When life "begins" and how.

[usregimechange]

Life only "begins" in the minds of those who believe that abiogenesis (the generation of life from non-living matter) takes place through supernaturalism at conception. Sexual reproduction occurs when life is developed from life, from the cells of organisms sometimes known as parents (who are already living).

Do not ever debate with a freeper when life begins because the question is the problem not the answer.

[Sapere aude]

1. There is life in cancer cells.

[usregimechange]

2. In fact, a little too much.

[mike_c]

3. exactly so....

Life "began" some three and a half billion years ago, at least locally. Everything living thing since has been part of a single unbroken chain of life that has never been "not life." Sperm and ova are alive too!

[whistle]

20. When young men and women in their late teens through say early 40's die from

...unnatural causes like a fatal traffic accident with trauma to the head or a gun shot wound to the head or heart and nothing is done to preserve their inner organs, ovum or sperm, would their contribution to the continuation of the life cycle process be lost forever then? It seems it would be.

If however, upon the arrival of the medics on the scene who immediately determined the hopelessness of saving the victims lives, instead took proper measures to at least administer life support to the otherwise dead bodies of these people until vital organs, stem cells and life continuation cells like ova and sperm could be harvested within the proper sterile medical environment, could or should that be considered the proper moral and ethical application of life support in these instances to continue this 3 1/2 billion year unbroken chain of life where such victims would be concerned? I would conclude that is all life is in fact considered sacred, distinct and important to the total chain of life, which I happen to believe it is and such young persons might not have the opportunity to have passed along their genetic code or preserved their sperm and ova, this type of action would be proper and vital.

It is as if there has been and continues to be an invisible life fire-keeper all these millions of years watching over how life reproduces, grows, develops, evolves and then dies, but always leaving a part of itself for future generations and life forms to build upon and evolve from. This would be a very humanitarian thing to do.

[Richardo]

4. ??

I've never understood why the question is framed so poorly.

The sperm cells and eggs are already alive. The question is not when life begins, but when 'humanness' begins.

[usregimechange]

6. It is framed so poorly because that lie helps in a debate.

we help it when we do not fight the frame itself and instead attempt to debate it.

[Tesha]

15. It's convenient (for one side) when the question is framed in that ignorant way. (NT)

[uppityperson]

28. Exactly. Otherwise we are debating onions and bananas

[Left Is Write]

33. I don't even consider that to be the question.

The question is not "When does life begin" or "When does humanness begin" - the question is, does "life" have a right to take over the body and resources of an unwilling person? Do the rights of the new life trump the rights of the born, breathing life?

[Madspirit]

63. EXACTLY!!..

Even if it was a fully actualized human, if, to live, it had to crawl inside MY body, it should be up to me.
Lee

[bleedingheart]

5. Life begins when you start costing someone money...

...it starts with a hospital bill and it gets more expensive from there...

;-)

[Clark2008]

7. LOL!

I'm giving birth tomorrow. Thanks for the laugh. :)

[bleedingheart]

8. you are welcome

so how do you know you are giving birth tomorrow?

scheduled c-section?

induction?

[astonamous]

11. Congratulations!

It should also be said that not only does it cost more as you go along, but the "life" can be a real pain in the ass sometimes and even though my two "lives" are in their 20's, I still worry about them every day. And the youngest "life" will probably never move out!!!!

They are also the most wonderful creatures on the planet and I wouldn't trade them for anything!

[unpossibles]

9. I thought life began at 30?

or is it 40? I forget...

[Kazak]

14. NOOOooo...

That's when life ENDS! :shrug:

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. There's only one way to debate "the life" issue with a freeper

or a Con, and that is to paint a scenario for them in which 'the life' decision is made by government. Once it sinks in that the control is in the hands of THE GOVERNMENT vs the people/individual, it's a whole 'nother story.

That's the biggest mistake the 'pro-lifers' are making with the issue. At the very moment that becomes the government's authority to make the decision to not allow abortion, the government can change it's mind (all in the interests of the state, of course) and abortions can be mandated. Then what will they do?

[Yoda Yada]

12. According to the Bible, HUMAN life begins with breath....

"And God...breathed into his nostrils the BREATH of life, and man BECAME a living being." Genesis 2:7

"The spirit of God has made me, and the BREATH of the Almight gives me life." Job 33:4

Life begins with the first breath and ends with the last breath. (Some organs can function before that first breath, and of course, some organs function for a short time after that last breath.)

The lungs are the last organs to form before birth, and they, of course HOLD the BREATH. Without enough of the lungs being formed, breath cannot be held.

[Yoda Yada]

13. Sorry, that was from Genesis 2:7 nt

[Mark D.]

19. Good Point!

They say life begins at conception, which has not
ever been supported Biblically. It amazes me since
the Bible has clearly stated God's word is life as
beginning at birth. Their belief in life beginning
at conception is more science-based than faithful.

[mike_c]

22. so you're suggesting that a fetus in utero is not alive...?

Or that an organism without lungs is not alive?

[dysfunctional press]

32. actually, the bible is suggesting it...well, stating it, actually...

and a human organism born without lungs is generally not alive, no.

