When does life begin ? Beat to death on some threads perhaps, but always worth looking at and inresponse to stork and others here's my proof.
Life is one of those things I have been arguing that IS regardless of what you or I think. Opinions, idea and beliefs will not change when life begins or if something is alive.
I think starting at when life begins is an excellent place to actually define life. Once life begins, it has to die to cease living, can we all agree with that ? What I'll do is look at a few beliefs on when life begins and why - common arguments that don't hold water and those that do. Ready ? Feel free to destroy any argument I make and idea that I put forth
Viability Argument
Really a silly one and we'll start with it. Merriam-Websters defines viable as
capable of living; especially : capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support
So is a baby born 10 weeks premature that has to live in an incubator alive ? Of course it is - but only with the artificial support that violates the above defintiion. So of course viability is easy to shoot down, we all know of babies - and adults, who have been on life support and been very alive ... but not viable.
Life (as we are discussing life) can be defined as ....
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings -- compare VITALISM 1 c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
M-W also includes " the period from birth to death " in the definitions ... so which is it ? Definitions are not always 100%, but s defining words is am important part of debate/sharing ideas and M-W is a good place to start. Anyway, on the " the period from birth to death " thing ..... is birth the beginning of Life ?
Birth Argument
Well, M-W defines life at one point as birth starting life, I am saying thats incorrect. Why ? Before birth a LOT of things happen that can only happen to a living human being. Biologically, from very early on and especially into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, its obvious that unborns are alive. How ? One example, irrefutable, is the pre-birth operations on unborn babies that are still in the womb. This cannot happen unless WHAT they are operating no is alive. True or not ? Those unborns in the later weeks of pregnancy have every characteristic of a born being, so saying that at birth they "magically" come to life - silly.
Hearbeats, brain waves, cardiovacular system, digestive system etc etc etc .... all working and developing and doing what those things do .... is it possible unless its in a living human being ? I cannot think how it could be, can you ? So we at elast know I think that if those thigns exist, that the unborn is alive. I mean, even at as early as like 22 weeks or before premature babies can be helped outside the womb and can survive. Does anyone NOT agree with that ?
Moving on, what about before 22 or 20 weeks ?
Heartbeat argument
My brother has this view - if its got a heartbeat, its alive, living and because of that stopping a beating heart is a death.
Not bad really, it makes some sense. Without a beating heart - natural or not - we will all cease to live. Right or Wrong ? But what about that magic moment right before the heart takes its first beat ? Does that unborn not have other characteristics of life ? Is it not growing, developing in other areas that are required of a living being ? That heartbeat is usually around week 8 or 9 I believe - fairly early on.
Here's the kicker though - if you hold to this belief, when and how can you draw the line ? The timeline a pregnancy is based on is very shaky at most - women can be plus or minus 2-3 weeks on their due dates. Setting a time line wouldn't work with this argument, allowing for monitoring of hearbeats to determine if there is one would also be pretty iffy, wouldn't it , and easily manipulated ?
[/u]pregnancy argument[/u]
M-W says
containing unborn young within the body
Doesn't say alive or not, does it ? However, if the unborn is not alive, what does that make it ? A pregnancy must have two things - a living mother and a living unborn. Without one or the other a pregnacy does not exist. Right or wrong ? When a pregnancy ends early due to natural reasons, its called a miscarriage, correct ?
M-W says
" spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable and especially between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation "
Ahhh, another time that M-W isn't all inclusive. It says before viability - meaning it can survive outside the womb by itsself without aid - but we already know that its quite possible to live outside the womb and be DEPENDENT of aid and be very much alive. I don't know where the 12th-28th weeks come in at either as most miscarriages I was thinking were prior to the 6th and 8th weeks or pregnacy ?
Anyway, I again repeat that without a living mother and unborn, a pregnancy cannot be continuing. This is another True I believe, that whatver we wish to think it will not change what IS. You cannot think away a pregnancy, pretend its not there and it go away. Don't work like that. I think this is a very strong arugment.
[/u] Life at conception[/u]
Some hold dear to this one, my wife included. Its very strong indeed, and has few holes. Life begins when the egg and sperm meet and create a zygote. At that point you got DNA of a speperate individual human being and it'll be growing and developing like crazy until it dies. Some would argue that sperm and the egss are also alive - but NOT in the sense of alive that we early on defined. Grass in the lawn is "alive" but not in the same sense.
My only flaw in this belief is that every fertilized egg that doesn't attach to the uteran wall are living human beings that don't make it. Every fertilized egg that is used in stem cell research is basically killing a living human entity. Right or wrong ?
What do ya'll think ?
me stance on when life begins - beat it
