When does human life begin?

[BlueTalon]

I'm guessing you'll change your mind about that if you ever get married. (If your wife was pregnant and heard you say something like that, you'd be sleeping alone for quite a while, at a minimum.)

[Chopper Dave]

I'm guessing you'll change your mind about that if you ever get married. (If your wife was pregnant and heard you say something like that, you'd be sleeping alone for quite a while, at a minimum.)

I doubt it, because I don't plan on marrying an overly, selectively sensitive headcase.

[BlueTalon]

I doubt it, because I don't plan on marrying an overly, selectively sensitive headcase.

LOL!!! Sounds like you're actually planning on not getting married at all. Wait 'til the pregnancy hormones kick in -- then you'll find that you're married to a "selectively sensitive headcase" whether you planned on it or not!

[Chopper Dave]

LOL!!! Sounds like you're actually planning on not getting married at all. Wait 'til the pregnancy hormones kick in -- then you'll find that you're married to a "selectively sensitive headcase" whether you planned on it or not!

Listen, I can't think of any female that I willingly associate with that would be as offended by my statement as you are. If I ever do meet one, I can almost assure you that I won't be marrying her. Regardless, suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to reproduce because I feel the life of an unborn fetus is worthless compared to that of a "living" human is just stupid. And if you can't see that, well, then you're an overly, selectively sensitive headcase.

[BlueTalon]

Listen, I can't think of any female that I willingly associate with that would be as offended by my statement as you are. If I ever do meet one, I can almost assure you that I won't be marrying her. Regardless, suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to reproduce because I feel the life of an unborn fetus is worthless compared to that of a "living" human is just stupid. And if you can't see that, well, then you're an overly, selectively sensitive headcase.

Jeez. You're only 18 -- it would be foolish for either one of us to make any predictions about your long term future.

And for what it's worth, nowhere did I say that you "shouldn't be allowed to reproduce". Go back and read it a bit more carefully. (or not, if you don't care enough. But don't mischaracterize what I wrote.)

[WallyVon]

I don't care when human life begins.

[Chopper Dave]

Jeez. You're only 18 -- it would be foolish for either one of us to make any predictions about your long term future.

And for what it's worth, nowhere did I say that you "shouldn't be allowed to reproduce". Go back and read it a bit more carefully. (or not, if you don't care enough. But don't mischaracterize what I wrote.)

Whatever. If that's not what you meant, I must've misinterpretted it. But BlueTalon, while you're not qualified to make predictions on my future, I most certainly am. And while I can't paint a perfect picture of how it'll all end up, I'm pretty sure I know how it won't.

[WallyVon]

Whenever it is possible for the fetus to survive outside of the womb.

This is my opinion.

[Thiebear]

Life begins approx. 7 days after conception.

Earliest birth is 23weeks so those that say birth are saying 23 weeks.

(I was born at 7 1/2 months 37 years ago and did the 30 days in the hospital.)

Now-a-days that would be nothing... So in 50 years life may begin at conception if you like to pin it on the science of survival.

[Prosperity]

This is my opinion.

but science constantly makes that viability date sooner and sooner

[gbear]

I'll go a different direction from the strictly biological:

A human life begins when the mind is able to take in, react to, and learn from external stimulae. It ends when these abilities are no longer functional (a persistant vegatative state would not meet my definition).

It is not enough to be living cells with human dna. We lose skin cells every time we touch something. We don't mourn them. Thus to my mind whatever our humanity is, it has to be more than living cells with our DNA. There has to be the spark...

The tough part is that my definition works for dogs too, as they meet all three requirements. However they obviously do not have a human life. Thus there must be more to the threshold. Mine is kind of a safety threshold knowing that my threshold is somehwere before what I would call a "human" life begins.

Note: nowhere did I say a woman should be required to carry a baby to term just because it meets my three definitions. That's more of an obligation than must of us honor up to when it comes to saving lives. The mandatory minimum that each of us MUST do to save a life is an entirely diferent subject.

[Prosperity]

I'll go a different direction from the strictly biological:

A human life begins when the mind is able to take in, react to, and learn from external stimulae. It ends when these abilities are no longer functional (a persistant vegatative state would not meet my definition).

