Does life begin at conception?

[omej]

How many of you guys think that "spiritual" life does begin at conception? It would be great if you included your religion as well.

Personally, I am agnostic and I don't think life begins immediately at conception. To me, its just a bunch of cells up until the brain begins to develop. I say spiritual above because even a cluster of cells like that is considered bioligical life, I want to know when you think it becomes a human "soul" for lack of a better word.

 

[The Parakeet]

I usually agree that it's around the four/five/six month mark when the brain starts to develop. Other than that, it's just a clump of cells acting without much sentience.

I'm an atheist, so obviously I'm looking at the science of it. The problem is always where one draws the line.

It's funny that you posted this now. I just read that the North Dakota house choose to recognize fertilized eggs as human beings. Pretty crazy if you ask me.

 

[Delta]

I usually agree that it's around the four/five/six month mark when the brain starts to develop. Other than that, it's just a clump of cells acting without much sentience.

I'm an atheist, so obviously I'm looking at the science of it. The problem is always where one draws the line.

It's funny that you posted this now. I just read that the North Dakota house choose to recognize fertilized eggs as human beings. Pretty crazy if you ask me.

I agree with this. I'm an atheist as well and since I don't believe in a "spiritual life" as the op speaks of, I don't believe that life begins until your organ systems (especially the brain, heart and lungs) are all in tact and functioning - otherwise you can't really say it's "living."

 

[alexmike]

That would be almost impossible to tell that when the soul as you may call it begins to develop. However, one thing you must understand is that the soul doesn't have anything to do with the biology of the human body. It is more complex than that.

 

[connermt]

How many of you guys think that "spiritual" life does begin at conception? It would be great if you included your religion as well.

Personally, I am agnostic and I don't think life begins immediately at conception. To me, its just a bunch of cells up until the brain begins to develop. I say spiritual above because even a cluster of cells like that is considered bioligical life, I want to know when you think it becomes a human "soul" for lack of a better word.

For me, life (when discussing this concept) is when an organism can live on its own. And I consider spirituality to be a personal, inner "thing" that you only have when you work at it. So no, I don't believe life begins at conception. Biologically speaking, a fertilized egg is simply a cell with another cell "in" it. It's not much different than a skin or hair cell in that regard.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I usually agree that it's around the four/five/six month mark when the brain starts to develop. Other than that, it's just a clump of cells acting without much sentience.

But you answered the question... when does a developing baby acquire sentience not when is life created.

A fertilized egg is a newly minted human with unique DNA (accepting identical siblings). It is alive and at its most basic stage of development.

I'm an atheist, so obviously I'm looking at the science of it. The problem is always where one draws the line.

I don't hink you're looking at the science. The science says that those multiplying cells are alive regardless of whether or not they produce a sentient human. Is a single celled organism alive? It sure as hell isn't sentient. Comatose patients are not sentient. Anecephalic babies not sentient. etc etc etc We can find huge swaths of living things that are not sentient. Being "alive" is a definition applied to living things - not just humans. So, plants, plankton, clams, mosquitos are alive even if not sentient. Sentience is not the test for when human life begins. I suspect that you are suggesting that when a human life becomes sentient it should be recognized as having some porotection at law but that's speculation.

It's funny that you posted this now. I just read that the North Dakota house choose to recognize fertilized eggs as human beings. Pretty crazy if you ask me.

why?

For me, life (when discussing this concept) is when an organism can live on its own.

So paraplegics are not alive?

Six week old infants are not alive?

Comatose patients are not alive?

Anencephalic babies are not alive?

People in persistently vegatative states are not alive?

Think of any number of animals that absent a parent caring for it, it would die. These helpless very young animals are not alive?

 

[connermt]

So paraplegics are not alive?

Six week old infants are not alive?

Comatose patients are not alive?

Anencephalic babies are not alive?

People in persistently vegatative states are not alive?

Think of any number of animals that absent a parent caring for it, it would die. These helpless very young animals are not alive?

As I said, when discussing THIS CONCEPT (aka abortion). Throwing in other parameters changes the whole concept.

 

[obtuseobserver]

life begins at conception.. that's a matter of scientific fact without regard to abortion and with regard to abortion.

unless of course you're asking, "when crafting a legal fiction of when life begins such that abortion may be legal.... what is that point in the unborn baby's life where he is alive and the law protects him as before that point he wasn't 'legally' alive?"

The other parameters fall into your argument and make it silly... I think it odd to use a definition for life that changes according to your preferences

 

[dave]

For me, life (when discussing this concept) is when an organism can live on its own. And I consider spirituality to be a personal, inner "thing" that you only have when you work at it. So no, I don't believe life begins at conception. Biologically speaking, a fertilized egg is simply a cell with another cell "in" it. It's not much different than a skin or hair cell in that regard.

