is simply a fact of life.

Blackmarch · Oct 26, 2004

I don't know when life starts in the womb, but if i did, I wouldn't say- because it would give people an excuse to be able to abort at a certain time.

A. believer · Oct 26, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
How about when the brain cells begin to develop, brainwaves begin, and rudimentary feelings start? Many would argue--quite convincingly--that this is when human life really begins. This is when it can be argued that the cells are, at least to some extent, human.

If this is true, then the aborting of an embryo before it reaches this point would not be murder.

So what do you think? When does human life begin? Can you prove that your definition is true? Can you live with those who differ with your definition, or will you insist that only your definition is true?

Others (such as Peter Singer) would argue--quite convincingly to some--that post-natal infants have no inherent right to life and that their mothers' perceived self-interest supercedes the interests of the child. Therefore, according to this worldview, infanticide is a morally acceptable practice.

So what do you think, Merle? Can you prove that the life of an infant has any inherent value? If you disagree with Peter Singer, can you live with those who differ with you and choose to kill their infants based on this standard?

I don't understand. Some people love to discuss the facts, and make decisions based on the facts. Why do you say it is a waste of time to discuss the facts on this thread? Why do you insist that nobody would change their mind? I would change my mind if the facts showed me that I was wrong.

What facts are those? The "objective" ones, no doubt. Who made it a "fact" that we ought not kill human beings for medical experimentation, anyway? If the "objective fact" that killling a human being for medical experimentation is in dispute, then your question is moot? Why should I care if embryos are human or not? If their destruction can lead to my preservation, I might just want to kill 'em all.

When Does Human Life Begin?

Wiki on Garth!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

HRE

Guest

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Contributor

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Rational morality is a must

New Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Veteran

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Legend

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency