With so many varying opinions, how can we resolve the issue of when life begins?

Question

? *** Conception?

? *** At the age the fetus is viable?

? *** At birth?

? *** The decision is entirely up to the mother?

? *** Other possible resolutions?

I recognize that there are deeply held beliefs, but they are simply that--beliefs. It is a value that varies between persons, families, churches, & cultures, but its resolution effects the lives of billions of women, and billions of fetuses / children.

What process of deciding this question should we use?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

When is your birthday?

Do you celebrate your conception day?

Answer 2

From dictionary.com, a standard definition of life:

"The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

Where do we draw the line at which this happens in a human? Does a fetus grow? yes. Does it have metabolism? yes. Is it capable of reproduction? yes (eventually. If you say a fetus is not alive because it cannot reproduce, then you can't technically call anyone under the age of 10 alive). Can a fetus adapt to its environment? yes.

What is different between a baby that has just been born (24 hours old, let's say), and a fetus, 24 hours before it has been born? They both depend on someone else for survival - either through feeding or through a placenta. If you look at all of the criteria above, the fetus and the newborn have all of the same characteristics.

Is a fetus self-aware? Piaget put this developmental milestone at several months after birth. Yet we still consider a 2 month old baby to be alive.

So if life begins before the birthing process, when does it start? I don't think it should be dependant on how a mother feels. Life begins whether I feel like it happening or not.

So is a sperm alive? An egg? No. Neither will ever reproduce to make another sperm. People reproduce with other people to make more people. Sperm do not reproduce with other sperm to make more sperm. They do not reproduce; they are not alive.

What about defining life as the time when a fetus is viable? The problem is that only God knows that. Every embryo and fetus is different. Some end up being inviable a few weeks after conception, some in a few months. Some babies are born dead, some are die a few days after birth. Any newborn left alone and naked in the woods would certainly die. Does that make them non-viable?

Conception is the only clear marker between life and non-life.

How this applies to individuals, laws, and morals is a seperate question.

Answer 3

It is indeed a matter of opinion, and realistically the only opinion that counts is the [potential] mother's. The father has an interest, certainly, as do the grandparents. But ultimately, when it is your own body that has been "invaded" by this fetus, you must decide how you will respond.

I got pregnant when I was about to start college, and realized the child would be born right during final exams if carried to term. Everyone who advised me -- the father, his parents, my minister -- steered me into the decision to have an abortion. Now I wonder why no-one suggested that I might want to raise the child myself or give it up for adoption in a way I could control. The only adoption I knew about was through agencies that would choose "straight" (i.e., not hip, rather than not gay) parents for the child, and bring it up as a square. No one told me about private adoption, where I could veto a set of parents I didn't like, and they would pay all my expenses.

What process in deciding the question? Get ALL the facts, including the fact of your closest friends' and relatives' opinions, and take enough time to decide that you do not have to regret it later. Myself, I never got pregnant again, and I often think about how I might be a beloved grandmother now if I had decided differently.

Certainly the issue of when the fetus becomes a person is relevant, but if you believe it is at conception, then there are fewer options. You still have some tough decisions to make.

Answer 4

We can only decide how to define it - we cannot get to the fact. Whatever is chosen as the definition is probably going to be wrong.

If it is left up to the mother, and different mothers choose different times, then most will be wrong.

If we choose birth, then since we have a defined event, more people could choose this time. But how could it possibly be right to choose a statistical convergence?

What is viable? A healthy full-term baby thrown in the dumpster is not going to live, whereas a preemie taken care of probably will. Interference invalidates the viability argument. Unfortunately since one cell can be considered alive, that throws out the only useful argument we had.

Why not use the predestination hypothesis and consider it alive before conception? This is probably absurd, but no more absurd than trying to place a time on when a foetus can be considered to be alive.

The best we can practically do to define a time is to say that it doesn't happen before conception, but this doesn't address the practical need of why we ask the question in the first place.

In conclusion (since this has turned into an essay), we have to decide whether to err on the side of caution or on the side of practicality/convenience.

Answer 5

this is a bit of a red herring. Pro-abortionists will admit that the fetus is alive, and many of them will even admit that it is a human being. If there is any real doubt, it is always best to err on the side of caution; if someone really doesn't know if the fetus is a human being, they should err on the side caution and treat it as if it was a human being.