With the exception of the fetus/baby, we do not determine a persons humanity based upon their ability to live without assistance, their intelligence, their physical appearance, their infirmity, or their value to society.

An old bedridden man with alzheimers who is incapable of performing even the most basic functions without assistance is still considered a human with all the rights accorded to any human. His value to society is probably zero, he is a drain on resources, he contributes little or nothing to the world, yet he is still legally and morally considered a human being.

If we apply the same standards to all people that we apply to a pre-born baby, then many people will suddenly become less than human. We would demote to subhuman people who are mentally retarded, brain damaged through injury or war, or severely physically impaired through accident or illness or war.

The issue of when a fetus becomes human only comes up because of the politics of abortion. Remove the politics of gender equality and this would not be an issue, people would consider the fetus a baby human.

 

[obtuseobserver]

The issue of when a fetus becomes human only comes up because of the politics of abortion. Remove the politics of gender equality and this would not be an issue, people would consider the fetus a baby human.

Your use of the word fetus is evidence of abortion advocates. It is used as a substitute for baby. Ever ask a pregnant mother how her fetus is? It is much easier to shrug off killing a fetus than it is to kill a baby.

In any event a fetus describes a matter of degree not a matter of type.

A fetus describes a stage of development of the baby.

However pedantic that may be your comments, imo, hit the nail on the head regarding the dangers of diminishing the value we place on life.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus
Main Entry: fe?tus
Pronunciation: \ˈfē-təs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful ? more at feminine
Date: 14th century
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

 

[connermt]

With the exception of the fetus/baby, we do not determine a persons humanity based upon their ability to live without assistance, their intelligence, their physical appearance, their infirmity, or their value to society.

Exactly - with this exception.
If we based one's ability to live based off on intelligence, we wouldn't have shows like Jerry Springer, The Housewives shows or Jersey Shore. :giggle:

 

[obtuseobserver]

Exactly - with this exception.
If we based one's ability to live based off on intelligence, we wouldn't have shows like Jerry Springer, The Housewives shows or Jersey Shore. :giggle:

why should there be an exception?

why is the unborn baby's life worth less than the toddlers?

 

[connermt]

why should there be an exception?

why is the unborn baby's life worth less than the toddlers?

I thought I replied to this earlier, but I don't see it. Apologies if it's a dup;
I was joking in the section that you quoted

 

[obtuseobserver]

I got the joke about Springer.

My question is why you make an exception for placing value on life based on where that life is currently residing.

Or did I misunderstand and you actually do not distinguish between the inherent value of life be it in the womb or in your neighbor's home?

 

[connermt]

I got the joke about Springer.

My question is why you make an exception for placing value on life based on where that life is currently residing.

Or did I misunderstand and you actually do not distinguish between the inherent value of life be it in the womb or in your neighbor's home?

Has nothing to do where it's living.

 

[obtuseobserver]

lol

quit ducking and address the point....

Life begins at conception. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

 

[connermt]

lol

quit ducking and address the point....

Life begins at conception. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I'm not ducking anything - I have stated my opinon previously.
If conception you mean the moment the sperm meets the egg, then NO - absolutely, positively not.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I'm not ducking anything - I have stated my opinon previously.

If conception you mean the moment the sperm meets the egg, then NO - absolutely, positively not.

lol

Absolutely, positively, why not?

It fits the scientific defintion of life. Is that definition subject to beding and twisting depending on the life it is applied to?


your comment: Biologically speaking, a fertilized egg is simply a cell with another cell "in" it. It's not much different than a skin or hair cell in that regard.

A cell is alive though. A skin cell or hair cell is a piece of that life not the life itself. Your comparison is not analogous. A bumper isn't a car nor is a skin or hair cell a human. But they are parts of their greater wholes.

 

[connermt]

lol Absolutely, positively, why not?...It fits the scientific defintion of life. Is that definition subject to beding and twisting depending on the life it is applied to?

You tell me. You seem to be twisting the definition yourself by assuming that "life" is the same as "human life". A sperm/egg cell is nothing more than 2 cells. It's not biological human life any more than a hair or skin cell. If you follow that thinking (a fertilized cell is valuable) than you should attribute that thinking to all human cells - never get your hair cut, never bathe, never cut your finger nails, etc. If not, why not?

 

[David]

You tell me. You seem to be twisting the definition yourself by assuming that "life" is the same as "human life". A sperm/egg cell is nothing more than 2 cells. It's not biological human life any more than a hair or skin cell. If you follow that thinking (a fertilized cell is valuable) than you should attribute that thinking to all human cells - never get your hair cut, never bathe, never cut your finger nails, etc. If not, why not?

Uh, unlike a Zygote, skin, hair, ect. cells don't develop into sentient and sapient life. Besides, cut hair is dead, only the root is living.