It is not enough to be living cells with human dna. We lose skin cells every time we touch something. We don't mourn them. Thus to my mind whatever our humanity is, it has to be more than living cells with our DNA. There has to be the spark...

The tough part is that my definition works for dogs too, as they meet all three requirements. However they obviously do not have a human life. Thus there must be more to the threshold. Mine is kind of a safety threshold knowing that my threshold is somehwere before what I would call a "human" life begins.

Note: nowhere did I say a woman should be required to carry a baby to term just because it meets my three definitions. That's more of an obligation than must of us honor up to when it comes to saving lives. The mandatory minimum that each of us MUST do to save a life is an entirely diferent subject.

That is exactly my idea, but I think that animals which are partially sentient compared to us should atleat get a partial amount of "human rights." (in this case it would be sentient life)

[Ball Coach]

It's a question of convienence. If those who accept abortion as the answer to the results of an error in judgement, life does not begin until birth. If someone is planning on having a baby suffers a miscariage shortly after conception, this is considered a tradegy and a life lost.

[endzone_dave]

I believe that life begins at conception (kind of a spriitual thing). My wife took a pregnancy test this morning and it came up positive. To me, my child is human and is growing inside my wife.

[Redskins Diehard]

You're right. I was just kind of including that in there to cover the whole abortion thing, and why I think it should be legal. While technically the baby is alive, it is a parasite, and a woman should have the right to exterminate it. In essence, I guess I do believe that life begins at conception. I just believe that it's worthless life until delivery.

Now you can understand why I said what I said, rather than getting into all of that.

And sometimes life remains worthless for at least 18 years after delivery...

[Art Monk Fan]

I allow the science to dictate my thinking here. Within minutes of conception you've got a multi-celled organism that meets all the scientific requirements for life. The DNA structure of that organism defines it as human and individual from the mother carrying it. By scientific definition you have a life that is human and individual from the mother, so the science dictates that a human life begins at conception.

For this reason, I oppose abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is at risk. In that single case you have the lives of two human individuals at risk and one must die to save the other — a difficult choice for any woman unfortunate enough to find herself there.

All arguments in favor of abortion set dangerous precedents with which I am not comfortable. The very premise of abortion is that some human life is not worthy of protection, based on its perceived value and its developmental stage. Any line you draw legally or morally will be arbitrary and ultimately moveable.

As others have pointed out, medical science continually pushes back the point at which a child can survive outside the womb. We have a member of this board who had a child born prematurely in the past week and some in this thread seem to believe that child's life has no value because he did not reach full term.

Some argue that a child is a parasite until birth, but children do not become independent of their parent’s care for years. How long will a new born survive without its mother’s care? Are breast feeding babies still parasites, while bottle-fed infants are human? If not, why?

Partial birth abortions destroy children old enough to survive outside of the womb, exploiting the technicality that the child hasn’t yet fully exited the birth canal — how is that child not human when only ¾ outside the womb, but human seconds later when fully removed? What of children who survive the abortion procedure? They’re outside the womb and alive, yet current law requires doctors to allow the child to die of exposure, starvation, etc., offering no medical assistance. Is the child that survives an abortion a human being? If not, why?

We have laws that charge a murderer with two counts if he murders a pregnant woman — apparently a child's life is valid on the whim of its mother? Our legal precedent is that your life is valid only if someone wants and/or loves you? Does this make orphans fair game to be killed to reduce the surplus population? If not, why? A homeless man with no family is obviously unwanted and unloved, can we begin exterminating them? If not, why?

Is self awareness the criteria? How is it possible to measure when this first occurs? If you are asleep or unconscious are you fair game? If I knock you out and then kill you, am I guilty only of assault for knocking you out? How can it be murder if I kill you in your sleep or while unconscious — if human life requires self awareness I have not ended a human life if I do it while you're not self aware, right? If not, why?

If a child is its mother’s property to be done away with on her whim, why does this end after birth occurs? What legal basis is there for laws limiting a parent’s right to punish, beat and ultimately kill their own children if they are in fact the mother’s property? If humans are legally property at certain developmental stages, what legal basis is there to limit other criteria for the ownership of persons?

If abortions are legal to terminate deformed children or those with serious disease, why is it not legal to kill an infant right after birth when undetected deformities and diseases become apparent? All of the same arguments about quality of life still apply, do they not? If not, why?

