Interestingly, most answerers are giving the pat religious answer to the effect that life begins at conception. That is convenient, because it creates a clear-cut rule and allows some people to place the "blame" for conception on the woman.
Fortunately, biological functions do not usually follow such clear cut rules. It is true that your question is largely a religious/philosophical one, and most answerers have taken it as such. There is a biological component to it, though.
The way your question is couched, the topic is HUMAN life, rather than just life in general. True, the merging of genetic material from two parents is a biological function, as are the start of the heart and brain electrical activity.
But the first heartbeat and the first brain electrical activity are far from being aspects of HUMAN life. Same events occur in the life of a tadpole. Human thought requires a fully formed prefrontal cortex, and that happens somewhere in the third trimester, and usually in the middle of the eighth month. So from a biological standpoint, that is when the HUMAN life of the embryo starts.
The religious persons present are welcome to hate me for this answer, and to consider me a godless commie if they want to. Their wishes do not affect reality in the least.
Good night, all!
2006-12-28 13:41:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by aviophage 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I honestly think the best answer to this question is that life begins when the fetus is able to live outside the mother's womb, which, with technology always advancing, makes it earlier and earlier. On a personal level though, I think once the heart begins to beat is a significant moment in life. Of course, what would life be without a brain? Maybe the first brain wave, the first thought is the moment life begins for a person. It all depends on how you want to define life. It is a very relative issue and this is why abortion is a difficult issue to resolve in such a way that all are happy.
PS I think everyone is going to miss the philosophical point of your question because this question has been overly politicized by the abortion issue.
Hope this helps.
2006-12-28 13:03:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by vidigod 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
the answer for your question is that not all and sundry experience the same way. There are some professional-selection those who trust that a fetus would not have rights until eventually the top has actual emerged from the beginning canal. There are some who actual trust that if a baby is born alive because the outcome of a botched abortion, that's alright to go away that kid to die. diverse human beings position the line in diverse places, and all of it boils right down to man or woman moral experience. some, like you curiously, trust that existence starts at concept and should be dealt with because the efficient present that is. Others, as you communicate about, positioned the line on the viability of the toddler to live on outdoors the womb, others at the same time as that is concept the toddler can experience soreness. all of us have our personal moral compass. So that is as a lot as you to stay your existence in accordance for your man or woman moral and moral compass, and allow others to do the same. If the habit of our society is an outrage to you that you may't stay with, then talk out.
2016-12-01 06:58:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's a difference between "alive" and "a life". An egg is alive, but it is not a life. A sperm is alive, but it too is not a life. A fertilized egg is also alive and has the capacity to become a life, but it is not life at that stage.
Implantation into the uterus must occur, and sometimes that happens and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it does occur but the woman has a miscarriage.
I agree with the person who posted that an embryo should be considered a life when it is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb.
2006-12-28 14:01:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by ruadhdarragh 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Almost immediately after the sperm and egg join, the cell that is created is a different organism from the mother. The DNA of the orgaism is a brand new combination. It is a new life. I think at that point it is a baby that can grow to an adult human if conditions are right, and if the DNA works well together (lacks fatal defects). What you think is up to you to decide, I suppose. But the fact is clear, it is a life different than it's mother or father.
(So far: Thumbs down because I present the facts along with what is CLEARLY stated as my opinion? Seems unfair, but those with adgendas don't want to be fair. The DNA makes the new organism different than its parents, and that is fact. Whether you consider it "viable" or not is up to you and your own soul.)
2006-12-28 13:07:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Dont mix life and soul. Life begins when the zygote (the first cell of the embryo) is formed. Soul is something heavily disputed.
2006-12-28 12:52:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by cyberbob2or12 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Sounds like you're talking about a soul. There is no such thing. And this is the wrong forum. If you want to ask about delusions, go to the Religion & Spirituality section.
2006-12-28 14:26:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Afater three weeks the heart starts to beat and at six weeks brain waves can be detected. If you ask me as soon as conception occurs, there is a little life inside you. That is so hard for me to say too because I had to have an abortion once. It killed my soul.
2006-12-28 12:53:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by amy f 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
Life, both biologically and of the soul; begins at conception.
2006-12-28 13:38:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by R. D 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
That is a philosophy and theology question more than a biology question.
2006-12-28 13:12:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jerry P 6
·
3⤊
0⤋