Does life begin at conception because that is when chemical processes in the cells begin? Consider for a moment that chemistry does not stop at death. Muscle chemistry continues for hours after death and hair and fingernails are reported to continue to get longer even as chemical processes decompose the body. Chemistry then cannot be our indicator of life. Secondly, life in the womb is referenced in the Bible but conception occurs in the fallopian tube - not in the womb. Compare the embryo to a pollinated plant seed blowing in the wind. Neither will develop into a life until it takes up root in the ground or womb as the case may be. All religions teach that our soul leaves the body after the heart stops. Human life then, must begin when the heart beats and God gives us our soul.
Sandra wrote:
Many thoughts in today's time has perverted ideas of "life" or may we say "viable life". So, to effectively address the question, let's ask each other this; When did my child's life begin or when did my own life begin? Without conception and the fertilized egg, none of us would exist. Life begins with conception. Shouldn't the question be - At what point should we respect life or not respect life? Or, when is life viable. As, for me I consider all life valuable even at the most vulnerable embryonic stage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
From a physiological perspective, it is true that our bodies function as a result of several chemical reactions. In fact, conception is only possible due to the perfect combination of chemical reactions within the body. However, once the ovum is fertilized by the sperm, LIFE BEGINS with CELL DIVISION, and within 1 week of traveling down the fallopian tube, 100 human living cells have been formed. Life does not begin with a beating heart in my humble opinion. How can one compare the inception of life to muscle chemistry after life has ceased?
Worth repeating from January 2008
Lock-Step Presidential Candidates
Publisher wrote:
On the topic of embryonic stem-cell research, all of the Pro-Life candidates cite one reason for being against it. They claim it is the taking of human life. There are many reasons why a fiscally conservative Republican would not vote to use tax dollars to fund such research yet only "the taking of human life" is claimed as their excuse. Is this a well thought out reason or are they just pandering for votes or in lock-step with a Party agenda? [More on the agenda surfaced in July 2008 and will be published in print in September 2008- be careful what you ask for1]. Whether you are for or against abortion later in pregnancy this embryonic stage in a petri dish should make you think a bit before you decide about the intellectual thought these candidates use to make decisions or about their honesty with voters. Romney for example, claims he changed his position on abortion after he witnessed racks of petri dishes in a laboratory. Prior to that he must have considered himself a compassionate conservative as he tells the story of being Pro-choice because of a family member who died because legal abortion was not available in her time of crisis. No one actually knows when life begins. Surely, if you are of the belief that there is a divine creator, given the very complex design of all life, then the fallopian tube, which cannot sustain the life of an embryo would not be the point at which God would begin "life". When a sperm and ovum unite in the fallopian tube, cell division begins. The zygote will divide and is supposed to migrate to the womb. By design, a blastomere of a few cells is not life sustaining at this point. And if it does not migrate to the womb, the mother would die unless this embryo is taken surgically - a medical practice that no one , not even the pro-life groups, object to. Therein lies the argument that these candidates are in lock-step with an excuse for the explicit purpose of pandering for votes and Party approval. The potential for development into a life, even after migration to the womb, by design will result in miscarriages, an act of god some would say, especially when that embryo is developing abnormally. After a baby takes its first breath we can clearly define when life actually begins. Before that point in time we just do not have an answer. Somewhere in the first trimester has been a medically accepted opinion by some Republican Clubs. For example, the California Republican Party had a statement on their website in 2006, under the former chairman, that in the case of rape, if the woman reported the incident to the police within a short time then abortion should be allowed. An apparent attempt at compassionate conservatism however given the fact that rape is rarely reported because the woman is either shamed or further victimized with some level of blame for the incident, this too was not a well thought out position. As a life-long Republican, I expect more of our leadership.
First Comment:
I would agree with the "Lock-step Presidential Candidates" you criticize for being against embryonic stem-cell research because it is the taking of human life. I am sure you do not condone killing humans for research (or any other reason). So, the point of disagreement must be when human life really begins.
