When Human life begins

[star2589]

This is a pretty interesting page about different view on where human life begins that have existed in different societies at different times. I was most interested in the scientific views:

Developmental Biology Online: When Does Human Life Begin? (http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162)
Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:
The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life....

Genetic View:
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others...

Embryological View:
In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), C. Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy...

Neurological view:
Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life...

Ecological / Technological view:
Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates this point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother's womb)...

shows how philosophical the question is, even from a scientific standpoint. Which is closest to your own view? I also added "human life begins at birth" and "human life begins sometime after birth" to the poll.

[Telit laikitiz]

God doesn't need a poll. Why make something so simple so complicated? God created animals, plants, bugs and man. He created males and females. He said to multiply and of course gave us a way to multiply. The egg cell meets with the sperm cell and life begins. Thats the way it is, trying to make it different will make no difference. Sure, science has given us much help to understand how, but not why. Only God knows why. So science learns how to clone without sperm and calls it creation. It is not, it is knowelege that God has given us that we should use for His glory and to help others. It is still God who creates, we are just blessed to be included in the process by His grace. But I know that in the end, it is what God says that counts, so I listen to what God says now and it will be easier to meet God when I die.

[star2589]

God doesn't need a poll. Why make something so simple so complicated? God created animals, plants, bugs and man. He created males and females. He said to multiply and of course gave us a way to multiply. The egg cell meets with the sperm cell and life begins. Thats the way it is, trying to make it different will make no difference. Sure, science has given us much help to understand how, but not why. Only God knows why. So science learns how to clone without sperm and calls it creation. It is not, it is knowelege that God has given us that we should use for His glory and to help others. It is still God who creates, we are just blessed to be included in the process by His grace. But I know that in the end, it is what God says that counts, so I listen to what God says now and it will be easier to meet God when I die.

I think the question is relevant even for christians. certainly, the bible says that God creates life, but it doesnt go into any sort of detail as to exactly how he does it.

[DoctorDoom]

I think the question is relevant even for christians.We are Christians, capital 'C', atheist.

The "question" is asked by those who engage in or support the wholesale murder of babies in the womb. The intent is to justify the murder by dehumanizing the victim. Man has been doing that for thousands of years.

"Nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about that fetus in much different terms than they did fifteen years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer how to cure."
-- Pollster Harrison Hickman, 1989 conference of the National Abortion Rights Action League

Note the wording: "... not something that I have an easy answer how to cure." In the eyes of the pro-ab barbarians, anyone who speaks of an in-utero baby as a human being is mentally ill and needs to be "cured". Obviously, some (such as Hickman) are not human. They grow up to support abortion.

One human spermatazoon plus one human ovum equals one human zygote. Therefore, human life begins at conception. Any other response is liberal crap.

[star2589]

One human spermatazoon plus one human ovum equals one human zygote. Therefore, human life begins at conception. Any other response is liberal crap.

the problem I have with thinking about it like that, is that one zygote can result in multiple human beings, and multiple zygotes can result in one human being.

[sunsettommy]

the problem I have with thinking about it like that, is that one zygote can result in multiple human beings, and multiple zygotes can result in one human being.

That would not matter Star because the origionator of the sperm and the egg are HUMANS.

Therefore it is ALWAYS Human.

Human males produce the sperm in his body and them send them to Human females during mating.The millions of sperms them "swim" toward the egg in the female to fertilize it.It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being.

It is so simple to understand.

[star2589]

It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being.

human beings dont split into two, nor do they fuse together, but zygotes can and do.

[DoctorDoom]

Are you really that clueless, or are you just trolling as usual? Is the DNA formed by the union of human male and female gametes that of an oak tree or a chicken or a mosquito? Obviously not. It is HUMAN DNA.

Can the liberal BS, kid. You're not impressing us.

[Johnnybegood]

Just a big old TROLL.................

[sunsettommy]

human beings dont split into two, nor do they fuse together, but zygotes can and do.

