Yes! It begins to end as soon as it has started.
2006-06-17 17:31:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by vande-man 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Life does not need sex to start or multiply. Cloning has proved that fact. Life has two aspects: spiritual and materialistic. The spiritual concept of life is yet to be defined. No clear understanding of the spirit or soul is possible with the current tools man has. And to say the spirit is transmitted to the material body only through sex will be an assumption, not a fact. Also, saying so will contradict the birth of Adam and the birth of Jesus Christ. The material side, however, is a little bit clearer to science. Look at the DNA structure in the living cell and see how close it is to being a "chip" that contains all the particulars of a living structure. That "chip" can be transmitted through other means and not only sex.
Looking at life this way, the answer would be no, it is not a sexually transmitted disease.
2006-06-17 18:05:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by arabianbard 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Look at your use of terms. First, the more general term "disease." I've always thought this was a strange question to ask, because it's quite clear in the english use what the most broad meaning of this term. "Dis-ease." Disease. A "dis-easing", or departure from a natural state of health. Now, the natural state of life is to be healthy, because to be unhealthy is to be degrading to life, and a thing cannot contain a thing in its natural state contrary to itself. So, insofar as life is "ease", it cannot be "dis-ease."
I doubt anyone but the most hardened proponent of illogical thought would argue that sex does not transmit life. If anything, the proponents of abortion and contraception consider that fact the most immediate "problem."
2006-06-18 08:57:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tsunami 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, an STD obly applies for diseases that harm the condition or living, or life. Also, Life is created in the moment of conception throught biological interactions, instead, diseases are just passed from one body to another, they never start during the sexual reproduction.
2006-06-17 18:17:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your question is complex, because you are assuming that life is a disease when you ask if it is a more specific kind of disease, i.e. a sexually tranmitted one. You need to prove that if you want this question to have any meaning.
2006-06-18 08:50:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by mle_trogdor2000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
it is a bit unfair or depressing ,to call life a disease,but it is an effect of sexuality that is correct
even virgins were born because of sexuality
not all life is invasive or in excess ,only people
we can compare humanity to a plague.
almost a very good question
2006-06-17 17:32:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope- I think that there should be no doubt that life is a sexually transmitted spirit of love which may or may not infect the heart !
2006-06-17 17:32:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by DemonInLove 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No because life is the product of intercourse, and birth is a naturally occuring event. A disease would run more along the lines of a defect that would disrupt a naturally occuring life process.
2006-06-17 17:34:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Nick 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
yeah so make specific to no longer have intercourse with all and sundry who's alive till you utilize a condom in case you decide directly to stay secure and on no account be diseased with existence then basically prepare necrophilia with lifeless human beings
2016-12-08 22:12:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by rocca 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
disease depend the pathogen . some disease don't transfer and some of them transfer quickly
2006-06-17 17:37:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by reza m 1
·
0⤊
0⤋