DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk K-9 Consensus When does life begin?

I don't want to turn this into a pro/anti abortion feud, but the thread in the political forum raised this interesting question. I believe that life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized and a zygote is formed.

When does life begin? single choice
	At conception
	When there's a detectable heartbeat
	Third trimester of pregnancy
	When the first breath of air is taken
Votes accepted starting: 03/17/19 11:34 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

The one time in my life where I truly don't feel comfortable taking a position, and you go ahead and don't put a "I don't know" option...

Figures.

I can't edit it, the time expired....otherwise I would.

Do you really not know if a life has begun when a baby takes its first breath of air ... outside of the mother's body?

Conception.

The Contra’s didn’t need to abort children, like the Sandinista’s did, they used, contraception.

Well done!

Sorry, I don't understand your point, Tulsa.

Other than it’s just a play on words, there really was no point.

I always felt when therlike was blood flow.... There's a couple verses about lifeblood in the Bible which is why I think it's when the heart beats...

I get the people who aregue conception... but disagree... put up thirty different species of embryos at conception and there's no way to pick out the human...

I don't understand the people that say an embryo isn't human until birth... that's just crazy in My opinion... the only other arguement that I can get behind is when the embryos become viable outside the womb... which is getting earlier...

Oh... and I want to say obviously the embryos is alive at conception... but I don't know if it has a soul at that point... I believe an embryo gets a soul when the heart starts to beat...

If we're not sure, and I mean absolutely certain, when a child gets his/her soul .... shouldn't we assume it's immediately?

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you …"

There is no greater misconception as to what a soul is (and why the term soul sleep is an oxymoron). A soul is your phsical body, add the breath of life, (the spirit) and you become a living being (in the biblical sense).

From dust thou art and from dust thou shalt return, but the spirit (breath of life) returns to God who gave it. Only when the two are united\re-united is a person a living being.

This is why most Christians believe that life begins at conception.

Conception. Impossible to argue otherwise.

So listen, I am going to leave this here. its 4 minutes long. I beg you PLEASE watch it, even if you have your mind made up, watch it. you think about what he is telling you....you weigh that, is it really the right to choose?

I say that once the Organ most vital to being alive is formed. Once you have a heartbeat, you're a human.

That's really intense and thought provoking.

Yet the entire medical community has established that life is based on brain activity.

So, you're opting for late 2nd/early 3rd trimester? Here's an article exploring the question:



NYT

Who knew I was going to read of the Iran Contra's and the Sandinista's ,

Welcome Back 1982! \0/

I'll agree with the bold part.

No idea where you got the soul as the physical body, though.

I've always kind of thought of the soul as kind of the underlying, metaphysical pattern that the physical body and "breath of life", as you call it, are somehow attached to.

As far as the bigger debate, I think asking when (biological) life begins is somewhat asking the wrong question.

Grass can be dead or "alive," but that doesn't stop me from riding my mower over it.

I think "when does self awareness begin?" might be a better question, but it's still problematic. It would be very hard to test.

Perhaps my answer to when does life begin would be when the part of the brain that allows self-awareness develops (when speaking in a humanistic sense). However, that leaves the question of whether the "soul"/spirit is self-aware or if they even exist in a scientific sense, since I'm not sure hard evidence of them exist.

I advocate a legal precedent that can be held up in court applies until such time Roe vs Wade is overturned.

I don't believe "brain activity" begins that late in a pregnancy. But at this monent in time, more people are basing their opinions on their personal beliefs than anything that is applicable by law. Those are two different things.

Here is the difference I see between somebody who is considered brain dead, and a baby in the womb. The person who is considered brain dead is not going to get better. The baby in the womb is going to keep developing and be normal.

Example my family knows I don't want my life extended if I have to live on machines. HOWEVER if I had to live on machines for a few months then could live a normal life without them you bet your ass I would want to be put on them.

At conception..

And good luck hoping this doesn't turn into an abortion feud.

I'm certainly not going to debate that there isn't a difference on the circumstances. Even though there's no guarantee that the baby will turn out to be normal or that a person who is brain dead has zero chance of recovery. But I get your point.

But legally there's a precedent on what constitutes life. Now you may say that should depend on circumstances. But do you really think from a legal standpoint you can say there are different definitions of what constitutes life?

I don't have a problem if Roe vs Wade is overturned. On a personal level I disagree with abortion. But I do feel that in a court they will look at legal precedent as a guide to make a ruling. And in no circumstance has a heartbeat been used as a gauge to determine life.

I just don't think that standard will hold up in court.

My position is, and always has been, that no one can know exactly when that spark of life is created inside a child. No one except God, of course. We can debate it, and question it ...... but no one knows exactly when that spark ignites life inside a mother's womb.

Since we cannot know exactly when the child "becomes alive", we must protect that life. We can't say, well, the child is not alive before the 2nd trimester, so any abortion prior to that is OK, because we simply don't know. Since we don't know, it is rather heartless to just decide that the child is not "yet" alive.

How would it feel if someone just wasn't quite sure if you were really alive, and couldn't prove it based upon their own set of prescribed beliefs, and decided to eliminate you out of convenience? How about your small child? Your adult child? I can't think of anyone who would find that to be acceptable, yet so many want to apply arbitrary standards and timelines for when that magnificent moment of "being alive" happens.

You're hedging your bets.. which I don't dispute... but I still believe life begins at heartbeat.... put up three embroidered at conception and tell me which on is the human... it's impossible...

Brain activity starts pretty early... like 5-6 weeks.... so if you base life off of brain activity then itd be pretty early...

I'd guess life begins at the point God wants you to have a child.
I dont feel that applies to all fetuses for numerous reasons.
It is only when you are meant to have it that you have it.

I realize that this isnt a scientific conclusion. But all life events arent scientific.

And I see nothing wrong with that.

What everyone seems to do is base this on their personal feelings, on God or some other metric that the law simply doesn't consider. My opinion on the matter is based on what the law of the land recognizes as "what constitutes life".

As of this moment and for quite some time, the law has considered the lack of brain activity as no longer being alive. The sure sign of life or the absence of it.

States keep passing legislation based on "feelings and beliefs" that are not considered in a court of law. More of a political move than actually trying to accomplish anything. The courts keeps overturning many of these laws the states have passed.

My contention is that if you actually wish to accomplish something that will limit abortions until such time as Roe vs Wade can be overturned, use an accepted standard of life that's already commonly accepted across the country.

See that's the bad thing by looking at something from a common sense standpoint rather than the view of politics, religion or feelings.

The left thinks you're restricting their rights and the right feels you're not going far enough to protect theirs. That's how I know I'm pretty close to having it right. If I can pi$$ off people on both sides, it must be a rational way of settling a topic.

I think you and I basically agree... brain activity...blood flow.... that's where I believe life begins and ends... though I see it as both faith based and scientifically based

I'm really surprised that there's only 1 vote for first breath. The vast majority here believes that life begins in utero.

For couples that want to have a child, life begins at that first positive test.

Just for reference. A ‘heart’ beat can be detected at 21 days. The heart is not a fully formed organ until 8 weeks.

My organ was fully formed at 8 weeks. Of course I don't think it got any bigger since then

If a scientist found anything squirming around other than in human uterus, it would be protected and he or she would win a Nobel Prize.

When does life begin is an entirely different question than when should we restrict the right of a person to have an abortion.

Don't mask the question you are trying to ask.

You apparently didn't read my post accompanying this poll. Outside of a brief comment on KoB's post I haven't, nor do I intend to bring abortion into this discussion.

I ask my wife this question. Her reply.....

When I say it does, now shutup and quit talking during my lifetimes movies.