No matter what you bring up.

The fact that it is ALWAYS Human the whole time.That is what I have said.

I never said anything about human beings splitting in two.

This is what I was talking about:

Human males produce the sperm in his body and them send them to Human females during mating.The millions of sperms them "swim" toward the egg in the female to fertilize it.It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being.


I emphasised the bolding just for you Star.


Try reading comprehension.

[Timberwolf]

star...please pull yer head outta yer nether regions. You're only supplying yourself with a unique perspective...unfortunately, it's one that's full of crap.

[Trevelyan]

Genetic View

[star2589]

The fact that it is ALWAYS Human the whole time.That is what I have said.

that I agree with. I'm just saying that being human, and being a human being, are two different things.

[star2589]

Are you really that clueless, or are you just trolling as usual? Is the DNA formed by the union of human male and female gametes that of an oak tree or a chicken or a mosquito? Obviously not. It is HUMAN DNA.

of course its human DNA. but human DNA does not equal human being.

[sunsettommy]

that I agree with. I'm just saying that being human, and being a human being, are two different things.

:thud:

[DoctorDoom]

that I agree with. I'm just saying that being human, and being a human being, are two different things.

...

of course its human DNA. but human DNA does not equal human being.Troll turds! Watch where you step.

Kid, you're trying to rationalize <s>infanticide</s> abortion, but all you're doing is make yourself appear even more clue-challenged with each post.

Go away and stop bothering the adults. :rolleyes:

[Charity]

Moloch's New Name (Pro-Choice)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

When Human life begins(?)

You do not provide my choice -- Spiritual View.

When it (he or she) is imbued with a soul -- the Only One knowing that would be the One Who authored, ordained and created both body AND soul. Since that is the case, it is not man's right to arbitrarily differentiate the exact point of when human life begins. The best evidence we have (but not by any means conclusive), is that a unique human life starts with the joining of egg and sperm to create a fertilized egg. WHEN does the soul get imbued? That we do not know, cannot know, will never know.

Ergo, we should always err on the side of least harm (greatest harm being death or denial of life, such as abortion). Once egg and sperm unite, man should not stop what God hath ordained. If HE chooses that the life not come to fruition, that's His perogative.

[Charity]

Job 31
<TABLE cellPadding=5 width="90%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>15

</TD><TD>Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Psalms 22:10
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Isaiah 44:2
Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb , which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

24
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb , I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Jeremiah 1: 5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

[JohnSteel]

Human life begins when sperm meets egg and the cell starts dividing. That's the start of a process that will result in an adult human.

[dPrasse]

:thud:

I second that reply !!

:thud:

[star2589]

I'm just saying that being human, and being a human being, are two different things.

:thud: I second that reply !!

:thud:

I'll clarify. "being human[adj], and being a (human being)[n], are two different things."

your skin is human[adj], as is your hair, eyes, and liver.

a (human being)[n], by contrast, is a member of the species Homo Sapiens.

I question the scientific validity of calling the unborn (of any species) a member of that species.

does this change or even address the value of the unborn? not at all. science isnt about value, and it never has been.

[star2589]

When it (he or she) is imbued with a soul -- the Only One knowing that would be the One Who authored, ordained and created both body AND soul. Since that is the case, it is not man's right to arbitrarily differentiate the exact point of when human life begins. The best evidence we have (but not by any means conclusive), is that a unique human life starts with the joining of egg and sperm to create a fertilized egg.

well, if we are defining human life as having a soul, we have absolutly no scientific evidence at all that any human life has a soul. its not measurable by science. The question of whether we have a soul is best left to religion and philosophy.

WHEN does the soul get imbued? That we do not know, cannot know, will never know.

exactly.

[True Grace]

Did people seriously vote that life begins as birth???

Those people have obviously never been pregnant or seen an ultrasound. How can people be so ignorant?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

well, if we are defining human life as having a soul, we have absolutly no scientific evidence at all that any human life has a soul. its not measurable by science. The question of whether we have a soul is best left to religion and philosophy.

