When does life start?

Leviticus 17:14
because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."

Job 33:4

The Spirit of God has made me;
the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

------------------------------------------------------------

seems to me that one would need veins to carry their blood in and lungs to breath if one was to be considered alive......biblically speaking.....

of course, I doubt that single celled organisms have blood....not sure about the breething part.....but then, what scientist considers a cell's feeling when he starts experimenting on the poor thing? and, what happens when that scientist comes up with a way to take a cell, any cell, play with it, nurture it, and low and behold....it becomes a human?? will all cells then become sacred? even those nasty ones that we try to kill now before they make us sick and kill us? I don't consider a fertilized egg a living human being.....it has just a l ittle more potential of becoming a human as that cell in the scientist's petri dish! I'd venture to guess that most fertilized eggs don't become living human beings but rather dies sometime in the very early stages of it's existance. some would suggest that it's when the mother first begins to feel it's movements.

to me, it's the point where it comes to the realization of "I am" to do that, it must have a brain...organ developement, thus a heart pumping blood, and lung breething....not air, but embryonic fluid. until then, it might be alive, but it isn't human, it has the potential to be human, of course every egg and every sperm also has this potential. and well, that cell in the petri dish might also have this potential. all they need is the right series of events happening at the right time.

Here's the wiki definition of life.

The medical definition of death is when the brain dies, so it would make sense from a technical standpoint to consider life starting at the first sign of brain activity. My personal opinion however, is that an embryo is just as alive as the human it will become. I'm against any form of abortion, but I don't have a problem if conception is never allowed to take place.

What do you guys think about a plant seed? Does a plant's life start when the seed is formed, or when the seed starts growing? Is a plant even alive at all? It doesn't have a brain, isn't self aware... hell for that matter, the earth itself could be considered alive.

This whole thing about defining life is kinda like figuring out the difference between a big planet and a brown dwarf. They're basically the same thing.

It's difficult not being able to see black and white. Everything contains so much gray area. When I think about it long enough, it seems to me EVERYTHING is alive... the whole universe. Then I come to the point in trying to figure out whether or not it's wrong to kill an animal, chop down a tree, etc. Maybe there aren't any universal rules at all... we just make them up as we go along. Damn, I think my brain hurts now.

I agree with Enkidu. Life doesn't start and it doesn't stop. We just move into this physical body and move out again.

Originally posted by Kruel
But then the question is: is it wrong to terminate that life via abortion?

For me? I don't like to say it's "wrong", but I wouldn't do it unless it threatened my life or health. For everyone else? It's totally up to them.

Then again, what if reincarnation is true, then that soul could just inhabit another body anyway so would it really matter, right?

Once, my 4-year-old nephew found his mom crying. He asked why and she told him she was feeling sad about choosing to have an abortion many years ago. (she explained to him what that meant.) He said, "Don't feel bad, mom. That was me"!

True story.

"Maybe there aren't any universal rules at all... we just make them up as we go along. "

-------------------------------------------------------

I kind of think you're close there.....

only, I think we kind of get trapped into them...

it starts out with somebody of ages passed decided that people should do whatever.....his word, on it's own doesn't amount to much. so, well, the people are superstitious, and well, if "God" says this, they are more apt to believe. so "God" says it, the people believe...but time goes on, and somebody decided that this should be done now, but what is he to do, if he says that this is no longer true, and the people belive this, they will be less apt to believe next time "God" speaks. maybe it's better to just accept the errors of the ancestors.

I'm not saying that I don't believe there is a God, or that he just may wish we behave in a diferent manner. just that I think there's been alot of people throughout time making decisions in his name. then, well, once it's set into "God's laws" it stuck there unless they are willing to demean God's authority to correct the mistakes.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Once, my 4-year-old nephew found his mom crying. He asked why and she told him she was feeling sad about choosing to have an abortion many years ago. (she explained to him what that meant.) He said, "Don't feel bad, mom. That was me"!

True story.

Wow, that's a cool story. Interesting!

Oh, and I agree with abortion if it means death for the mother... although the thought still makes me cringe. There's got to be a way to save BOTH lives.

Originally posted by Kruel
There's got to be a way to save BOTH lives.

Nope, sometimes there's not. I speak from experience.

The soul who has chosen certain parents does not choose to enter until it knows the birth has been successful.Life at birth.

I'll have to go with BH and whoever else said it, life is always.

Now...conscience thought is another matter.

But even before conception, all the male sperm are alive and before that, the cells are alive.
Every time you scratch your arm or go for a walk, you kill something.

-DT

Swirling around in my mind:

Human life cannot be defined strictly in biological terms. To fully explain the human spirit/soul and mind transcends anything that we (humans) ourselves are capable of doing. We all love contemplating it though, and spending time doing so may be enlightening, interesting and entertaining -- hey, it's definitely a hard-wired human pursuit, no doubt. But in the grand shakedown of things, 'life' trying to define 'life' is probably a lot like climbing an Escher-ized stairway to heaven.

