Where does life begin?

LibertiORDeth

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
2,992
This post isn't intending to so start a pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, I am just curious has to whether or not science has been able to definitely prove where life begins. I am pro-life, since so far to my knowledge it has not been proved where life starts, thus we have to assume that life begins at conception until shown otherwise. If this changes or has changed I would thus like to know.
Also when I gave this reasoning to my friend, she said that we can't follow this since the female body "aborts" unfertilized eggs, and that life could very easily begin then and this is thus abortion. How do I argue with this?
 
Life began billions of years ago, and it has yet to cease. Life is a chain, and we are one piece of that chain... who knows how long it lasts.. maybe forever, maybe not.
 
Human life technically begins with the union of a sperm and an egg. Everything else...is politics.
 
Human life technically begins with the union of a sperm and an egg. Everything else...is politics.

Why doesn't it begin when that egg is released and that sperm are first produced whilst a couple swoons over each other? There is a whole lot of chemistry happening, and the baby is already inevitable..the attraction process has begun, no stopping it now.. What about when the couple first meets and has that magical moment? The union of the egg and sperm is just another step of the process.

The question is when does the fetus take on the characteristics of life, because I don't think that happens at conception.. and what exactly is life?
 
According to science, prior to the 1830s advance in microscope technology, the start of life was defined as the first kick from the baby, until that point, a woman could legally obtain an abortion. When the microscope advanced and they checked the fetuses they were aborting, they determined that they met their standard of life, and legislatures across the globe banned abortion totally with the exception of saving the life of the mother.
 
Does it? Is a sperm alive?

Is an egg?

If not, why not?

Personally, I'm just basing it on chromosomes. Both egg and sperm carry 23 chromosomes, and when they unite, the result is a 46 chromosomal being, i.e., a human (obviously there are exceptions for humans with birth defects, but I don't know enough about that, so I'm not going pretend I do!).

As for eggs and sperm individually being "alive?" Hmm...that's a good one. I'll have to think on it.
 
Why doesn't it begin when that egg is released and that sperm are first produced whilst a couple swoons over each other? There is a whole lot of chemistry happening, and the baby is already inevitable..the attraction process has begun, no stopping it now.. What about when the couple first meets and has that magical moment? The union of the egg and sperm is just another step of the process.

The question is when does the fetus take on the characteristics of life, because I don't think that happens at conception.. and what exactly is life?

Biologically, life can't start when people first meet and have a magical doublemint twins moment ;)

Philosophically, however, is a different story.
 
Why doesn't it begin when that egg is released and that sperm are first produced whilst a couple swoons over each other? There is a whole lot of chemistry happening, and the baby is already inevitable..the attraction process has begun, no stopping it now.. What about when the couple first meets and has that magical moment? The union of the egg and sperm is just another step of the process.

The question is when does the fetus take on the characteristics of life, because I don't think that happens at conception.. and what exactly is life?

You are growing on me danno. This is exactly what I am saying as well... it's a process, and who decides the arbitrary moment? Are they using science? Most of these people hate science... are they using common sense? who is the arbiter... A sperm is alive by all definition of life...

So is our skin cells.
 
Does it? Is a sperm alive?

Is an egg?

If not, why not?

The only difference is that they are still of the same DNA as the person where they came from. As soon as they meet and begin to develop, their DNA changes. Of course in the first few days, the body has the ability to naturally abort a zygote if it is inviable, as most zygotes are.
 
The only difference is that they are still of the same DNA as the person where they came from. As soon as they meet and begin to develop, their DNA changes. Of course in the first few days, the body has the ability to naturally abort a zygote if it is inviable, as most zygotes are.

What about skin cells then. They are alive. They have the EXACT DNA of the person. Should that be protected then too?
 
Hoyle infamously compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." He also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.


It's like the 'miracles' that happened with the WTCs, you are free to believe it.
 
What about skin cells then. They are alive. They have the EXACT DNA of the person. Should that be protected then too?

They are part of the body, they are YOUR property, you can do whatever you want to them. A baby is of different DNA, and not your property.
 
Back
Top