We can't just leave it to religion and philosophy, for if it is true that man has a soul (and he does -- I know I do), it came from somewhere (God -- I know this also), and man did not create it (which he didn't), ergo man does not have the right to negate it, deny it, or destroy it.

exactly.

Meaning what?

[sunsettommy]

I'll clarify. "being human[adj], and being a (human being)[n], are two different things."

your skin is human[adj], as is your hair, eyes, and liver.

a (human being)[n], by contrast, is a member of the species Homo Sapiens.

I question the scientific validity of calling the unborn (of any species) a member of that species.

does this change or even address the value of the unborn? not at all. science isnt about value, and it never has been.

What is your point in all this?

[sunsettommy]

I have no idea why you stray so far off and then come back at me with this post:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by sunsettommy
The fact that it is ALWAYS Human the whole time.That is what I have said.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Star2589:

that I agree with. I'm just saying that being human, and being a human being, are two different things.

Sunset:

It makes no sense when you reread all the exchanges we had in this thread.

Such as:Post #6 Sunsets reply,

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by star2589
the problem I have with thinking about it like that, is that one zygote can result in multiple human beings, and multiple zygotes can result in one human being.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That would not matter Star because the origionator of the sperm and the egg are HUMANS.

Therefore it is ALWAYS Human.

Human males produce the sperm in his body and them send them to Human females during mating.The millions of sperms them "swim" toward the egg in the female to fertilize it.It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being.

It is so simple to understand.


Post #7 star2589 reply,

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by sunsettommy
It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

human beings dont split into two, nor do they fuse together, but zygotes can and do.

Post #10 Sunsets reply,

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by star2589
human beings dont split into two, nor do they fuse together, but zygotes can and do.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No matter what you bring up.

The fact that it is ALWAYS Human the whole time.That is what I have said.

I never said anything about human beings splitting in two.

This is what I was talking about:


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Human males produce the sperm in his body and them send them to Human females during mating.The millions of sperms them "swim" toward the egg in the female to fertilize it.It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I emphasised the bolding just for you Star.


Try reading comprehension.


Post # 13 Star2589 replies,

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by sunsettommy
The fact that it is ALWAYS Human the whole time.That is what I have said.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

that I agree with. I'm just saying that being human, and being a human being, are two different things.


Sunsettommy wonders if Star2589 is in a daze?<!-- / message --><!-- sig --><!-- / message --><!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[star2589]

We can't just leave it to religion and philosophy, for if it is true that man has a soul (and he does -- I know I do), it came from somewhere (God -- I know this also), and man did not create it (which he didn't), ergo man does not have the right to negate it, deny it, or destroy it.

what else do you suggest it be left to? science cannot address the issue, sinse a soul is not observable.

Meaning what?

meaning that we do not know, cannot know, will never know when the soul gets imbued.

at least, we cannot "know" in the scientific sense. scientifically, we cant even know if the soul exists. Its taken on faith.

some people believe in a soul, and some people believe that it comes into existence at a specific point in development, but considering that there's no way to know, no one belief is any more valid than another.

[star2589]

What is your point in all this?

I posted my point in my origional post:

shows how philosophical the question is, even from a scientific standpoint.

[nene]

I question the scientific validity of calling the unborn (of any species) a member of that species.Science does have it's limitations. Think of it that way if it makes you feel better.

[Aethariel]

Hmm...I have to say that the neurological view is the most compelling of the bunch. While a complete approach might want to consider more neurological factors than simply an EEG pattern, I think that it serves as a good basis for ethical judgments here. The morally-relevant qualities of being human are nearly all neurological ones, so it is a logical starting point for the discussion.

[star2589]

The fact that it is ALWAYS Human [adj] the whole time. That is what I have said.that I agree with. I'm just saying that being human [adj], and being a human being[n], are two different things.

