When Does Life Begin?

Ok, this is about the only thing I still remember from my science classes at school. That when a fertilised egg passes through the fallopian tube to the uterus, if it has not reached the 32 cell stage of development, then it will not attach to the uteran wall, and will be passed out during the menstrual cycle. Anyone who knows different, by all means correct me. But my read on it under my current knowledge, is that at anything below 32 cells, nature doesn't consider it alive.

0 Replies

Life has begun silly. What are you waiting for?

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Ok, this is about the only thing I still remember from my science classes at school. That when a fertilised egg passes through the fallopian tube to the uterus, if it has not reached the 32 cell stage of development, then it will not attach to the uteran wall, and will be passed out during the menstrual cycle. Anyone who knows different, by all means correct me. But my read on it under my current knowledge, is that at anything below 32 cells, nature doesn't consider it alive.

Hi Wilso,

Hope you are having a great day.

Interesting point you bring up, and Eorl has often mentioned the high rate of early miscarriages.

The question I have regarding this is:

Just because something dies prematurely or of it's own accord, it doesn't necessarily follow that it has never been alive, does it?

Would appreciate your thoughts.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Just because something dies prematurely or of it's own accord, it doesn't necessarily follow that it has never been alive, does it?

Quote:

False Premise. Invalid question. "...of it's own accord," is un supported.

0 Replies

Yes, "on its own accord" is based on those cells having brains, and deciding for itself to die.

0 Replies

CI,

Not a prob. Leave the phrase out, if it doesn't belong.

How 'bout:

Just because something dies prematurely or without outside intervention, it doesn't necessarily follow that it has never been alive, does it?

Satisfied?

Now answer the question.

I am always amazed at the semantic lengths you will go to avoid discussing something that makes you uncomfortable.

0 Replies

real, Your projecting something that isn't true; what makes you think we're "uncomfortable" with this topic? Cells don't have a brain; it's only a cell; it's still not a living, breathing, human being.

Your problem is just the opposite; you put more effort into saving a cell than all the living babies in this world that lacks food and shelter. It's called "hypocrisy." Your religion has made you deaf, blind and ignorant to the "big" picture of humanity.

0 Replies

Well then, since you are comfortable discussing this there shouldn't be any reason why you can't answer EXACTLY which brain functions are required, and what level of activity is required of each to qualify as a living human being, in your view?

and

Just because something dies prematurely or without outside intervention, it doesn't necessarily follow that it has never been alive, does it?

and

How does a relativist determine ANYONE'S standard of morality is 'hypocritical' if all moral standards are individually determined?

0 Replies

real, A brain must develop before it functions.

0 Replies

It has nothing to do with "moral relatavist." It has to do with all your efforts into saving a cell over all the living babies of this world.

Do you understand anything about logic?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Just because something dies prematurely or without outside intervention, it doesn't necessarily follow that it has never been alive, does it?

nor does it mean that single cells obtain rights that fully developed humands give each other.

Quote:

How does a relativist determine ANYONE'S standard of morality is 'hypocritical' if all moral standards are individually determined?

It's an easy concept: The relavist examines your standards and holds you to you to them.

You're not as wrong as you are false and invalid.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, A brain must develop before it functions.

So, at EXACTLY what point is the brain development and brain functions that you deem necessary to be a 'living human being' present?

At 6 weeks?

At 10 weeks?

At 20 weeks?

At 30 weeks?

At birth?

0 Replies

about 35 years

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It has nothing to do with "moral relatavist."

Certainly it does.

You accuse me of 'hypocrisy', yet you claim that moral standards are subjective and individually determined.

So how can you say that ANYONE'S moral standard is incorrect or 'hypocritical' , if moral standards are individually determined?

0 Replies

You probably don't understand logic; all your energies directed at saving the cell misplaces the concept of "life." There are millions of children now living that are starving. Why have you ignored them? What energies have you expended to save those children already alive?

0 Replies

Nice attempt to change the subject, CI.

Not very successful at defending your position, so you need a diversion, eh?

Why do you accuse people of things you have no knowledge of? You simply embarrass yourself.

Try sticking with the topic.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So, at EXACTLY what point is the brain development and brain functions that you deem necessary to be a 'living human being' present?

At 6 weeks?

At 10 weeks?

At 20 weeks?

At 30 weeks?

At birth?

You are asking for a definition of what it is to be a human being. Let me ask you:

So, at EXACTLY what point is the brain development and brain functions that you deem necessary to be a 'living human being' not present?

At 30 weeks?

At 20 weeks?

At 10 weeks?

At 6 weeks?

At 1 week?

Sperm?

Ova?

Formation of sperm?

Formation of ova?

Formation of testicles?

Formation of ovaries?

Why is an ova not a 'living human being'?

Why is a sperm not a 'living human being'?

0 Replies

It's not a diversion; it a simple logic relationship that you ignore to understand or accept.

0 Replies

Cicerone imposter point is "do the most good".

Saving the millions of existing suffering children takes ethical precedence over the wasteful, expensive and destructive sophistry of attempting to define what is it to be human in terms of a myopic Christian fundamentalist view.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not a diversion; it a simple logic relationship that you ignore to understand or accept.

How is it logical for you to assert without evidence?

You wrongly assume (and show no evidence to support the assertion) that if one is anti-abortion , then one cannot and does not do anything else, including anything that benefits living children.

Perhaps you should work at obtaining evidence to support your accusation that I do nothing to benefit children (you'll be wildly unsuccessful).

Or better yet, instead of trying to constantly change the subject, why don't you try to present medical evidence to support your view that the unborn is not a living human being (oh thats why, because there is no such medical evidence). :lol

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know