[mike_c]

37. I don't know how to break this to you, but MOST living organisms...

...are lungless. Lungs are a fairly recent adaptation limited to some terrestrial vertebrates and their descendents (e.g. marine mammals). They account for less than one percent of life on earth. The other 99+ percent is lungless, and by that biblical definition, dead.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dysfunctional press]

69. i don't know how to break this to you, but i specified HUMAN organisms.

try a little comprehension next time.

btw- the biblical definition applies to HUMAN organisms as well.

[annabanana]

70. This is usually the tack that I take with the literalists...

drives them nutz.

[Tesha]

16. LIfe begins when the kids leave for college. (NT)

[Bjornsdotter]

40. Yep

....that's my take on it.

Cheers :toast:

[rug]

17. The question is when does an individual life begin.

[mondo joe]

18. When life begins is not relevant to abortion rights.

Whether a fetus is a life or not is not an issue -- one's authority over one's own body is.

[Richardo]

24. Of course it's relevant. It's fundamental (if you'll pardon the expression)

Because the way you look at it affects whether you see it as authority over one's own body, or someone else's. That's the crux of the whole debate.

[mondo joe]

26. To the contrary: A woman has the right to abort a fetus whether it's a life or not.

It's not because it's not living that she can abort, but because it is occupying her body.

[Left Is Write]

35. I agree.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. Really Really Narrow Minded Sentiment. When Life Begins Is Thoughtful Topic For Anyone, Not Just

freepers. There is nothing wrong with believing that life starts at conception. It's all up to individual interpretration and perception. I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be here.

[mike_c]

23. so do you think there is "nothing wrong" with believing...

...that the entities existing before conception-- sperm and ova-- are not alive? I assure you, they are, and no amount of doctrinal head-standing can make it otherwise.

[rug]

25. And is the life that exists after conception not a different life?

[mike_c]

29. what is "a different life...?"

When two living haploid gametes come together they produce a living diploid zygote that grows into the next generation (in multicellular organisms, at least). I would argue that no new life results at all, only a continuation of the chain of life stretching all the way back to the last universal common ancestor.

on edit: another way to think of this is that in four dimension space/time, we are all different parts of the same organism that has existed, grown, and changed, since about 3.5 billion years ago.

[rug]

34. That's deliberately obtuse.

It's obviously genetically different and a distinct entity.

"Chain of life" belongs in a discussion of The Lion King, not here.

[mike_c]

36. I don't think it's the least bit obtuse-- it's what I teach in my biology courses....

"Chain of life" belongs in a discussion of The Lion King, not here.

What does that mean? Perhaps you should sit in on a biology class sometime.

[rug]

41. It means The Circle of Life is not an answer to the question of

whether a zygote is distinct from its parents.

[Iris]

38. No it's not.

It makes sense to me. Everything living is a distinct entity but it's still a continuation of a set of genes that started way back in the "chain of life."

[rug]

42. It does have a nice zen tone to it but the question is when an individual's life begins.

[mondo joe]

43. When an individual's life begins is not relevant to abortion rights.

An individual does not have the right to use another's body to perpetuate its life.

[rug]

44. It is relevant. The question is whose right predominates.

Are you saying the fetus is an individual?

[mondo joe]

49. I'm saying it doesn't matter if a fetus is an individual or not.

If it is occupying a woman's body and cannot viably be removed, then it can be removed at her discretion in a non viable way.

A fetus has no more right to take over a woman's body without her consent than you do.

[rug]

51. But you are saying viability does matter.

Opinions without facts makes poor political decisions.

The facts of viability and life are indeed relevant to determninig rights.

[mondo joe]

52. Of course it does. If a fetus cvould be viably removed, abortion would

not be necessary, but that's not the case.

"When live begins" is a philisophical question, and one that is not necessary to abortion rights.

[rug]

54. Viability is a factual question based in biology.

More pertinent today, since the threshhold of viability is lowering.

And if viability is the basis to disapprove abortion, you are infringing a women's right to terminate before birth.

[mondo joe]

56. Viability already limits terminations.

Per ROE V WADE, at the point of fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling, and the state may proscribe abortion, except when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health.

In PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH(1) (1976) and COLAUTTI V. FRANKLIN(2) (1979), the Supreme Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination.

Fewer than 1% of all abortions in the US take place after 20 weeks pregnancy.

[rug]

57. Do you support that limitation?

Post 43 suggests otherwise.

[Iris]

45. perhaps you just don't like to have this idea put into a context

that might suggest that one life could be lost,even in its youngest, most fragile stage, and yet life goes on (and sometimes even through the same mother's body at a different time).

[rug]

46. I like ideas in any context.

However, the idea in this thread is specifically when does an individual life begin.

Do you like discussing individual lives or just life in general?

[Iris]

47. To be honest, I don't know when life begins. That's why I'd never

do IVF NOR would I suggest that a woman or girl be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if it compromises her life in any way, not just including physically endangering her.

[mike_c]

58. so when do you propose that "an individual" was not alive?

