Life

[Tatiana]

A girl in my class got an abortion.  I know this because she is a friend but our teachers don't know and we're talking about sexuality and when life begins.  She left the class upset because I think she feels guilty and our teacher was so strong in her opinion that life starts at conception.
I'm not sure I believe that.  It's a clump of cells.
When do you think life starts?  I'm not asking if abortion is right or wrong because that starts an argument with people so leave out the issue of whether or not a woman's body belongs to her or to politicians and tell me when does life start?

[Kim]

Well Tatiana this is a minefield topic.

Let me remind everyone that you're not going to change someone's mind by what you post on an online forum so don't try.

I am personally opposed to abortion because I believe life starts at conception.  It's probably my Catholic upbringing that makes me feel this way.  I also firmly believe that another has the right to think differently than I do.

[Deleted]

By life you mean "human" life, I take it?
Well, as a good Catholic I will support your teacher: Human life starts at conception. Why is that? You're referring to a "clump of cells". These cells are dividing and thereby proliferating. As movement and procreation is a characteristic property of life you cannot possibly deny even the smallest morula the attribute "alive". And as far as I can ascertain, no one contests that. And if you were to contend that it isn't life you would run into a bunch of logical conclusions that shouldn't be drawn light-heartedly.
Now the question remains if this life is not adventitious to the human body it is growing in, but is in fact "human". At first blush it would be folly to discern anything human in it, for obvious reasons: No head, no feet, no hands, not even the organs our species preens itself on like the brain. But this superficial impression, however, is deceiving. On a sub-molecular level the genetic code will always reveal that the cells are in fact appertaining to our species. So even the clump of cells is in a biological sense part of the homo sapiens species.
Furthermore, life is not only a state of momentary being, but also describes a span in time. Therefore I would argue that life is "potential". If it is potential, the status of the morula can be gauged by what it is able to develop into, which is in most cases a human being like you and I. As this development is continuous and without any intermediary facilitations, the clump of cells at the very beginning and the human being at the end of this process are one and the same. If the latter is human the former must be human too. In other words: Postnatal extra-uterine existence is no more human life than prenatal uterine existence.

[scarlette]

OMG Tatiana......talk about begging for an argument.
I won't answer this question because every time I do, Rosie and I end up fighting.

[Jennifer]

Life starts when it can survive on it's own, until then it's like a parasite.

[Rosie]

May 28, 2021 14:27:17 GMT -5 scarlette said:

OMG Tatiana......talk about begging for an argument.
I won't answer this question because every time I do, Rosie and I end up fighting.

Only cause you say I should of been an abortion.

I think life starts right away cause everything is there we need to be who we are now right?  Plus my mom wasn't married or nothing when I was born so if she was thinking how Scarlette does then I could of been a abortion and I like being alive so I'm very glad my first mom decided to have me.

[Rosie]

May 28, 2021 15:55:51 GMT -5 Jennifer said:

Life starts when it can survive on it's own, until then it's like a parasite.

Do you honest think like that?

[Kittykat]

I will refrain from this topic.

[charity]

I'm not Catholic but I think we all have the same Bible.  In Jeremiah it says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you".  In Isaiah it tells us we are carved in the palm of God's hand.
Life starts when we are conceived and we are known and loved before that.

[Tatiana]

May 28, 2021 9:28:21 GMT -5 @carina said:

By life you mean "human" life, I take it?
Well, as a good Catholic I will support your teacher: Human life starts at conception. Why is that? You're referring to a "clump of cells". These cells are dividing and thereby proliferating. As movement and procreation is a characteristic property of life you cannot possibly deny even the smallest morula the attribute "alive". And as far as I can ascertain, no one contests that. And if you were to contend that it isn't life you would run into a bunch of logical conclusions that shouldn't be drawn light-heartedly.
Now the question remains if this life is not adventitious to the human body it is growing in, but is in fact "human". At first blush it would be folly to discern anything human in it, for obvious reasons: No head, no feet, no hands, not even the organs our species preens itself on like the brain. But this superficial impression, however, is deceiving. On a sub-molecular level the genetic code will always reveal that the cells are in fact appertaining to our species. So even the clump of cells is in a biological sense part of the homo sapiens species.
Furthermore, life is not only a state of momentary being, but also describes a span in time. Therefore I would argue that life is "potential". If it is potential, the status of the morula can be gauged by what it is able to develop into, which is in most cases a human being like you and I. As this development is continuous and without any intermediary facilitations, the clump of cells at the very beginning and the human being at the end of this process are one and the same. If the latter is human the former must be human too. In other words: Postnatal extra-uterine existence is no more human life than prenatal uterine existence.

Those are good points so maybe the question, when does life being isn't the correct question at all.  Maybe we should judge this by when a life becomes sentinent?  Plants are alive but we don't hesitate to kill weeds in order for the better plants to thrive or to make footpath.  How is that clump of cells different from a young plant or a weed?

[Tatiana]

May 28, 2021 16:34:48 GMT -5 Kittykat said:

I will refrain from this topic.

You know you are allowed an opinion even if it's different from someone else's. 

[laurensobuf]

May 28, 2021 16:34:48 GMT -5 Kittykat said:

I will refrain from this topic.

Me too. 

[Libby]

May 28, 2021 19:02:39 GMT -5 Tatiana said:

May 28, 2021 9:28:21 GMT -5 @carina said:

By life you mean "human" life, I take it?
Well, as a good Catholic I will support your teacher: Human life starts at conception. Why is that? You're referring to a "clump of cells". These cells are dividing and thereby proliferating. As movement and procreation is a characteristic property of life you cannot possibly deny even the smallest morula the attribute "alive". And as far as I can ascertain, no one contests that. And if you were to contend that it isn't life you would run into a bunch of logical conclusions that shouldn't be drawn light-heartedly.
Now the question remains if this life is not adventitious to the human body it is growing in, but is in fact "human". At first blush it would be folly to discern anything human in it, for obvious reasons: No head, no feet, no hands, not even the organs our species preens itself on like the brain. But this superficial impression, however, is deceiving. On a sub-molecular level the genetic code will always reveal that the cells are in fact appertaining to our species. So even the clump of cells is in a biological sense part of the homo sapiens species.
Furthermore, life is not only a state of momentary being, but also describes a span in time. Therefore I would argue that life is "potential". If it is potential, the status of the morula can be gauged by what it is able to develop into, which is in most cases a human being like you and I. As this development is continuous and without any intermediary facilitations, the clump of cells at the very beginning and the human being at the end of this process are one and the same. If the latter is human the former must be human too. In other words: Postnatal extra-uterine existence is no more human life than prenatal uterine existence.

Those are good points so maybe the question, when does life being isn't the correct question at all.  Maybe we should judge this by when a life becomes sentinent?  Plants are alive but we don't hesitate to kill weeds in order for the better plants to thrive or to make footpath.  How is that clump of cells different from a young plant or a weed?

Are you actually comparing a human life to a plant or a weed?

[Kittykat]

May 28, 2021 19:03:34 GMT -5 Tatiana said:

May 28, 2021 16:34:48 GMT -5 Kittykat said:

I will refrain from this topic.

You know you are allowed an opinion even if it's different from someone else's. 

I know I am, and my opinion isn't always the most popular.

[Addy]

I do think life starts at conception but I'm pro-choice.