The embryo, which is formed when the sperm and ovum (egg) unite, contains the complex genetic blueprint for every detail of human development. At this point the unique individual's sex, hair and eye color, height, skin tone and even finger prints are already mapped out. Each of us started our life this way. All that is needed is for the embryo to develop and grow, which it does throughout its life, is protection and nourishment.
Second comment
Yes, I do believe God would begin "life" in the fallopian tube. Yes, it can die at any stage for many different reasons. A "blasphomere of cells is not life sustaining" but it is where life begins. Normally, it migrates to the womb, attaches itself to receive nourishment and grows. Even after birth it continues to grow and develop. Albert Schweitzer said, at 70, "I still don't know what I want to do when I grow up." Who determines the criteria of when life begins? Those in power, of course. Where there is an interest in killing persons, they will be defined as non-persons, whether an embryo in the womb or petri dish, a disabled person, a black person, an aged senile person, etc.
January 5, 2008 11:11 AM
Third comment...
Why bring God into the question of when life begins? Are you telling me that medical science does not know where/when human life begins? If it is not in "blastomere of a few cells" where/when is it? Science is not supposed to be a consensus. I thought there was a scientific method that can be proven. And, it is a very simple fact that you and I started our life within the event of a human sperm and a human egg are joined causing a zygote that starts to divide (growth). Isn't the rest of the process, within the mother's body, geared to sustaining that life so that it may grow to a viable point so that it can live outside the womb? Isn't that much like a baby that grows under the care of someone until it can feed and care for itself? So, as far as a medical/biological science question, where does human life begin, isn't it obvious? Why create some mystery around it? As if some magical event occurs and poof its a human! The only time 'God' enters our question is when we look at what rights that human life has (i.e. a right to life). So, I guess I am in lock-step with the lock-step presidential candidates...
Next comment
Good question! "Why bring God into it? If you are an atheist, then there is no reason to bring God into it. However, the majority of all the peoples of the World do believe in a higher power and they do believe that God gives us a soul. It is believed that the tissue is nothing more than a container for the soul. The entry of the soul then must be the actual beginning of life and not just the development of tissues. At what point in time would a creator begin life? No one has the answer but there are many speculations on that point. As a creator, why waste a very valuable soul on a piece of tissue when that tissue hasn't proven itself to be viable? For those who wish to truly defend their position that the beginning of life is at conception, you should also be objecting to fertility clinics. They do not harvest one ovum and hope for fertilization in order to give hope to a childless couple. There are many embryos that are the result of each couple's attempt to bring life into the world. The leftovers are the ones that end up in racks of petri dishes or test tubes. None of the Pro-Life candidates or Republican legislators are complaining that we have to stop fertility clinics because there are not enough surrogate mothers to bring the leftovers to full-term. What do you or they expect to have happen to these embryos? Disposal in the extreme Pro-life opinion must be out of the question. What are you going to do about that?
I do not know of any scientist that does not agree that an embryo is alive. As it sits in the womb or the petri dish it grows. I have two children adopted as embryos. In both cases they were thawed, and grew before and after being placed in my uterus. I added nothing more to them other than a warm place to grow, oxygen and nutrients. The same things that they require today at ages 10 months and 5 years old.
I do agree that with embryonic stem cell research you dont even need to be prolife or believe in God to be against it. The truth is there is no promises of cures with ESCR. It is not financial worth investing a penny much less billions of dollars. The cures and successful treatments are with adult stem cells (we were able to save and freeze over 1 BILLION stem cells from my son's cord blood). I have personally met people who have been cured from diseases using adult stem cells and it didn't have to come at a cost of another life. IF there were cures dont you think the private sector would pay for it?
As a surrogate mother, twice over, I have watched the little peanuts grow in a petri dish. I watched them go from 2 cells to more than I can count. Is that when life began? I don't know... but I do know that it is only by the grace of God that such a miracle can happen. I will say, though, that once the heart beats and the brain waves start, which is at 6 weeks pregnant, before you even know you're pregos, it's a life. period.
Difficult question to answer. Obviously there is life before birth but when does this life start is a subjective thing. Like Lisa said definitely when the heart starts to beat, it is a surefire sign of life.
Post a Comment