Speaking of which, I tend to believe that bible verses (like those mentioned in this thread) in which the Creator "breathes" life into man explain to us how (and more importantly why) humans are different from all other animals. Consider it this way: no other part of creation is given this special treatment by the Creator. To me it is a contradiction to interpret these verses as defining life AND still consider plants and other animals as 'living' things; doing so short-changes the full meaning and power of these verses.

Now, playing devil's advocate a moment, if one asserts that life *IS* strictly biological, then isn't the current interpretation and enforcement of (USA) laws that deal with life-issues flawed and unbalanced? Example: If caught destroying a Bald Eagle *EGG* you will be prosecuted under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. The eagle's egg is treated under this law as biologically equal to and (therefore) entitled to the same protection as an eagle. Yet, there is no such protection for the equivalent stage of development in human beings. Is an egg actually a member of its species?

Just some things I thought were pertinent to this discussion.

If God decided to abort the Universe because he thought his kids (humans) would become mentally ill and corrupted in the flesh then would GOD be accountable for killing us before we are born different to him? Maybe that is why we are here to give even the sinners a chance to become good again as a soul will be once it accepts God. But what I’m trying to say is if you were God and decided to abandon the universe of its potential out come of life is that killing the life to be? I think so and that is why he is not come sooner so we have a chance to be born to be with him until man completely destroys it self. Jesus said he would have to come because if he does not man would be wiped out.

The father would be in a position to kill mankind off because his covenant with the Jews will be broken as all the nations of the earth will be forced to kill them. So Jesus representing man will do his job as saviour from us and Gods judgemnet.


[edit on 15-2-2006 by The time lord]

It is in my opinion that "life" is an ever changing process, but starts when you can think.

And I don't mean like how a 2 minute old newborn might think, I mean when you can understand things and learn.

[edit on 2/15/2006 by iori_komei]

it's not the ability to think....but the ability to reason....

-DT

I have several things to say: 1. If you identify life by "concious thought" then technically you could kill a several month old baby and say "It wasn't living" because when that person is older they wouldn't have remembered what it was like too be a baby since nobody does since we can't comprehend things at such an early stage of life, therefore no "concious thought" right? 2. I agree with Derek Trance and in my belief abortion is wrong because there USED to be a saying "oh before you were born you were just a twinkle in your father's eye" (well its technically write saying that you were alive before you were born even in science's eye because the sperm and egg cells that came from your mother and father were alive).
3. my 2 cents and belief on this is that preventing conception is okay but not abortion. You can belief otherwise.
4. I read in the January/22/06 edition of "Today's Pentecostal Evangel" on page fourteen in the Story "Roe V Wade What We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then" It has abundant useful information and I suggest you read it by going to www.tpe.ag.org...

Originally posted by The time lord
If God decided to abort the Universe because he thought his kids (humans) would become mentally ill and corrupted in the flesh then would GOD be accountable for killing us before we are born different to him?

Human flesh was made to be disposable, the soul is eternal.

Second when people is going to understand that the whole issue about Roe vs Wade was about Privacy rights.

Now the bible have not references about abortion but very conveniently is deemed to personal interpretations by the believers that wants to find a connection no matter what.

What do you mean all I ment was it was a good story saying how the person known then as the anonymous "Jane Roe" (who is known now to be Norma McCorvey) changed her position on abortion in 1995 when she became a Christian and that she has been trying to stop what she started. I think you over-analyzed it.

P.S. It talks mostly about how science has changed since then and now we take pictures of unborn babies developing and medical science is starting to disagree with the Stoic belief that "life does not begin until live birth", which it had agreed upon back in the court case (which it only agreed upon because they admit they didn't know enough about fetal developement back then and about how pain receptors function from twelve weeks on) I am just saying its interesting and you may find it a good read Christian or not.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by JoJo the religious man]

Originally posted by JoJo the religious man
Norma McCorvey) changed her position on abortion in 1995 when she became a Christian and that she has been trying to stop what she started. I think you over-analyzed it.

She didn't started anything she got her privacy rights and she benefited from it when she needed the most.

Now she is an old woman beyond child bearing years and has nothing to lose anymore.

Now her priorities are different because is not her issue anymore.

But Religious rights issue.

I guess you could see it that way but explain how what I said has anything to do with religious rights. I don't think you even went to the link I put down because I was talking about the science information it mentioned. I think you misunderstood me.... which is okay since anyone can have multiple opinions on a subject.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by JoJo the religious man]

Originally posted by JoJo the religious man
I guess you could see it that way but explain how what I said has anything to do with religious rights.

I checked the link once I look into it I understand you rreligious views on the subject.

That is why I used Religious rights in my post.

Very simple, BTW I am pro choice and also believe in Privacy rights just to let you know.

Well I didn't mean to offend you, and even if I did have an opinion somewhat biased by religious beliefs you don't need to worry since its just an opinion plain and simple. ok?

[edit on 16-2-2006 by JoJo the religious man]

I just offered information and I didn't mean to make it seem biased and I understand your point and your whole perspective

[edit on 16-2-2006 by JoJo the religious man]