why do people keep saying life begins at conception. Biologically, life is continuous and began some 3.5 billion years ago. The sperm and egg are every bit as alive 1 microsecond before conception as they are 1 microsecond after. What's all this "life begins at conception" nonsense, when it clearly began long long before conception?
2006-10-07 18:46:04 · 21 answers · asked by lenny 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Because life, in my opinion, can't be called "life" unless it can survive on its own and grow outside the body. Eggs and sperm are cells, but are not breathing beings capable of sustainable life.
I say life isn't "life" until at least 25 weeks gestation, at such a time that it can survive outside the womb. Not a popular opinion, I know, but one I'm comfortable with. And yes, I'm a parent of a beautiful son.
2006-10-07 18:55:08 · answer #1 · answered by Rogue Scrapbooker 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
While human life began long ago, each individual life certainly has a beginning and an end. Even after an egg and sperm combine, you do not have an individual human life. You might have tissue with the potential to become human life (if nothing goes wrong,) but you do not have a human being until the individual spirit enters the body. It takes months before sperm and egg become a body that is capable of supporting a spirit.
2006-10-07 19:12:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
People who say life begins at conception are referring to the zygote that results from the process of fusion of the ovum and the sperm. It really means "new life".
Not all of the zygotes make it to the embryo stage, however. Some die. People who are religious and believe God "breathes life" into the zygote at the moment of fertilization have to wonder about all these zygotes who never make it to the embryo stage. Does God make mistakes?
I cannot remember the percentage of zygotes which die. I think it is near 50 percent. This would imply that fertilization is a random joining of DNA from both parents that sometimes produces a viable organism and other times does not. Doesn't really seem that there is a God "directing" this process so that there are no screw-ups.
Referring to zygotes as "living" implies, as you pointed out, that sperm and ova are alive too. In the "natural" process of reproduction, there is a lot of death. Thousands of sperm die in the process, but we are not supposed to get upset at that because that's the way God arranged things. But the minute we make a decision to abort a fetus, that is murder, according to religious fundies, because we are killing something alive that would otherwise have developed into a human being.
How is that different than, on a given night, deciding to wear a condom or deciding not to have sex? Either of these decisions would prevent conception, which might have otherwise occurred, and the resulting birth of a baby which might have lived 70 years and had a full and productive life. The effect of an abortion and the effect of wearing condoms or abstinance are exactly equal...no baby is born.
When human decisions that result in preventing the birth of a baby are considered evil, then we are really saying that nothing we do in life is as important as producing all the babies we can. This renders us nothing but baby factories. For these reasons, I don't consider a zygote or an embroy or a fetus really alive I think the Supreme Court did a good job of weighin all te different views on this subject in "Roe vs. Wade".
2006-10-07 19:42:08 · answer #3 · answered by fergal_lawler_iowa 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it takes 46 chromosomes to make a human...a sperm only has 23 and an egg only has 23. Therefore, they may be produced by humans, but before conception, individually, the sperm and egg are not humans.
2006-10-07 18:47:28 · answer #4 · answered by Adyghe Ha'Yapheh-Phiyah 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Flamer alert!! But I will answer anyways. I think they mean HUMAN life. sure the sperm and egg are alive, but they will die on their own if there is no conception. Just think of the chicken egg, is it alive? Yeah, but it wont stay they way for long if its not fertilized.
So what is your point? That it's ok to kill unborn baby's, because the sperm and egg is alive? I don't see the logic there.
2006-10-07 18:55:02 · answer #5 · answered by A dude 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Huh? Ok - so that means that every man and every woman are potential parents of the nonexistant life? Because they exist with sperm and eggs? So who are the two parents of your life - every child has a male and female parent, right? - your logic is unsound and has a fatal flaw. There is no started life, no parents - no case to your argument. Sperm and eggs exist but they are not a human life - not until they unite then a life is begun. No life will go on after the parents die. They are part of reproductive person of a exiting person - not a new life on their own. I am against abortion but you have to defend it reasonably and logically. You have a potential life mixed up with a life - big difference you know!
Hello!!!!!!
2006-10-07 18:50:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Practicing abstinence is the only one to me that makes sence. Not so much for the reason, but because it prevents sexually transmitted diseases, adultry (if one is not married or is married and does so w/ someone else), other diseases, pregnancy, and so many other issues. As far as the others, until they are that age, or in that situation, they can't. The terms are they must be at that time. Who's to say that someone may turn 21, or retire? We don't know how long we will live. And pedophiles need to be castrated. No one deserves to be sexually abused, in any way, at any age, at any gender!
2016-03-28 01:24:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes the sperm and egg are alive, just as every skin and muscle and liver cell in your body are alive. But these are all YOUR cells, with YOUR genes, contributing to YOUR life. Once the sperm and egg unite, a new cell is formed that is NOT your cell, but the first cell of a NEW individual, a NEW life, a NEW human being, with different genes than either you or your partner. In fact, different genes than any other human being who has ever lived.
2006-10-07 19:34:59 · answer #8 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think the statement that you are quoting is really related to what people think about abortion. Some say its just a fetus, and isnt actually a human being. But you do make a very good point, life is continuous, I never thought of it that way, but I completly agree.
2006-10-07 19:14:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
an egg or a SPERM DO NOT have the complete genetics so as to tell either one to divide and grow.
Each one needs to be attached to another before the command to grow is given.
So no, an egg or a sperm independant of the other is not a life.
Each one has the capability when coupled together to become a life.
()()(
2006-10-07 18:52:57 · answer #10 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