When Does Life Begin?

If there is no chance to for the brain to heal, they are not. They are declared brain dead and dismantled for transplantation organs (even tough the body could indeed live on life support for a long time, with dead brain).

This shows that it is the functioning brain what we value in humans, not mere biological human life.

 

Life begins at conception. It comes from a living being into a living being and is instantly a life form in the first stage of development.

 

then you confirm what i said to know to be true

life begins when the heart beats

 

hmmm, do plants have a heart? lemme go get my stethoscope and check


honestly, what kind of nonsense question is that? This thread is about human beings

 

You don't know it to be true. You believe that it's true.

I believe the life of an individual human being begins after the first breath.

 

How it confirms such a thing? Heart is completely irrelevant for brain death.

Life of a human body begins at conception.
Life (existence) of a human person begins with the appearance of mind.

No heart needed. Heart is just a pump.

 

Are you saying plants are not alive? lol

 

Why heartbeat? I dont see why this particuar organ should have any special significance.

Anyway, I think human life (in the biological sense) begins at conception. I also believe that human life with no chance for higher brain functions (such as embryos, early foetii and braindead but biologically alive humans) deserves no right to life.

 

As I've tried to suggest before, what we are talking about is potential, human life. If someone tore up the plans for a building it would be regarded as rather different from burning the completed building down. The potential human lives off its mother and cannot live without her, so laying down the law about what she MUST do is just silly, because you can't make her, not even if you lock her up, have a child she believes she can't look after. Any moral questions concerned are questions for her, not a lot of self-righteous males. The question of 'life' is therefore a red herring. The lack of independent existence is what this is about.

 

nah

the thread is about when life begins

naturally, the extinguishing of life is thus murder. So, if life begins at conception as some would say, then to extinguish that life from day one is murder.

I believe life begins at the heartbeat thus extinguishing that life (about 4-5 weeks and forward) is then murder.

Others who are pro abortion (such as yourself except that is wasn't good if it were done to you) want to say that it's not life until birth so perhaps to relieve the guilt of murder

 

I have a few on the side of my house which I wish weren't

can't keep the things pruned

 

As it isn't, we can safely say that life doesn't begin at conception.

Well, no. I know for a fact abortion isn't murder and never has been, so I have no guilt from which I need to be relieved.

Moreover, if my mother had chosen to abort me before I was born, then it wouldn't bother me one jot.

 

A flea has life. Naturally the extinguishing of this life is NOT murder, because it isn't an independent human being.

All this stuff is pure jesuitry: the single person who is actually independently there is the only person concerned.

 

So, you're saying that you're pro-abortion as long as it happens before the first heartbeat?

Also, I'm curious. Why the heart? Why not the kidneys? If your kidneys stop working then you die. Why not the liver? You can't live without one of those.

 

you're trying to go down a bunny hole which is a failed tactic

without a heart, the kidneys, lungs, testicles, vagina, liver are all moot

 

I would be called "pro-choice"

there are 2 people involved with abortions (3 if you include dad)

I believe the child should have a say as to whether or not he/she wishes his/her life to be terminated.

That is true pro-choice

 

Without lungs, a heart, the kidneys, testicles, vagina, liver are all moot

Without liver, a heart, the kidneys, lungs, testicles, vagina, are all moot

There is nothing special about heart.

 

Without the kidneys the heart is moot. Without the liver the heart is moot. Without the lungs the heart is moot. I'm seriously tying to understand why you find this particular organ so important when it comes to determining the beginning of life. Why the heart and not any of the others that are absolutely necessary for the body to sustain itself?

 

Fine, so you think that the "baby" should be consulted after it's heart starts beating, but before that you're ok with abortion?

 

You cannot, as the foetus is incapable of any emotion or thought, including wishing something, before 5th month of pregnancy. And even later, it is debatable.

 

Yes, the life of a cow begins at conception. But I'm still going to kill and eat it when it grows up. So this isn't about the sacredness of 'life', which people are myopically defining as exclusively human.

This is about a handful of religious nuts treating a bundle of cells as if it had the rights of a full human being. Frankly the cow has a better argument for 'rights' than the bundle of cells ...

 

What the heck are you comparing here? Do you eat human babies or something? Geesh...the lengths some of you pro-aborters will go to. The discussion is about HUMAN LIFE...Get a clue.

 

Predictable response, complete with missing the point(s) and failure to understand complex concepts. Thank you for your participation.

This should be directed at the Op who started this thread with the flawed premise that LIFE = human embryo. If supporters of Op were really concerned about HUMAN LIFE, they would put as much energy into stopping wars and domestic violence[the main threats to children's lives] as they do in opposing abortion.

 

I fail to understand how your comparison of humans to cows is somehow a 'complex concept.' Seems rather juvenile to me.

So, in your highly estimable opinion, a human embryo is dead?

But the thread is not about wars, domestic violence etc.

 

Still missing those points and loving it I see!

Strawman.

Point. But it's not about LIFE as it claimed to be either; it was trying to equate LIFE = human embryo, ergo flawed premise.

A human embryo is as alive as is an amoeba, a cow and a pot plant. But that does not give it rights equal to an human being except in the imagination of a religious fanatic.