It makes no sense when you reread all the exchanges we had in this thread.

Such as:Post #6 Sunsets reply,

the problem I have with thinking about it like that, is that one zygote can result in multiple human beings [n], and multiple zygotes can result in one human being [n].

That would not matter Star because the origionator of the sperm and the egg are HUMANS [n].

Therefore it is ALWAYS Human [adj].

Human males [n] produce the sperm in his body and them send them to Human females [n] during mating.The millions of sperms them "swim" toward the egg in the female to fertilize it.It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being [n].

It is so simple to understand.

It makes perfect sense when you distinguish between the two meanings of the word "human". read it again with those distinctions put in place, and you'll see that there is no disagreement between us. Also note that I was speaking of zygotes resulting in human beings, but not being human beings.

looking back my statement about multiple zygotes resulting in one human being, or multiple human beings resulting from one zygote, I do realise that my statement was rather irrelevant given the question I was replying to:

One human spermatazoon plus one human ovum equals one human zygote. Therefore, human life begins at conception. Any other response is liberal crap.the problem I have with thinking about it like that, is that one zygote can result in multiple human beings, and multiple zygotes can result in one human being.

I was responding to when a human being comes into existence, rather then when a human life comes into existence. a better response would have been "human life began around a million years ago and is a continuous process. the zygote is just as alive as the gamates, no life 'begins' at conception. whether a human being comes into existence at conception is a different question"


It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being [n].human beings [n] dont split into two, nor do they fuse together, but zygotes can and do.

No matter what you bring up.

The fact that it is ALWAYS Human [adj] the whole time. That is what I have said. and I dont, and never did disagree with you on that point

I never said anything about human beings splitting in two.

This is what I was talking about:


Human males produce the sperm in his body and them send them to Human females during mating.The millions of sperms them "swim" toward the egg in the female to fertilize it.It takes one sperm to fertilize that egg and the development begins of a new individual Human Being.

you chose to highlight "new individual human being". I would have highlighted "development begins".

I would not call a car engine sitting in a factory a "car". a car is the finished product. likewise, a human being is the finished product of a process that begins with conception.

but you're right, my statement that "human beings dont split into two, nor do they fuse together, but zygotes can and do." was irrelevant.

[dPrasse]

I would not call a car engine sitting in a factory a "car". a car is the finished product. likewise, a human being is the finished product of a process that begins with conception..

At what point are human beings a "finished product" ??

At the time of death , we are finished ... until that time we are growing , maturing , changing ...

while a car engine sitting on the floor does not make a car , once manufacturing is started , there is no question as to its final identity ... it is a car , even before it is painted , even before the wiring , interior , etc are added ... it is a car ...

The same is true of a human fertilized egg ... it is human from the point of conception ... there is never any question as to it's final identity ...

we don't ever wonder if mom is going to give birth to a tadpole , or a twiglet or a sheep ...

This is all hogwash presented by the "Pro-Infanticide" folks ....

Just like the lie ..." aborted babies don't feel pain .." ....
Now some real rocket scientists figured out that babies brains do feel pain ...

no shit sherlock !
Premature babies 'feel true pain'

Premature babies experience feelings of pain rather than simply displaying reflex reactions, a study says.

Experts have never been sure how a premature baby responds to pain, the Journal of Neuroscience reported.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4875196.stm

gosh , you think maybe those aborted babies might be in pain and trying to get away from the "doctors" needles , and not just randomly wiggling ??

:question:

morons .... :bdh:

[star2589]

At what point are human beings a "finished product" ??

when its biological functions become independent from the mother. at birth.

The same is true of a human fertilized egg ... it is human from the point of conception ... there is never any question as to it's final identity ...

we don't ever wonder if mom is going to give birth to a tadpole , or a twiglet or a sheep ...

true, I never stated otherwise.

