At what point is life formed? Why?

Question

Obviously there's no correct answer to this, I just wanted to see some opinions.

Do you believe it's upon ejaculation? Is it upon conception? Is it upon a certain week of pregnancy? Is it when the baby comes out?

What makes it life at the point you believe it becomes one? Is it the possession of a soul, a heartbeat, a brain, or what?

Gary - That is a terrible tragedy! It is a sad state when the Republican party calls one of the truest conservatives there ever was a radical liberal. I guess that shows how far the GOP has come from a conservative ideal to a Christian fundamentalist/liberal/neo-con point of view.

Answer 1

Obviously, you mean specifically human life. On a very basic level, there is not a clearly defined distinction between ‘non-living’ and ‘living’ molecules. There is no apparent qualitative big jump from one level to the other, but rather a fuzzy transition based on biochemical processes and reactions. In the past, some groups believed that the ‘spirit’ of human life did not enter the body until a child was old enough to begin walking and talking (until they began displaying ‘adult-like’ behavior).

The bottom line is that there is no single point that can be identified as the beginning of life, just like there is no way to triangulate to a specific location of the Big Bang (because of relativity, it is visible from every location and in every direction).

****************************

B. Goldwater –

Do you know that in your earthly home state of Arizona, Republicans want to rename the Goldwater republican headquarters because they say your name embarrasses them? They think that you (and John McCain) are un-American radical liberals.

Answer 2

They are determining the impact of "pre-natal" experiences, debating the concept of inherited collective memory or instinct, and what actually makes up the "soul" or personal idendity, all the while. Undoubtedly we continue "inner growth" all our life. It's easiest to say it begins with the moment that which both male and female contribute, combine into a single organism, or for some, when there is clearly a heart function. A tiny fetus does respond to stimuli. A baby, dependent on it's mother internally, could be likened to a parasite in that it's still an independent life form. And it's a question of women wanting to have sex with men they don't want fathering their child, or being too lazy to use birth control, or just thinking they can achieve greater works in this world than having kids (and a considerable study of those who had abortions later regretting it, especially if they never have kids, develope cancers, etc.). Abstinence or "safe sex" if you don't want to get pregnant is a whole lot better. Of course men who want to run around with teenage girls want to be able to have abortions without their parents knowing. If a conceived, one day old fetus has a conscience, has a soul, a life, why is it guilty and deserves death for the actions of it's parents? I find it curious when the same people who support abortion argue that convicted murderers shouldn't be put to death because it's "inhumane". I'd put even those who murder abortion doctors to death, the idea (mine anyways) is you don't go around killing people unless they pose a threat to society, what threat does the baby pose? That must be debated, intelligently, by the mother. I guess I would say it should be her decision, if she does not care for it she is apt to be a poor mother anyways, but abortion for minors without parental consent is empowering the exploitation of young women. I have no doubt about that.

Answer 3

Life is continuous. Living human sperm and ova are alive, and merely merge at conception.

This is scientific fact, as dead sperm and dead ova can never merge at conception.

Every one of us grew from individual living human sperm and ova. That differentiates them from other types of living cells like skin and muscle, which never grow into an adult human.

All stages of human life are alive and human, this is a biological fact. Sperm, ova, zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, child, toddler, kid, teenager, adult, old fart.

Why is this question political anyway, it should be biology. Below is a political answer.

Whether it be global warming, or where life begins, conservatives do not get the benefit of ignoring or refusing to acknowledge vital aspects to the process. Let me ask the question a different way? If we were to reverse the life development process and reduce it to its smallest common denomenator, so to speak, which part of the process could either be ignored, or omitted? The answer is none. Therefore, life begins not when it's convenient to the conservative argument, life is continuous.

I have heard that individual living human sperm and ova babies are far more intelligent than conservative radio talk show hosts.

Answer 4

I believe that there's clearly a correct answer to this question. Since you cannot eliminate any portion of the process, whether you're talking about fertilization, embryonic, fetus, or otherwise. It seems clear to me that life begins at conception. I've always been suspect of anyone who must argue a concept by eliminating either a stage of development, or vital facts.

Whether it be global warming, or where life begins, liberals do not get the benefit of ignoring or refusing to acknowledge vital aspects to the process. Let me ask the question a different way? If we were to reverse the life development process and reduce it to its smallest common denomenator, so to speak, which part of the process could either be ignored, or omitted? The answer is none. Therefore, life begins not when it's convenient to the liberal argument, but when it begins, at conception.

Answer 5

There is biological life, which begins at conception.

There is human life which begins at the first breath after being born. This is when the soul is imputed by the creator.

Biological life, without outside influence, has the complete potential to become human life.

While I do not agree that abortion is murder I do not see it as 100% justifiable, due to the potential for human life to be imputed by the creator. It's just not the same as murder, but is equally damaging to the potential for human life to continue.

Answer 6

I'm going to have to go with the creation of the brain, and in particular, the higher-brain.

Here's my reasoning:

If I lose my finger, I'm still me. If I lose my arm, I'm still me. If I lose arms and legs, I'm still me. But if I lose my head (my brain), I'm no longer "me." Therefore, the seat of the self is in the brain. So, no brain=no self=no person.

I say only "higher brain" because even gnats have brains, but I don't accord them "personhood." Therefore, not all brains are equal. So, if I merely have my medulla, and cerebellum, I don't think I would be me. Indeed, I wouldn't think at all, but merely breathe. So, it must be in the cerebrum that we find the heart of what it is to be a human.

Answer 7

I believe it's at conception. None of us were ever not one celled organisms. And at 3 months you can actually see a heartbeat on an ultrasound.

Answer 8

well one thing is for sure we need medicine to go back and formally evaluate when it is harmfull to the fetus to abort it. Almost every abortion aborts a already human resembled baby.
I believe that upon union of the egg and sperm is considered when life is formed. Since technically Sperm is more like a virus than a living cell.

Answer 9

I believe that life begins at conception. That is the point at which all of the "ingredients" for a human being come together.

Answer 10

hmmmm...I guess life is life when it is viable. When it can exist on it's own. I believe this about machines that keep people 'alive' as well. But if a machine will help soomebody recover, then I am all for it. Like incubators...