POLL - When does life begin
- Thread starter GoPackGo
- Start date
Why does life have to "begin" anywhere? Scientists can't even pin down a good definition of death. There are different levels of life. It seems more like a gradual thing than a binary switch.
("Other please explain option" por favor)
("Other please explain option" por favor)
So sperms and eggs are not alive?
This is a personal/religious/legal question not a scientific one.
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
To be serious. I voted for 3-6 months.
My wife is at 7 months right now. OK, WE are at 7 monhts.
Right now my baby can smell and hear. That's why when he is born, he will recognize mommy. Oh boy. I'm gonna cry.
Anyways, to say after birth is simply saying I've never had a kid and never read about hte subject.
As for abortion, I'm for it as long as it's in the first trimester. Truth be told, I think that's not soon enough. I'd rather see it be illegal after the first two months.
I'd say 2 months because a woman would notice by then. Whther it's her monthly cycle not occuring or throwing up being the telling factor. But some women have wierd cycles and don't alwatys throw up. So it's a very touchy concept.
To make it flat out illegal though, that's just plain scary.
My wife is at 7 months right now. OK, WE are at 7 monhts.
Right now my baby can smell and hear. That's why when he is born, he will recognize mommy. Oh boy. I'm gonna cry.
Anyways, to say after birth is simply saying I've never had a kid and never read about hte subject.
As for abortion, I'm for it as long as it's in the first trimester. Truth be told, I think that's not soon enough. I'd rather see it be illegal after the first two months.
I'd say 2 months because a woman would notice by then. Whther it's her monthly cycle not occuring or throwing up being the telling factor. But some women have wierd cycles and don't alwatys throw up. So it's a very touchy concept.
To make it flat out illegal though, that's just plain scary.
This is kind of a phylisophical argument. It is true that when 2 cells combine and start to grow that they are alive. However, one live cell does not exacly instantly become recognizable as a baby or even a fetus. For instance A woman's Eggs are alive in the sence that they have genetic material and the cells they are made up of are alive, however an unfertilized egg is not necessarilly considered to be a living entity.
What constitutes being alive?
What constitutes being alive?
I have three children, NO child is born until it takes it's first breath, before it is born it is a fetus. It is a live fetus but many things in this world are alive without being a baby.
The question is not quite honest, it does not ask when a baby is a full human being, it asks when life begins, it can be answered with that life never begins, it always is.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
What about this option: IT NEVER ENDS SO HOW CAN IT BEGIN!
Last time I heard, sperm and ova are not dead!
Now consciousness is a different issue.
Last time I heard, sperm and ova are not dead!
Now consciousness is a different issue.
Actually that does not really work either as consciousness of self is different from consciousness as in developing senses.
Even a newborn does not have complete consciousness of self but it is stil a live breathing human.
A sperm and an egg are alive, but cannot stay alive on their own. A fetus is the same way; until the late stages of gestation it cannot survive without support from the host.
the only answer I see to this is at conception. I believe God looks at that as a miracle at that time, and continues to be a miracle throughout the 9 months and into the delivery room. I don't think God looks at the baby any differently if it was just concepted 1 day ago, or 9 months ago.
Therefore, I have to believe that conception is when life begins.
Therefore, I have to believe that conception is when life begins.
Begins when two cells are introduced, including those millions of cells in a Dish in the lab, so stop killing those millions of children, NOW!
God must really hate life, huh? I mean considering that there are more miscarriages (if one goes by your definition of when life begins) than there are births, a LOT more even.
I have reached the conclusion that we MUST define life as beginning at conception because we have reached the point where almost any zygote could be brought to full term and birth with modern medical technology. Twenty years ago, this wasn't true. Babies born at about 20 gestational weeks have a very good chance of survival today, by way of example. (my daughter was born at 23 weeks)
I see abortion as an ethical problem, not a religious problem. Although I am almost pefectly in tune with the Catholic Church's conclusion, I reach my conclusion differently. Essentially, I do not believe doctors, nurses, and other medical staff should be doing anything to terminate a "life", unless the mother's life is in grave danger. This view is buttressed by my opinion that many abortions are abortions of convenience, i.e. some kid had sex, got pregnant and now finds it inconvenient to carry the baby to term. If we wouldn't tolerate the same kid killing her newborn, why should we tolerate her killing a baby en ventra sa mere?
I would not make abortion illegal however because the American public would not support the prosecution of doctors and pregnant mothers after so many years of legalized abortion. I do think we need a major campaign of information, incentives, cajoling, and sex education to significantly reduce the number of abortions.
This conclusion probably gives solace to few liberals and few conservatives, but it is where I am today. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.
-Robert
I see abortion as an ethical problem, not a religious problem. Although I am almost pefectly in tune with the Catholic Church's conclusion, I reach my conclusion differently. Essentially, I do not believe doctors, nurses, and other medical staff should be doing anything to terminate a "life", unless the mother's life is in grave danger. This view is buttressed by my opinion that many abortions are abortions of convenience, i.e. some kid had sex, got pregnant and now finds it inconvenient to carry the baby to term. If we wouldn't tolerate the same kid killing her newborn, why should we tolerate her killing a baby en ventra sa mere?
I would not make abortion illegal however because the American public would not support the prosecution of doctors and pregnant mothers after so many years of legalized abortion. I do think we need a major campaign of information, incentives, cajoling, and sex education to significantly reduce the number of abortions.
This conclusion probably gives solace to few liberals and few conservatives, but it is where I am today. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.
-Robert
But then isn't every woman's ovary a life? Surely they could all be brought to light if we wanted to. There's plenty of sperm in the world. If we define viability as what's potentially possible with human intervention, then isn't the ovary viable with potential human intervention and isn't the ovary life?
Agreed.
We can tolerate if the benefits outweight the costs. You have to weigh the costs and benefits. Yes, the fetus has a certain degree of life. But society ends life. I think if the process is all right, ending life in itself isn't wrong. We wage wars, we put people to death. We don't like doing it but sometimes it's necessary (yes many people would argue execution is not necessary). Here, with abortion, there is a counterbalancing ethical consideration: the woman's right to control her body; the risk that a child would have a troubled life or be a burden; the right to plan reproduction as it fits the parents. That's where I come down on it. Abortion is not pretty but neither are a lot other decisions. Personally, I think the 3rd trimester or maybe 2nd trimester is a nice practical way to cut off this balancing. At a certain point the fetus takes on so many characteristics of a human life that the costs outweight the benefits of ending its life.
I still think "life" is not a well defined enough term to know when it's starts. It's like consciousness. Was there really a point when you were conscious. I don't think so. I think it's a slow build up.
I recommend people read about definitions of death. It's very hard to do because we can't agree what makes someone dead.
Human life begins when brain waves become measurable. I don't know when that is. I imagine we'll have to learn more about how the brain works before we know if/when a fetus is actually able to think.
good points. except about the death part. death occurs when the brain dies. one way to test is doppler studies of the carotid arteries and their bifurcations. dead brains don't reveal any flow to the brain.
That may be the established medical definition right now but there's a lot of discussion surrounding it from what I've heard. Could be wrong or read an old book. Also, I didn't think brain dead people were considered "dead." Again, medicine may agree that someone with a dead brain is dead but I think a lot of people would still consider someone with a beating heart alive, even if their brain was dead.
well, you said scientific definition of death. in medicine, brain death = death, so then we call the transplant team (with permission of course).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter