When does life begin?

[Mikawa Ossan]

When does human life begin? At conception? At birth? At some time in-between? What are the necessary requirements to say that a new human life has begun?

 

[leonmarino]

Frankly, I don't know.

I mean, I think that human beings are nothing more than a collection of chemical reactions, and "being alive" is a label given to any human being with a beating heart and brain activity. It is hard if not impossible to say when this starts..

 

[Pepe]

When an animal (yes that includes us) is seperate from the mother and starts embarking on the weird and wonderful journey that is life. Lemme guess, this has something to do with abortion?

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

When an animal (yes that includes us) is seperate from the mother and starts embarking on the weird and wonderful journey that is life. Lemme guess, this has something to do with abortion?

Not really, although the answer certainly does have ramifications for the issue of abortion. For the purpose of this discussion, they are completely different issues.

I'm just curious what everyone thinks on a purely academic level. It's a great philisophical question, don't you think?

I think that life starts when a fetus is capable of living on it's own outside of the mother's body. This happens at some point before actual childbirth, so I voted for after conception but before birth.

This means to me that there is a huge grey zone before the point of life as I define it. By all means the fetus is "alive" the week before it meets my definition, but if it can not survive in the world, is it truly "alive"?

 

[Pepe]

Yeah I also agree with your definition. But its all a continuum - there is a grey zone for everything. I actually usually refuse to get involved in discussions in regards to politics, religion, and quite often philosophy because of how close-minded (black and white, absolute thinking) most people are. It seems that everyone wants a definite answer, regardless of the fact that it may not be possible, or even outright wrong.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I actually usually refuse to get involved in discussions in regards to politics, religion, and quite often philosophy because of how close-minded (black and white, absolute thinking) most people are. It seems that everyone wants a definite answer, regardless of the fact that it may not be possible, or even outright wrong.

Thank you for participating this time!

I think what happens is that some people take a biological approach while others take a religious approach to this question. I am not here to say which is better than the other, but I do want to understand everyone's conflicting points of view.

 

[Kinsao]

All the medical textbooks studied by medical students used to state that life begins at conception (for example "Fundamentals of Obstetrics & Gynaecology"; afraid I can't remember titles of some of the others off the top of my head >.<). It's a few years since I've read medical textbooks; the wordings might have changed since then *happy to be corrected if someone knows more recently*

Naturally, viability outside of the mother is a bit of a grey area, because there are premature babies, that some live and some do not, of varying ages... and of course that depends on the technology available, as well.

 

[Mars Man]

I would like to vote, but first I'd hope to get a little clarification. It looks as though we could say that by 'life' in the question, we are primarily talking about neurological function having developed to the point of being conscious. Can I take that understanding as being true?

Or should we hold it as defined basically in post #4?

Or is it good to provide what our own definitions of 'life' are, with our votes?

Should be an interesting discussion !! And it can tie-in well with love, even though it may not seem to at first glimpse. MM

 

[Grandpa Frank]

Hummm?

For me it began around 50.

Uncle Frank

 

[ArmandV]

For me it began around 50.
Uncle Frank

For me it was 47.

But getting to the actual gist of the question, I would say at conception. Obviously, an embryo couldn't survive outside of a womb, but it is certainly alive (it sure as hell ain't dead).

 

[Void]

To my opinion the main problem causes the definition of life itself.
(btw, speaking of necromancy, there used to be thread called "what is life" or something of a kind, though it didn`t have many posts in it). And this definition is more likely to determine the choice in current poll. Not to mention problems which arise when we shall define "human life" and then consider what to take into account - only biological, only social or both these sides.

Just for example, let`s choose purely biological point of view (or at least a layman approach). To be considered a form of life it is not necesseraly to be able to live on it`s own. Just think of various forms of symbiosis or parasitism. Or those organisms which gemmate: when on can be taken as alive - on a parent body or when on it`s own. Fetus from the very beginning till the moment of birth is very dependant on its mother, but at the same time is separate form which gradually develops its own life systems...