Just like the lie ..." aborted babies don't feel pain .." ....
Now some real rocket scientists figured out that babies brains do feel pain ...

its been pretty well established that the ability to feel pain comes in at about 26 weeks after conception. the vast majority of abortions happen well before that, but there's no doubt that a fetus aborted after 26 weeks would have felt pain, and its absolutly appalling that some pro-choice groups try to deny the fact.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4875196.stm

gosh , you think maybe those aborted babies might be in pain and trying to get away from the "doctors" needles , and not just randomly wiggling

premature babies would definatly feel pain. the ones that arent developed enough to feel pain are also not developed enough to survive outside the womb.

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
What is your point in all this?


I posted my point in my origional post:

Originally Posted by star2589
shows how philosophical the question is, even from a scientific standpoint.


Uh okay.

Whatever you like but still does not change the fact that both the sperm and the egg were always human.This makes the zygote on up human.

Then from ANY Philosophical or scientific standpoint.It was always human.

That was all I was trying to point out to you all along.

[sunsettommy]

Metabolic View:
The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life....

This fails to answer the question,
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Developmental Biology Online: When Does Human Life Begin?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Genetic View:
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others...

This one is the only one that answers the question and the one that answers it the best.

The beginning of a new human being in the initial stage of development.

Embryological View:
In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), C. Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy...


A good point but it is a LATER start in life than the Genetic view.There are not not very many actual twins to make that strong a view.It is more a speculative view.

Neurological view:
Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life...


So a beating heart that comes earlier counts for nothing?

The lack of a recognizable EEG pattern by itself does not make the entire person dead.This to me is the worst of all the views presented here.

Ecological / Technological view:
Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates this point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother's womb)...

This is an abritrary guideline that simply ignores the fact that at CONCEPTION there is already a new human being in development.

Remember the question was:

WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?

I chose the Genetic view because it best answer the question.The key word was BEGIN.

[sunsettommy]

Did people seriously vote that life begins as birth???

Those people have obviously never been pregnant or seen an ultrasound. How can people be so ignorant?

I have and that is why I rejected the Neurological view so strongly.

I saw at 20 weeks the ultrasound and there was a beating heart and reflexive reations and the arms and legs and the sex was identified.She is now almost 4 months old and a darling!

She was already distinct and human then.

I saw all this last year.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

what else do you suggest it be left to? science cannot address the issue, sinse a soul is not observable.

Certainly not left to man!

Man is fallible, period. To leave such a thing to the descretion of man is to negate ANOTHER'S life. That life did NOT ask to be created, but it most certainly deserves it's self-evident right to life -- at least in THIS country where that self-evident life was recognized at the founding of this country.

meaning that we do not know, cannot know, will never know when the soul gets imbued.

Then what gives man the right to override it, at any stage? Because man WANTS to do so, because the life is "inconvenient"? Sorry, not a good enough answer.

at least, we cannot "know" in the scientific sense. scientifically, we cant even know if the soul exists. Its taken on faith.

some people believe in a soul, and some people believe that it comes into existence at a specific point in development, but considering that there's no way to know, no one belief is any more valid than another.

I don't just believe in my soul, I KNOW I have one. Can you prove otherwise? I am the one who knows, you are not -- doesn't negate the truth (that I have a soul and the soul exists) that you don't (know).

The thing that gets me over, and over, and over is that when we have a situation such as this with dire consequences, the only rational, reasonable, logical solution is to follow the path of LEAST harm -- it is impossible to know EXACTLY when human life begins, ergo we have no right to negate it, deny it, or destroy it, period.

[Republican_Legion]

Did people seriously vote that life begins as birth???

Those people have obviously never been pregnant or seen an ultrasound. How can people be so ignorant?

I accidently voted for that option.
The other options I didnt understand.

[star2589]

Uh okay.

Whatever you like but still does not change the fact that both the sperm and the egg were always human.This makes the zygote on up human.

Then from ANY Philosophical or scientific standpoint.It was always human.

That was all I was trying to point out to you all along.

ok. I never disagreed with that, so we've both wasted our time. :grin:

[star2589]

Certainly not left to man!

