blike Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 I recently got into a debate with someone over when life begins. I suppose this question has no real answer, only our own opinions. So, whats yours? When does life begin? I'm not talking about life as in 'bacteria are alive'. When does a ball of cells become a human life, something we value higher than any other life on this planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Well, at least most of us value it higher. The Chinese eat baby girls in the rural areas of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfson Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Oh thats sick :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasori Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 They need to control their population. Anyway, in my opinion, life begins with the first unaided breath (as in, not through the umbilical cord). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 TO me, life begins @ conception. I suppose that's why there's such a big fuss about abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Depends on your level of argument. I think to define human life, you have to define your frame of reference. Arguably, life never really ends. The egg is already 'viable' or it would be incapable of fertilization. On the other hand, a viable diploid cell cannot really be considered a human being. Even after fertilization, under the principle that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, it could be argued that an embryo cannot be considered truly human until it reaches the foetal stage. Even then, from some perspectives, although it may be human, it is not a human being. What defines humanity? If it sentience; conscious awareness and the ability to hold a mental representation of onesself as a disparate and distinct individual, then it could be argued that we do not become human beings until some time after birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Maybe a bit bold but: (just an other perspective) Life begins when 'it' for the first time prefers it's own life above anyone/thing else. Not sure when that is but is sure before birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 what if you are depressed and want to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Duke said in post #8 :what if you are depressed and want to die? Then you don't live. I didn't say that you keep that way of being only the 'first time'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Duke said in post #8 :what if you are depressed and want to die? I`de then say that`s not living then it`s existing (and yes that is semantics and philosophical, and make no excuses for it). this was ripped from a previous post I made today in a different thread: life here is defined roughly by 7 characteristics Movement Resiration Sensitivity Nourishment (requiring food) Excretia (waste products) Reproduction and Growth and so IMO, at or shortly after conception it obeys these criteria of "Life". so I`m with NSX on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eqino Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Well i think that life begins when the soul enters the body. well thats if u believe in a soul. during conception until before the first cry the baby has no life. and then the miracle happens the souls enters........ and the baby is born. this is something like when the earth was made ..............it took a long time just for the planet to be ready.........the planet was in its molten form ............. then once it was ready........."life" (creatures) began to form including plants(evolve). its almost like the creatures on earth including the plants are the soul of this earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 But does a bacteria have a soul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted January 3, 2004 Author Share Posted January 3, 2004 Haha, lets avoid the soul issue for now, since no one would agree on the definition of a soul, and whether or not one exists. Rather, when does the embryo cross over from being cells, to having intrinsic worth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 I think if you poke it with a stick or something else negative and it responds by retreating, avoiding, or actively attacking, then it's alive. At its own pace. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mope Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 aman said in post #14 :I think if you poke it with a stick or something else negative and it responds by retreating, avoiding, or actively attacking, then it's alive. At its own pace. Just aman But plenty of organisms do that that we would have no qualms about killing. Life begins when the baby looks too cute for people to bare to be able to kill it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eqino Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 i read this sometime ago ............ our brain produces a certian hormone "chemical" when we think. similarly, our cells were found to produce the same chemical when they preform their specified function. thus our cells 'think'. but our cell are more accurate in the sense that they can 'see' wats wrong and heal it. and they can preform in unison with the other cells in the body. but our brain has evolved to a stage of self doubt. now thats where the brain questions whats right and wrong. but it sometimes it gets confused. so what the cells think is usually always right. so i think that life (if soul is not put into question ) begins when the first of the cells produce that chemical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfin vampire Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Problem Blike, is your reference to the term 'human life.' Aside from directly inferring an abortion issue, which is both moral and political and most certainly not science, the terminology itself is vague at best. How is 'human life' different to any other, sir? I contend that there is no difference whatsoever between 'human life' and that of bacteria or any other primordeal cell structures. The Ebola virus for example would appear to value its own existence quite highly indeed. Perhaps it even thinks about this in some manner which is unknown to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 If ebola was capable of considering self preservation, it would not utterly destroy its host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muffin Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Well I think that when it is still attached to the mother, and totally dependant, it's not a seperate life yet. If you could take it out and have no problems, then it's a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 So why did life start in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfin vampire Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 If ebola was capable of considering self preservation, it would not utterly destroy its host. And this is different to humans how? From social to technological to ecological environments it is plain observation to note that humans wantonly destroy their host at every available opportunity. This is the very nature of life, from bacterial building blocks, to dinosaurs and other complex life forms. To live: you destroy. Apparently however, we do it by choice. Well I think that when it is still attached to the mother, and totally dependant, it's not a seperate life yet. If you could take it out and have no problems, then it's a person. That's a wholly political statement, as I mentioned was the only inherant course to this thread. As such it has no scientific value whatsoever. So why did life start in the first place? Second generation star formation allowed for a proto-plasmic disc containing heavy elements, from which planets accrued their varying compositions, at their varying locations. The presence of the planet Jupiter and accumilation of water ice upon Earth allowed for life to evolve, which is an inherant process based upon these environmental conditions. Thus has been observed in nature and is considered an established physics theorum at this time. The only reasonable place for an abortion thread is in a medical forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 That doesnt really answer the question though does it. Just because there is a bunch of elements and chemicals lying about the place, what suddenly made them start working together in such a way. What i was asking was; Why did a pool of warm water millions of years ago just suddenly spring to life. Its no good just saying the conditions were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 elfin vampire said in post #21 :If ebola was capable of considering self preservation, it would not utterly destroy its host. And this is different to humans how? From social to technological to ecological environments it is plain observation to note that humans wantonly destroy their host at every available opportunity. This is the very nature of life, from bacterial building blocks, to dinosaurs and other complex life forms. To live: you destroy. Apparently however, we do it by choice. Precisely. We have other options available to us, Ebola does not. I would not attempt to argue that life cannot be interpreted as a destructive force, I'm just saying I see no evidence for Ebola 'valuing its life' and plenty evidence of it having no such notions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 I dont think it matters if something values its life or not. There is plenty of humans who dont value their life. And they end up blowing them selves up and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 I agree with YT2095. anything else is just philosophical junk or baby eating propaganda (it is propaganda btw, unless anyone making such claims wishes to present evidence) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now