As for psychology - does it say anything on this account? Due to my ignorance in that area I am not aware. But let me asume that as soon as "entity" develops its nervous system and can react on external irritant it is alive.

these two cases fall for 3rd and 4th poll items.

But it happened that human society created such thing as religion. In some types of it life never ends. This can cover 1st and 2nd items.

Once again back to psychology and definition of life - this brings you half-joky
half-seriuos comments made by Uncle Frank and ArmandV

i guess many just pick a position which does fit them the most either temporarily or for the lifetime. You can get there several points, Mikawa, that`s why this poll is not really a complete one %)
And now you can close the thread since further posts will be combination or/and development of those above (j/k)

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

To my opinion the main problem causes the definition of life itself....And this definition is more likely to determine the choice in current poll. Not to mention problems which arise when we shall define "human life" and then consider what to take into account - only biological, only social or both these sides.

Just for example, let`s choose purely biological point of view (or at least a layman approach). To be considered a form of life it is not necesseraly to be able to live on it`s own. Just think of various forms of symbiosis or parasitism. Or those organisms which gemmate: when on can be taken as alive - on a parent body or when on it`s own. Fetus from the very beginning till the moment of birth is very dependant on its mother, but at the same time is separate form which gradually develops its own life systems...

This also brings up the issue of the zygotes (the egg and the sperm). They, too, are certainly living cells. How do they fit into the equation?

But it happened that human society created such thing as religion. In some types of it life never ends. This can cover 1st and 2nd items.

True. Good point!

i guess many just pick a position which does fit them the most either temporarily or for the lifetime. You can get there several points, Mikawa, that`s why this poll is not really a complete one %)

I never claimed it to be complete. I am curious about different views and worldviews. I want to understand other opinions. This thread is not looking for the ultimate answer, but rather is looking for understanding.

I have thought about this, and I think that life truly is a continuum. I suppose you can say that a specific individual is created upon conception, but that individual's 'life' began even before that in the zygote stage.

And when a person dies, what exactly does that mean? None of the original cells are left, so in a way it's not even the same individual. Our 'consciousness' remains intact throughout our lifetime, but here's another angle to this question:

Sometimes when people suffer from head injuries, they change in personality. Is the previous person 'dead' in some way and a new person 'born' in that instant?

 

[nice gaijin]

I'm reminded of a George Carlin quote, went something like "I say life started a few billion years ago and it's an ongoing process."

Why are people so up in arms about someone terminating a pregnancy they are not ready for, when there's so much post-natal abortion going on. Is life any more or less precious when it's barely begun? Do we mourn the unborn group of cells that was destroyed 3 weeks after beginning to congeal because it "had so much potential," or do we mourn the 38 year old medical receptionist that was killed by a clinic bomber because she "was trying to support her own family and help people in need?" Where do our priorities lie? I think that if the question is "is there a certain point when abortion becomes murder?" I would say that within the first trimester would be an "acceptable" time frame, though it's been shown that cognition doesn't begin until much later than that.

Building on Ossan's last statement, we endure new experiences all the time that shift our perspectives and change the way we behave or look at things; it doesn't take a blow to the head to be born again (no religious pun intended). I may not subscribe to this definition of life and death, but I have looked at tis angle before.

I would say that life begins when you become conscious of your own existence. For most people, this never happens.

 

[Anchyyy]

Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live.

(by Dorothy Thompson)

 

[Mars Man]

Again, if I may here: I think it would be good to at least put a definition--attach a referent, if you will--to that term 'life' otherwise it may be hard to focus on a large number of points.

Opinions can be narrowed down to a smaller width of variance as clearer understanding is reached. This understanding would primarily come through that of nature around us as obtained through scientific method.

I would say that there could be 'life' which is the 'life force'. This is the collective noun-type usage when you find in 'search for life on Mars' type statements, or as in the George Carlin quote. This term is that large quite ambiguous, ameba-like phenomenon that life is--as opposed to an individual and distinct entity.

