Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Kuldeep]

A Good ending I suppose !

But the thread question remains,

Does life begin at conception?

this I modified years before as:

Does Individual life begin at conception?, since original life started long long long long.... time ago !!

[Median]

Life begins at birth just as ideas and sentences are born when you speak them.
When they are in your head/womb they are potential, when they come out, they run their course of life.

[Eraldo Coil]

Very interesting. I never thought of it that way. However, fellow debaters may slam you for making a comparison between potential life, and potential words.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Eraldo Coil Very interesting. I never thought of it that way. However, fellow debaters may slam you for making a comparison between potential life, and potential words.

The point was made. Personally, I don't believe in abortations, however there're exceptions.

That's all I'm saying on the subject.

[Shamantiks]

It's my personal belief (no proof to offer) that the soul "drives" a body by operating and inhabiting the brain. Without a brain, the soul cannot inhabit a human or animal. So until the brain has been mostly developed, there should be no moral issue. What does the soul do while waiting for the fetus to develop? Not time well spent. It has no body to operate, no brain to begin thinking with, no eyes to see and no arms to interact with.

St Augustine's first trimester rule posted previously sounds reasonable and that's basically how I have felt about it. That would solve most of the problem for most people on both sides, if the Christian right would agree.

I suppose a Christian could counter with the "assignment of the soul". When is a soul 'assigned' to a body by god? While it cannot inhabit the body (in my opinion) until later, it could be given it's mission prior to that. I don't believe this in any way though.

[Napkin23]

You know theres this crazy religion forgot what its called that believes that life starts somewere between 5 months - birth justs omewere in between there not sure, ANYWAYS >.> but for my arguement on the matter.
Well the problem with the whole abortion arguement is when do you consider the fetus to be alive is it at conception or is it at birth or some were in between, I mean until we have a line drawn we can't really say if its right or not because it's not our child and it is not any of our buisness. But another thing is you can't have some abortions ok and some others not because that is really hippocratic, I mean lets say we consider conception to be when the baby is alive (not my views just an example) then regardless of who the father is it is not the babys or (fetus which ever you prefer) fault, and doesnt make that babys or (fetus once again choose your preferance) fault. Now I havn't really stated my opinion here just problems in the whole logic of other peoples, but I feel it should be up to the person who is having the baby not the family not her friends, and some crazy religous group (yea you guys know who you are xD), and most certainly not the governments.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Kuldeep Does Individual life begin at conception?

Our individual lives began at conception, yet every conception does not produce a human life.

[Median]

The fetus is attached to the mother, it requires the physical connection to the mother to continue growing and be born, a child outside the mother does not require a physical connection to the mother.

The fetus is an extension of the mother until birth when it becomes a separate human being.


Life begins at birth.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Median The fetus is attached to the mother, it requires the physical connection to the mother to continue growing and be born, a child outside the mother does not require a physical connection to the mother. The fetus is an extension of the mother until birth when it becomes a separate human being. Life begins at birth.

Why discuss this anymore, what good is going to do?

[Median]

Quote by: namguy69 Why discuss this anymore, what good is going to do?

Its an argument for life beginning at birth, and a very good one.

Why not post it?

[minorwork]

Quote by: namguy69 Why discuss this anymore, what good is going to do?

It is good as it succintly states the case for the woman being in charge of her body. What good is your post?

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: dotcoma I used to be pro-choice, but I thought about it for a while, and the privacy issue no longer makes sense to me. If you truly beleive life begins at conception then you have no right to privately destroy that life. It is like taking someone's life in your basement and claiming prosecution would be a violation of privacy in my opinion. So what are you feelings on this controversial social issue?

Here are some links for the pro-choice people:

Abortion Truth.com - pictures of abortion, abortion techniques

AbortionTV Pictures #1

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: minorwork It is good as it succintly states the case for the woman being in charge of her body. What good is your post?

The SERIOUS fallacy in your statement is the truth:

Once that body has a fetus inside of it, it ceases to stop being her body alone.

If women are no longer considered property of their husbands, why are fetuses considered property of women?

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Median The fetus is attached to the mother, it requires the physical connection to the mother to continue growing and be born, a child outside the mother does not require a physical connection to the mother. The fetus is an extension of the mother until birth when it becomes a separate human being. Life begins at birth.

A helpless being is not a "non" being. Your arguement also states that people should not be on life support, because they are physically connected to something else; and, therefore, do not deserve to be. Your arguement also states that people shouldn't get medication, because it's the medication that's keeping them alive. It goes on and on . . .

FAILED LOGIC!

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: minorwork Our individual lives began at conception, yet every conception does not produce a human life.

What's your point? How does nature's selection have to do with a human being knowingly terminating another's life? The mother terminating the fetus doesn't know whether that child will be capable of survival or not. Nature has that ability!

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: napkin23 you know theres this crazy religion forgot what its called that believes that life starts somewere between 5 months - birth justs omewere in between there not sure, anyways >.> but for my arguement on the matter. Well the problem with the whole abortion arguement is when do you consider the fetus to be alive is it at conception or is it at birth or some were in between, i mean until we have a line drawn we can't really say if its right or not because it's not our child and it is not any of our buisness. But another thing is you can't have some abortions ok and some others not because that is really hippocratic, i mean lets say we consider conception to be when the baby is alive (not my views just an example) then regardless of who the father is it is not the babys or (fetus which ever you prefer) fault, and doesnt make that babys or (fetus once again choose your preferance) fault. Now i havn't really stated my opinion here just problems in the whole logic of other peoples, but i feel it should be up to the person who is having the baby not the family not her friends, and some crazy religous group (yea you guys know who you are xd), and most certainly not the governments.

abortion shouldn't be a religious matter!

It is a humanity matter!

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Antares I do think life begins at conception, because technically even the zygote is "alive". However, it is also uniquely dependent and parasitic on another organism; the mother and it increases the chance of death of the mother by 10 - 13 % (Opposing Viewpoints). No one should be obliged to risk their health and life for another organism, and mothers are no different. The fetus has no right to use the mother's body unless otherwise granted by the mother.

And that right was granted when the MOTHER HAD UNPROTECTED SEX!

[Jinei]

In my opinion, the fetus, like every other human cell of the body, does not deserve human rights until it develops the capacity of thought - that is, until its brain starts to show brain activity. Before then, the fetus is alive, to be sure. But since when has something that is alive ever deserved human rights? Animals are alive; plants too. What distinguishes human life from all others is our capacity to think. And it is when the fetus shows brain activity that I consider it deserving of human rights; namely, the right to life.

[Matt W]

Katie, it is possible to multiquote...please don't post 4/5 times in a row, it starts to make the thread udreadable.

[Jinei]

Quote by: Median The fetus is attached to the mother, it requires the physical connection to the mother to continue growing and be born, a child outside the mother does not require a physical connection to the mother. The fetus is an extension of the mother until birth when it becomes a separate human being. Life begins at birth.

I don't think so. What magical event happens in those few seconds between being in the mother and being born that all of a sudden grants the baby human rights? And as Sweet Katie brought up, people on life support, by this definition, aren't alive. The only way I would agree with that (read my previous post) is when the patient is brain-dead and is on life-support. But if someone is still capable of thought and is simply on a respirator, I would consider that person alive, however crippled.