Man is fallible, period. To leave such a thing to the descretion of man is to negate ANOTHER'S life.

but there is no one else to leave it to. even people that believe in the same god dont agree on how his words are to be interpreted. according to the christian view, god has not come to earth to clarify the meaning of his words in 2000 years. every time christians debate about what the bible says, they are trying to speak for god, and as you said, they are all fallible.

That life did NOT ask to be created, but it most certainly deserves it's self-evident right to life -- at least in THIS country where that self-evident life was recognized at the founding of this country.

Then what gives man the right to override it, at any stage? Because man WANTS to do so, because the life is "inconvenient"? Sorry, not a good enough answer.

well, I purposefully did not put this in the "culture of death" forum, because the point of my thread wasnt about abortion. though, if you want to start a thread and provide a link, i'll meet you there.


I don't just believe in my soul, I KNOW I have one. Can you prove otherwise?

no I cannot. it is outside the realm of science.

I am the one who knows, you are not -- doesn't negate the truth (that I have a soul and the soul exists) that you don't (know).

true.

The thing that gets me over, and over, and over is that when we have a situation such as this with dire consequences, the only rational, reasonable, logical solution is to follow the path of LEAST harm -- it is impossible to know EXACTLY when human life begins, ergo we have no right to negate it, deny it, or destroy it, period.

again, if you want to start a thread about abortion, i'll meet you there.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

but there is no one else to leave it to.

My point, why do we have to leave it to anyone?

even people that believe in the same god dont agree on how his words are to be interpreted. according to the christian view, god has not come to earth to clarify the meaning of his words in 2000 years. every time christians debate about what the bible says, they are trying to speak for god, and as you said, they are all fallible.

That's all fine and good, but not relevant to anything. There's no reason I've seen for the question of when life begins becoming such a sticking point except to those whose desire it is to negate, deny, or destroy it.


well, I purposefully did not put this in the "culture of death" forum, because the point of my thread wasnt about abortion.

As you've pointed out, this thread isn't about abortion, so what's the point or importance of even trying to determine when human life begins? So why do we have to leave it to anyone? What was the purpose for your query and poll to begin with, if not to set the foundation for a discussion about the relevance of when human life begins for the purpose of justifying abortion?

though, if you want to start a thread and provide a link, i'll meet you there. again, if you want to start a thread about abortion, i'll meet you there.

There's already plenty in the Culture of Death Forum ... I respond to almost all of them, so feel free to post there.

[star2589]

My point, why do we have to leave it to anyone?

primarily for making ethical decisions. if we are to say that certain ethical principles apply to those that have souls, we have to define who have souls in order to use it.

I agree with the principle that one should err on the side of caution, but it isnt enough to include all "human life". "human life" is much to vague to be a useful concept. every single cell of your body is a human life. its necessary to define exactly what we are applying this principle to. most people here voted on the genetic view.

science cant tell us anything about souls, and god cant without first being filtered through our fallable interpretations. we're on our own.

As you've pointed out, this thread isn't about abortion, so what's the point or importance of even trying to determine when human life begins? So why do we have to leave it to anyone? What was the purpose for your query and poll to begin with, if not to set the foundation for a discussion about the relevance of when human life begins for the purpose of justifying abortion?

while the two are closely related, they are not the same thing. its possible to believe that a fetus is a human being with a soul and to still be pro-choice, and its possible to believe that it isnt a human being until birth yet still be pro-life.

I found the article interesting enough to discuss on its own without getting into an abortion debate, and thought others might as well. but based on the primary responses I got, I was wrong on that.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

primarily for making ethical decisions.

Such as?

if we are to say that certain ethical principles apply to those that have souls, we have to define who have souls in order to use it.

Your initial question, though, was when does human life begin. If we limit the discussion to that, then I restate my question. Why is it necessary to make a determination as to when life begins? The only reason it might be relevant is if one was seeking to negate, deny, or destroy it at some point.