The question makes no sense whatsoever. Neither you nor I became "alive" at syngamy. Rather, two already living haploid cells fused and the resulting diploid zygote began a process of cell division and self assembly, guided largely by maternal materials distributed in the egg cytoplasm for much of its early development.

You might think this all "has a nice zen ring to it" but it is indeed how reproduction occurs-- there is an unbroken genetic chain extending all the way back to our last common ancestor, about 3.5 billion years ago.

[rug]

60. You did not exist prior to syngamy. Your constituent parts did but you did not.

This is more basic philosophy than basic biology.

[mike_c]

62. my independent existence is a matter of perception, really....

You're right, this does reach beyond biology. See my comments in #61.

[mike_c]

61. I'd go even further....

We know that space and time are multidimensional, but that while we can perceive space in multiple dimensions, we perceive only the moment in time. Imagine a thin plane sliced across the canopy of a many branched tree-- someone viewing that slice would see only disconnected ovals where the plane intersected branches, twigs, and leaves. That is how we perceive time, as a moving plane through continuous time. We perceive only the moment, with its disconnected shapes representing events which are part of a continuous history.

This might sound a bit woo-woo but it's my understanding of what we actually believe to be the case (I'm a biologist, not a physicist, LOL).

As a biologist, this suggests to me that our perception of individuality is simply an artifact of our inability to perceive time outside the moment. All we perceive are the tips of our branching history, where we are separate and distinct entities. Behind those tips, our histories stretch unbroken through our ancestors, and more to the point, our MATTER, our very being, stretches unbroken through the entire history of life because each new individual is connected to its history by the cellular contributions of other individuals. I have a physical link to my parents through their DNA and through the egg cell cytoplasm my mother contributed to me. They shared that link with their parents. And so on, back to the first self-replicating cell 3.5 billion years ago.

That's why we can use mutation rates in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA to chart our relationships with other taxa-- in doing so we are simply tracing that unbroken history backwards even if we cannot see it directly. But physics tells us that it exists, just as certainly as the three dimensions we can perceive also exist.

[rug]

65. It's both.

An individual's existence does not negate its past; it confirms it.

Nevertheless, what that individual is is separate and apart from both what precedes and succeeds it.

Anyway, that woo-woo comment reminded me the Simpsons are on. Hasta la vista.

[Iris]

39. Then it's wrong to make laws based on certain individual interpretations and perceptions.

At least in a case like this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. That's Up To Interpretation And Perception. It's Not An Absolute.

Despite that fact of still being up for interpretation and perception, I do agree with you that generally speaking there should not be laws prohibiting such choice. But that's just my opinion.

[uppityperson]

27. what is "life"?

is it a replicating thing, or does it involve a soul, or what?

[rasputin1952]

50. I had once heard that "life" is only the journey to death...

kind of makes the whole thing meaningless when you think about it.

Then again, I figure there HAS to be a purpose for life. It is difficult to think that we are here just as a mish-mosh of chemicals and energy...:shrug:

The best I can figure is that we can all try to just make our little corners of the earth just a little better as each day goes by...at least that can't hurt...O8)

[rasputin1952]

30. I have been informed by some RW fundy's that are in the know...

That a sperm and an egg each have, "half a soul">>>>>The two halves come together to create a single "whole soul". I asked about the 50-100 million half souls that do not make it to the egg, like "what happens to all of those "half souls", do they go to half hell because they were sort of "wasted" in the process? Apparently they just "die" and go nowhere...there is no "half soul hell" or "limbo".

But, if souls are eternal, these "half souls" have to at least have half of eternity to scoot around the universe. I figure the # of "half souls" from sperm is something like the national debt...we just can't understand the #'s because they are astronomical.

Now, to be honest, I've left an awful lot of "half souls" in various places, from vaginas and condoms to toilets. I have to wonder if I am some kind of "half soul" mass murderer. This makes me feel kind of sad for the "halfies", (or "half not's" depending on your view), and I would like to talk to these poor "halfies" and express my remorse for their demise. Maybe, if I think "real hard" the next time I ejaculate several million more "halfies" over the toilet, they can take that message of remorse to those already passed...;)

[MisterHowdy]

31. lol

beautiful

[rasputin1952]

48. I figure that killing 'half souls' is a better deal than

every time an individual falls to the wiles of Onanism as part of life's equation...God kills a kitten...that's pretty cruel...:(

[Yoda Yada]

53. The biblical quotes are about HUMAN life....

...beginning with breath.

Obviously it becomes more complex......and easily misconstrued when you include other forms.

[mike_c]

59. then that implies the human life differs from other life....

Is my life any different from a frog's, or a nematode's? Certainly my experience is different, but my life processes are identical.

[Yoda Yada]

66. I don't know the answer. I'm just saying that equating breath with....

becoming a "living being" and "the breath of the Almighty gives me life" IS THE ISSUE addressed in the Bible..... ( not... life begins with cell growth)

[Nikki Stone1]

64. Life begins January 21, 2009

Provided that there is an election

[LaurenG]

68. I can't wait, it seems we've been holding our breath for a very long time