Then there could be 'life' as in the life of a distinct individual--a life. This usage is equal to the animated (in most cases) entity itself. This usage usually would require, within bounds, a fully self-aware, sentient consciousness and neural operation. From what I have learned, Nice Gaijin is correct in suggesting that any individual brain shifts and changes with each new input. (While the larger 'hard wiring' is fixed, the soft is not--thus, for example learning.) Therefore a life--in this sense--begins and ends. (as can best be determined through scientific method and that through the accumulation of human experience)

 

[Void]

I guess, Mars Man-sama, Mikawa just tempting us to start on our own with individual definition at hands. Hopefully it won`t turn into crusade
Looks like we are free to elaborate at any direction we wish to

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks Void--my dear friend from the days of good ole 'Serious Discussion' discussions !!

Yes, I understand, and think that he will get back and let us know what was on his mind about the definitions--although it looks like the poster's opinion on that is the one for that poster's opinion, so....

This is a very interesting subject, and has so many little delicate nuances that should be discussed well. Thanks for joining in !! I hope to hear more from you !! MM

 

[Void]

This also brings up the issue of the zygotes (the egg and the sperm). They, too, are certainly living cells. How do they fit into the equation?

may i narrow the field we are going to plow?
Let`s concider that these two don`t fit the equation regardless of the approach (life just biological or we add a religions/spiritual/ whatever else connotation)
And let`s speak only about "human life" as stated at the beginning of the thread

Since new body is a "product of combination" of two cells, we can take them as initiall "kick" (math equations allow initial condition as you know) and "building material". Ne?

 

[El P8s]

My grandmother explained it this way:

A curious young guy wants to now when life begins so he asks a katholic priest the priest answers "with conception".
He also asks a protestant Priest ,who answers "at birth"
He then meets a rabbi and asks him the same thing and the rabbi answers "as soon as the children have left the houese and the dog is dead".^^

 

[Damicci]

I voted other.
In my opinion life begins when we can make choices and conscious discoveries on our own.

But if we are talking creation of a living form, then it would be with the division of the egg. conception. Anything that can grow is alive, now there is always the option to allow it to live.

 

[Goldiegirl]

Life begins at conception. The cells are dividing and growing, to me those cells are alive. So I would say being alive begins at conception, but "living" your life starts when you are born.

 

[Mars Man]

While I appreciate the opinons and thoughts above, it is obviously clear, beyond any doubt, that because life can mean a number of states--taking that no set definition is being applied--and each poster is using a particular definition which may contradict the opinion of another poster simply due to different definitions, we can not have such a meaningful and educational discussion. I am afraid, in this case, that whatever learning process may be entailed in a discussion of this type, will be extremely weakened by such a 'free-for-all'.

To point out a matter, if I may--as Void has also shown, in so many words--it cannot be said, in the broader context, that life begins at conception, because, as has been most correctly observed and pointed out, the cells of the egg and sperm are very much alive! The sperm is even animate.

If one were to argue that a human being comes into existence at conception, they would have a little more ground upon which to base a more sensibly defendable position. That claim, nonetheless, will fall through regorous testing and natural observation. To appy any most realistic, scientific and peer-reviewed definition on what is 'human being', would definitely leave out the state in which there is no intact neurological system nor set-by-definition physical form. No, life in the sense of an individual human being (or any animal for that matter) does not begin at conception--we don't eat scrambled chicken for breakfast, but scrambled yolk and white. ( and sometimes we can find a small, somewhat congealed blob in there) MM

 

[a51ts4]

I think the life was never non existant. You have the living cell (sperm), fertalizing the egg. When the sperm dies, the egg has already started to grow. The life was just transfered/mutated into the egg.

This idea came to me as soon as I read the topic title. Makes sense to me, dunno how valid it is, though :/

Konbanwa!

 

[Goldiegirl]

Here in the USA we don't eat fertilized chicken eggs. Female chickens are kept together in small cages without a rooster...

Anyway living life is different than just being alive.

 

[Pepe]

Here in the USA we don't eat fertilized chicken eggs. Female chickens are kept together in small cages without a rooster...

That's because you don't want embryos in your cake, you want yolks.