When does life begin?

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorites paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SithDoughnut]

Blind Post of Blindness:

I put other. In general, life doesn't really begin, it just is. You're alive, your reproductive cells are also alive and any offspring that comes from them will be alive. It's a continuous process; there isn't a moment where one life stops and another begins.

A particular individual organism's life, however, would begin at conception, at least in organisms that sexually reproduce (which I'm assuming are the ones you're referring to).

 

[david_x]

Humans and animals begin their corporal life shortly after fertilization. A being begins some time before that, probably a long time.

 

[Simply_Amazing]

Humans and animals begin their corporal life shortly after fertilization. A being begins some time before that, probably a long time.

I would hope you're talking in a purely spiritual sense, because otherwise contraception is now equivalent to abortion. Or did you mean to say after? Because that would make more sense.

 

[Drunk On Love]

In the Islamic tradition it's generally held that the fetus is an ensouled human being at the fourth month after conception. That being said abortion isn't held to be religiously lawful even before that save maybe in certain extreme situations by the majority of Islamic scholars.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In the Islamic tradition it's generally held that the fetus is an ensouled human being at the fourth month after conception. That being said abortion isn't held to be religiously lawful even before that save maybe in certain extreme situations by the majority of Islamic scholars.

Why is that? If the fetus doesn't have a soul yet, why is abortion frowned upon?

 

[Phileas]

My two cents; it's a broken question. It's like asking where the edge of a cloud is. Life began billions of years ago and continues from generation to generation. Your biology developed from your mother who was developed from her mother etc. etc. A more meaningful question would be 'when can a mother and child be considered fully separate beings?', however that too is a minefield of inaccuracy which can never fully be answered as it's an ongoing process, I mean at what moment does a caterpiller become a butterfly. I think the best definition that can put forward would be that a mother and child can be considered separate beings when it is probable that the fetus can survive independent of mother, which with modern medicine can be very early in the pregnancy. But then you get into issues with the "probable" part.

 

[Gracchus]

Life began only once, about three and a half to four billion years ago and has been proliferating ever since, and all Christians are cousin to the cabbage.

 

[jayem]

I think the best definition that can put forward would be that a mother and child can be considered separate beings when it is probable that the fetus can survive independent of mother, which with modern medicine can be very early in the pregnancy. But then you get into issues with the "probable" part.

There was a report earlier this year of a preemie surviving birth at 21 weeks. I remember hearing of one surviving at 20 weeks from a few years ago, but there was some uncertainty with the dates. But even with the most advanced and intensive neonatal life support, survival before 22 weeks is extremely rare.

I also favor using viability as one of two criteria for personhood. But as a practical matter, the point of natural viability is more sensible. This is when a preemie can survive without artificial life support. It just needs ordinary nursing care--the baby can breathe on its own; can take oral nutrition; and needs the warmth, protection, and nuturing like any newborn. This point is more biologically fixed, and won't be a continually moving target as life support technology advances. There is also objective data on when this occurs. Reviewing the old pediatric literature--in the days before neonatal intensive care was available--shows that babies born at 24 weeks had just over a 50% chance of survival. So it's reasonable to take this as the point of natural viability--when a baby is developed enough to survive independently of its mother, by natural means.

As I said, viability is one criteria. The other criteria for personhood, obviously, is birth. So once a baby is born--no matter how premature--it's a person, due the same treatment as anyone else.

 

[david_x]

I would hope you're talking in a purely spiritual sense, because otherwise contraception is now equivalent to abortion. Or did you mean to say after? Because that would make more sense.

Being, would be spiritual. (Could probably be assumed from the previous sentence.)

 

[Ave Maria]

Life begins at conception and ends at death, preferably natural death. Life is sacred and that is why abortion is gravely and intrinsically evil.

 

[Amiga1200]

Life begins at conception and ends at death, preferably natural death. Life is sacred and that is why abortion is gravely and intrinsically evil.

Right, but that's contained in the poll. The challenge is explaining why you believe these pronouncements. Is it just because the Church concluded that way before you did and thus you absorbed it?

In a technical sense, life begins at conception, (as it becomes self-sustaining at that point rather than a merely static egg or sperm) but the idea that a zygote with no nervous system could contain a soul simply demeans the value of a soul (if one is presumed to exist). If a soul requires no ability to think, emote, move, see, or experience "life", then what value does it really add or special character could it possibly be said to possess?

I also agree that "consciousness" is a good arbitrary line to denote life in the sense we are talking about. Clearly, a tree is a living thing but does not possess a conscious mind, but I'm reading humanistic notions of value into this definition in order to not be TOO pedantic. To be safe, I chose "gestation" even though I'm not really sure that meaningful consciousness exists before birth and subsequent exposure to external stimuli.

I don't believe that viability is a useful measure, though, because a post-womb child is no more capable of surviving without a mother or surrogate to a mother than it was in the uterus. It needs either a mother's milk or an artificial replicate. It can't feed itself, it can't find its own food, it can't protect itself from anything, it's still entirely dependent upon SOMEONE. Thus, it isn't really viable to "survive on its own" and won't be for years.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The concept of life is usually not defined precisely and accepted universarily enough for an analysis to lead to a universally acceptable and precise conclusion in this case. Wittgenstein might have said that the rules for the application of the term "life", which give the term it's meaning, have not been laid down in a manner sufficient to give a truly satisfactory answer. We have to analyse the concept, but the concept itself is vague.

 

[bricklayer]

Life does not begin at conception or birth.
It began at creation and is continued through conceptions and births.
Non-life cannot produce life, no effect can transcend its cause.

 

[Simply_Amazing]

Life does not begin at conception or birth.
It began at creation and is continued through conceptions and births.
Non-life cannot produce life, no effect can transcend its cause.

Proof?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Life does not begin at conception or birth.
It began at creation and is continued through conceptions and births.
Non-life cannot produce life, no effect can transcend its cause.

Evidence? And no, peanut butter does not count.

 

[Jazer]

Age-old question, let's get everyone's views. When does a human (or, indeed, any animal) begin its life?

There are people that believe that life begins at conception. Some people say if you die after conception then you will go to Heaven. One person did the math and figured if you counted all the abortions and the people that died as children it would add up to 18 billion people. There is also a question of viable and the ability to live outside of the womb.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

edit

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Life begins at conception and ends at death, preferably natural death. Life is sacred and that is why abortion is gravely and intrinsically evil.

Why do you believe this? And, why does it make abortion gravely and intrinsically evil? Were the mother to die without an abortion, is it still intrinsically evil, or does it become the right and moral course of action?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Life does not begin at conception or birth.
It began at creation and is continued through conceptions and births.
Non-life cannot produce life, no effect can transcend its cause.

Do you have any evidence for the latter claim?