I agree with the principle that one should err on the side of caution, but it isnt enough to include all "human life". "human life" is much to vague to be a useful concept. every single cell of your body is a human life. its necessary to define exactly what we are applying this principle to. most people here voted on the genetic view.

No it's not. Human life is human life, the only reason to "define it exactly" is in preparation to negate, deny, or destroy it. We know it IS human life, vs. any other kind of life; we know human life is vastly different than any other kind of life; we know that human life more highly developed than any other kind of life, proof of which is it's ability to reason, problem solve, and endeavor to improve it's life and that of other kinds of life .... logic then says human life has an innate, inherent, intrinsic value separate from that of any other and should be respected.

science cant tell us anything about souls, and god cant without first being filtered through our fallable interpretations. we're on our own.

Are you insinuating that I filter God's Word through an infallible interpretation? Sorry, you aren't qualified to make such a judgement call as you are not privy to my relationship with God.

You are right though, science cannot, nor will it ever, tell us anything about the soul. Only God reveals it. You may be on your own, by I most certainly am not.

while the two are closely related, they are not the same thing. its possible to believe that a fetus is a human being with a soul and to still be pro-choice, and its possible to believe that it isnt a human being until birth yet still be pro-life.

Neither of which negates the truth of "soul" or life beginning with the imbuing of its soul. Doubt still requires the path of least harm, imho.

I found the article interesting enough to discuss on its own without getting into an abortion debate, and thought others might as well. but based on the primary responses I got, I was wrong on that.

Yes, you most certainly were. How could the discussion NOT include relevance to abortion?

[star2589]

Such as?

most people believe that having a soul gives a being protected status.

Your initial question, though, was when does human life begin. If we limit the discussion to that, then I restate my question. Why is it necessary to make a determination as to when life begins? The only reason it might be relevant is if one was seeking to negate, deny, or destroy it at some point.

my initial question was asked in a scientific context. science is largly about defining things and putting them into catagories. if two beings can become 3 beings, it seems relevant to ask how, and exactly when this happens, just for the sake of knowing. science doesnt necessarily need to have a purpose other than aquiring knowledge.

We know it IS human life, vs. any other kind of life; we know human life is vastly different than any other kind of life...

true. DNA testing can very conclusivly say whether something is a human life or not.

...we know that human life more highly developed than any other kind of life, proof of which is it's ability to reason, problem solve, and endeavor to improve it's life and that of other kinds of life...

this is where being more specific is necessary. your heart cells are "human life" but have none of those capibilities, nor the potentional for them. of course, the article I posted wasnt specific either.

.... logic then says human life has an innate, inherent, intrinsic value separate from that of any other and should be respected.

if the premise is that all life with the ability to reason, problem solve, and endeavor to improve itself has an innate, inherent, intrinsic value - then perhaps. depending on how developed those abilities need to be.

Are you insinuating that I filter God's Word through an infallible interpretation? Sorry, you aren't qualified to make such a judgement call as you are not privy to my relationship with God.

I meant no disrespect. what I mean is this: we are all fallable. that's true regardless of whether we believe in god or not. that means that what we believe about god, is subject to our own flaws. some people still wouldnt believe in god even if he showed up on their doorstep and performed all kinds of miracles right in front of their eyes.

I was not making any sort of judgement about you. I neither know you, nor your relationship with him. as you said, I would have nothing to base such a judgement on.

Neither of which negates the truth of "soul" or life beginning with the imbuing of its soul. Doubt still requires the path of least harm, imho.

it wasnt meant to negate that. it was only meant to point out that whether a soul is there, and whether or not it has the right to live do not necessarily have the same answer, and so its possible to discuss them seperately.

Yes, you most certainly were. How could the discussion NOT include relevance to abortion?

oh, i'm not saying that it has no relevance to abortion. just that I thought more people would be interested in discussing it without going there.