Legalized abortion is as morally bankrupt a supposition as slavery and neither science nor ethics is on the side of those in favor of the procedure. :2cents:

[Art Monk Fan]

It's a question of convienence. If those who accept abortion as the answer to the results of an error in judgement, life does not begin until birth. If someone is planning on having a baby suffers a miscariage shortly after conception, this is considered a tradegy and a life lost.

My wife and I lost a child to a miscarriage and I can tell you we very much did mourn the loss of our daughter. It was one of the most painful experiences of our lives.

[Art Monk Fan]

I believe that life begins at conception (kind of a spriitual thing). My wife took a pregnancy test this morning and it came up positive. To me, my child is human and is growing inside my wife.

Congratulations!

[twa]

Thanks, Art Monk Fan for a well reasoned post that clearly lays out the facts as I see them.

And Congrats Dave.

[Ball Coach]

My wife and I lost a child to a miscarriage and I can tell you we very much did mourn the loss of our daughter. It was one of the most painful experiences of our lives.

I know how you feel, and there are probably more on this board that do, it is something that is not talked about much and I can respect the fact that you have.

The whole debate to me seems that people just don't think they should be accountable for their actions.

[Art Monk Fan]

I know how you feel, and there are probably more on this board that do, it is something that is not talked about much and I can respect the fact that you have.

You're right about people not talking about it. When it happened to us, we were amazed at the number of friends and acquaintences who revealed they had suffrered through it as well, and we'd never known.

The whole debate to me seems that people just don't think they should be accountable for their actions.

You actually bring up an interesting side argument here. If abortion is a way for a woman to avoid the consequences of becoming pregnant, what legal basis is there for forcing a child's father to pay support for 18-24 years? You cannot argue that he "should have thought about that before he had sex" and then argue that the same comment can never apply to a woman. If abortion remains legal, then basic fairness argues that men must be afforded the right to a "legal abortion" in which they give up all rights and all obligations to the child in question — no?

[@DCGoldPants]

This is clearly one of those questions where people will have different opinions. Because the word "Life" is being broken down in different ways by different people.

Is it when the cells start to change?

Is it when the heart starts to beat? or could beat on its own outside the mother?

Is it when the lungs can function without mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen at birth?

When the brain develops?

the list goes on.

[Art Monk Fan]

This is clearly one of those questions where people will have different opinions. Because the word "Life" is being broken down in different ways by different people.

Is it when the cells start to change?

Is it when the heart starts to beat? or could beat on its own outside the mother?

Is it when the lungs can function without mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen at birth?

When the brain develops?

the list goes on.

Scientifically, life has some basic requirements: cellular respiration, cellular reproduction, etc., so the determination of life is fairly straight forward from a scientific stand point.

Determining whether a living organism is human is also fairly simple scientifically — DNA tells you that without doubt.

The question becomes one of ethics after that — which human lives do we chose to protect legally. I say all human life should be afforded the full protection of the law. Others want to arbitrarily carve out certain classes of human beings for wanton extermination — same as it’s always been.

[@DCGoldPants]

You missed my point.

I was talking about how people try to assign a specific time to the "essence " of life.

I mean, if you want to get technical...... people COULD claim that it doesn't begin until a human could live independently from being physically connected to another human.

So, if its before before the saccular period, then they could claim "no". But, then what? Somebody else would argue that a human could survive while being born during the canalicular period, and then 700 Club would claim its during the pseudoglandular period.

[Art Monk Fan]

You missed my point.

I was talking about how people try to assign a specific time to the "essence " of life.

I mean, if you want to get technical...... people COULD claim that it doesn't begin until a human could live independently from being physically connected to another human.

So, if its before before the saccular period, then they could claim "no". But, then what? Somebody else would argue that a human could survive while being born during the canalicular period, and then 700 Club would claim its during the pseudoglandular period.

No, I think you missed my point. You've named several developmental points in the human life cycle, but it's still a living human organism at each of those stages. At conception I was a living organism with the same DNA structure I have today. I am the exact same organism today that I was at conception, simply further developed.

I think you get on very shaky ground when you attempt to assign an "essence of life" upon which to base your legal framework. Stick to the science, then apply ethics from there. If you do so, you'll wind up right where I am.