The problem is other: a) is the fetus a 'person', which is the legal term, and b) when is it all right to kill a human being?

Question a) has been answered by courts, which are responsible for interpreting the law. Question b) is more difficult because many people get confused by question a) - they think that because the courts have deprived the human fetus of the word 'person' that somehow they waved their magic hands and deprived the fetus of its humanity. But the fact is that more and more pro abortion people are willing to admit that the fetus is a human being, but that it is all right to kill it anyways.

Answer 6

as a count of reality that this would be a ethical question. ethical questions under no circumstances have a conclusive end. as a count of reality that it rather is a life from the 2d the sperm and the egg meet. it rather is a residing, growing to be organism with a different DNA blueprint and a sexual identity. Now information is a distinctive subject all at the same time. you need to truly argue that a new child toddler has no conscious concept, for this reason this is not yet a individual and must be aborted. Is a individual who's below anesthesia a individual? No concept, no habit, no information, no pastime? ought to we placed somebody below anesthesia and then kill them because of the fact at that factor they weren't a self-holding conscious life? what approximately severely mentally disabled persons? the value of human life has fluctuated for the era of time and for the time of the international. making use of your logic shall we are saying that life has no meaning because of the fact no consensus would be made as to its value. merely because of the fact we've poor definitions for "life" does no longer propose that we ought to continuously be waiting to kill every person or something that doesn't greater healthful into our definition and is inconvenient. technology will under no circumstances remedy this argument. by ability of how, Mormons do no longer declare that "life" starts at concept, even though it rather is a brilliant sufficient deal that they want to err on the conservative factor and not pass around killing gods little ones, if that is so.

Answer 7

As with all moral issues, there is a vast gray area, and no clear answer, even if you follow a code like the Bible -- what if the mother had a 50% chance of dying if the abortion isn't done? What if it's a 75% chance?

To institute a broad and rigid rule governing this issue would be a mistake. There are all sorts of extenuating circumstances that need to be accounted for. As you mentioned, it will affect billions of people's lives, so even if a scenario is somewhat unlikely, someone will have to face it. So it's best to give them more freedom and the proper counseling and support.

Answer 8

I remember a case in California, the state wanted to bring murder charges against a man shot a woman and killed her unborn baby, but the argument was, if she is able to abort the child legally, how could he be brought up on murder charges. I think legally, the fetus should be considered a child when it no longer legal to abort the child. Morally I think life begins at conception, however, I don't think we should legislate morality.

Answer 9

Personal beliefs are always wrong if they are contrary to Scripture, that's easy! Genesis 2:7 clearly states; "Then the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground, and 'Breathed Into His Nostrils the 'BREATH OF LIFE'; and man became a 'Living Being'." Until God Imputes the "Breath of Life" simultainously with a "Soul" and the "Old Sin Nature (Original Sin)" THERE IS NO "HUMAN" LIFE!!! A Biological growth is there with the "Potential" of becoming a Human Life, but God must do this as we are uncapable to Create anything much less the Human Soul. Does this give us license to destroy the Fetus as a means of "Birth Control", ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!! Is abortion of a non viable Fetus to save the mother acceptable, YES!!! It is ALWAYS BETWEEN GOD, MOTHER & DR. PERIOD!!! God didn't die & leave ANY Human in charge! For people to force their EVIL Will upon anyone else in this matter is the epittomy of SELF- RIGHTOUS ARROGANT LEGALISIM!!!!! John

Answer 10

why not use the Bible's definition?

Exodus 21:22 clearly states that causing the death of an unborn child is roughly equivalent in severity to killing cattle (both offenses subject to fine). Causing the death of the mother herself though is a capital offense. So, presumably the Bible does not recognize life until the moment of birth.

Answer 11

Science already knows when the life of an individual begins:

"Fertilization: Beginning a new organism

"Fertilization is the process whereby two sex cells (gametes) fuse together to create a new individual with genetic potentials derived from both parents. Fertilization accomplishes two separate ends: sex (the combining of genes derived from the two parents) and reproduction (the creation of new organisms). Thus, the first function of fertilization is to transmit genes from parent to offspring, and the second is to initiate in the egg cytoplasm those reactions that permit development to proceed." -- Developmental Biology, 6th edition