When does life begin?

[Sаbine]

Nice review, TenPenny, with the only exception (in the Metabolic part) that a zygote stage lasts only 4 days, not 14. Day 5 is when a blastocyst is formed.

Do you really think that is going to clarify the issue?

Yes I do. The OP's question needs to be clarified because depending on details in the question, for example my answers will be different.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Nice review, TenPenny, with the only exception (in the Metabolic part) that a zygote stage lasts only 4 days, not 14. Day 5 is when a blastocyst is formed.

I remember, somebody once asked a pro life activist, fetus goes through several stages before the implantation, zygote, morula, blastocyst etc. Then why do prolifers call it a baby since the moment of conception?

His response was, ‘well now, who would want to cuddle up to a blastocyst’? Implication being that prolifers call it a baby since the moment of conception, to evoke an emotional response, not a reasonable, logical response.

 

[Sаbine]

This is a complicated philosophical question (science cannot answer it) wiht many differing views.

Sorry, but it isn't a philosophical question only, and science is fully capable of answering it at least in the biological part. If the question was about biological life of, say, a human organism, then it's known that biologically, a zygote is where life of a new individual begins.

 

[JLM]

This discussion has about run it's course, I M H O- Those who want to have abortions will find ways to justify them, as they don't care if the subject of the matter has a voice.

 

[Sаbine]

I remember, somebody once asked a pro life activist, fetus goes through several stages before the implantation, zygote, morula, blastocyst etc. Then why do prolifers call it a baby since the moment of conception?

His response was, ‘well now, who would want to cuddle up to a blastocyst’? Implication being that prolifers call it a baby since the moment of conception, to evoke an emotional response, not a reasonable, logical response.

I have no idea why one would call it a baby at its early embryonic stages. I just wanted to correct a mistake in the review, that's it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sorry, but it isn't a philosophical question only, and science is fully capable of answering it at least in the biological part. If the question was about biological life of, say, a human organism, then it's known that biologically, a zygote is where life of a new individual begins.

Life of a new individual, perhaps. Genetically that may be true. But at what stage does it become a human life? Even prolifers don’t regard it as human life since conception, no matter what they claim. Thus they don’t demand that each miscarriage should be investigated to see if the mother or medical staff were negligent in any way, were responsible in causing the miscarriage, so that they could be tried for accessory before and after the fact.

So it is life at conception, that is not in dispute (thought it doesn't begin at conception, as I said, scientific view is that life doesn’t have a beginning or an end). The question, is, at what stage does it become a human life?

 

[TenPenny]

Life of a new individual, perhaps. Genetically that may be true. But at what stage does it become a human life?

The original question wasn't about human life.

 

[JLM]

I have no idea why one would call it a baby at its early embryonic stages. I just wanted to correct a mistake in the review, that's it.

Now you are talking semantics, nothing to do with the issue at hand just something to muddy the waters. Who cares what it's called- it's innocent life and no one has the right to destroy it. :smile:

 

[Machjo]

I remember, somebody once asked a pro life activist, fetus goes through several stages before the implantation, zygote, morula, blastocyst etc. Then why do prolifers call it a baby since the moment of conception?

His response was, ‘well now, who would want to cuddle up to a blastocyst’? Implication being that prolifers call it a baby since the moment of conception, to evoke an emotional response, not a reasonable, logical response.

The same reason the military talks about collateral damage. It sounds much better than human casualties. Even if we look totally different at that stage and use different vocabulary to describe the stage, it's still human in spirit. It's just a matter of using technical jargon to dehumanize it. Of course on a technical level, a human killed in a bomb blast is 'collateral damage', and that is not a lie. But it does serve to dehumanize by using technical jargon. The same applies here.

 

[TenPenny]

Now you are talking semantics, nothing to do with the issue at hand just something to muddy the waters. Who cares what it's called- it's innocent life and no one has the right to destroy it. :smile:

Innocent life? I thought everyone was born a sinner?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The original question wasn't about human life.

Quite so, it was about life. And there the proper answer is, we don't know when life begins, or when human life begins. In the first case, because it is a continuum.

In the second case, because it is a very complicated question, with no consensus among anybody. There is no consensus among philosophers, no consensus among religious leaders (there are plenty of religious leaders who have no problem with abortion, there are plenty who do). As to scientists, they wisely don't get involved in the debate, but if they did, there won't be any consensus among them either.

 

[Sаbine]

Life of a new individual, perhaps. Genetically that may be true. But at what stage does it become a human life?

It depends on what state of life you're referring to. Biologically, our species is homo sapiens, so if the parents's species is H. sapiens, then they produce an individual of the same taxonomic unit. And it does not depend on the stage of its development.

Now you are talking semantics, nothing to do with the issue at hand just something to muddy the waters. Who cares what it's called- it's innocent life and no one has the right to destroy it. :smile:

Yes, biologically it is life of a potential individual. Potential because it can be aborted.

 

[JLM]

Innocent life? I thought everyone was born a sinner?

Yep, according to these wingnut threads and two or three wingnuts on here who predict we'll burn in Hell. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Machjo]

Yep, according to these wingnut threads and two or three wingnuts on here who predict we'll burn in Hell. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I don't believe anyone's born a sinner. So that makes me a certified sane

 

[AnnaG]

As a Feminist once remarked, if men got pregnant, abortion would be a holy sacrament.



Life begins at conception, according to whose definition? That of Pope? That of Pat Robertson, Gerry Falwell? There is no scientific evidence for that.

Unfounded BS. But you argue all you want with the real science, you won't change it:

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

 

[petros]

Life begins when you click "log out"?

 

[AnnaG]

Porter is just trying to cloud the issue by throwing in the idea of life as a collective. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. An individuals life starts at cellular division and THAT is the science from the people close to the issue.
Life on Earth started billions of years ago and it may have started elsewhere in the universe even before that. What's to discuss about that? Not much.
Potter just doesn't want to face the science and keeps throwing in the religious aspect. The trouble with his view that a child isn't a human life till it emerges from the mother is like saying an apple isn't an apple till it leaves the tree. Nonsense.

 

[Sаbine]

The original question wasn't about human life.

Then it makes this issue even more complicated. When does life of an individual plant (or a bacterial cell) begin if that plant / bacterium was reproduced asexually? When does life of a virus begin if viruses aren't exactly living beings?

 

[talloola]

This discussion has about run it's course, I M H O- Those who want to have abortions will find ways to justify them, as they don't care if the subject of the matter has a voice.

A person, like myself who believes that an abortion for certain women, (those who can handle the situation, it is
a tough choice, an individual choice, and for the individual who is making it, their choice alone,)
they don't have to justify the decision to
anyone.
I believe pregnant women, who choose to abort, for whatever
reason they deem necessary, should have that right, and I
don't have to justify my opinion to anyone, and neither do
you.

 

[Sаbine]

The trouble with his view that a child isn't a human life till it emerges from the mother is like saying an apple isn't an apple till it leaves the tree. Nonsense.

Agree. This doesn't make sense at all.