. help: . - Help.com

I believe the true question is: when does it end?

After all, life truly begun millions of years ago, and we’re just part of it’s evolution. It’s a cycle, that had a beginning and will have an end at some point, but we won’t live to see it.

It sounds kinda hippie/buddhist, but it’s what I believe.

The exact nano second I laid eyes on you, angel.

to me life doesn’t begin until the baby can live outside the body..it’s not a moral thing but you won’t know it could have been a live birth until then. The soul’s not my concern because unlike some other people i don’t believe and a baby would ever be punished by a deity.

I think life does begin at conception, and yet I feel the morning after pill is not abortion. I can’t explain it really, but when you see the fetus at a few weeks it starts to look human, a fertilized egg does not.

lolzy wrote:

GoodFeeling wrote:
I believe the true question is: when does it end?
After all, life truly begun millions of years ago, and we’re just part of it’s evolution. It’s a cycle, that had a beginning and will have an end at some point, but we won’t live to see it.
It sounds kinda hippie/buddhist, but it’s what I believe.

that’s really interesting. so do you believe in individual souls? what makes an organism human? biology alone?

Nah, I’m agnostic. I don’t have a common concept of life.

What I do believe is that there probably was some sort of “extraordinary being” that created the universe (or what little we actually know of it).

But I start from a basic concept, said by a great man “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” (Einstein).
So it doesn’t matter what we believe to know, in the end we’re helplessly ignorant. Nobody will never truly understand everything, and there will always be new discoveries. (after all, we live in one planet, of one solar system, of one galaxy, of one universe…who knows what’s truly out there).

After saying that (and after lots of thinking too), I ended up in one conclusion. It doesn’t matter what we believe to be the truth, what only matters is living happily and enjoying that brief period. After all, if there’s anything else to it, we’ll know it, and if there’s nothing more to it, then our life is all we got. I think that fearing what may come after our brain dies is just stupid.

lolzy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The exact nano second I laid eyes on you, angel.

hmmm i wonder who you are, anonymous. ;)

domestic wrote:
to me life doesn’t begin until the baby can live outside the body..it’s not a moral thing but you won’t know it could have been a live birth until then. The soul’s not my concern because unlike some other people i don’t believe and a baby would ever be punished by a deity.

i understand in the belief in the lack of a soul. as an agnostic, i don’t entirely have a certain belief in one either.

but that does make you wonder. in some states the murder of a pregnant woman is a double-homicide because it ends two lives. in your opinion, is that law absolutely absurd?

oh I didn’t type very clearly… I meant I don’t think the soul matters because one doesn’t know if it would have lived and I don’t believe any deity would punish a child in the afterlife. As far as the double murder thing… it wouldn’t really matter as long as they got the appropriate sentence which would be life in prison. But, if the intent of the murderer was to kill the unborn child, I guess that has to be considered somehow.

I think they share a soul. I have known identical twins who felt each others pain and knew each others thoughts. My wife has aunts that are identical twins and they call each other in the middle of the night and they are both having the same bad dream. It is scary.

Dr. Ralph wrote:
I think they share a soul. I have known identical twins who felt each others pain and knew each others thoughts. My wife has aunts that are identical twins and they call each other in the middle of the night and they are both having the same bad dream. It is scary.

but some of them don’t even like each other…i mean it seems rare, but it happens.

I think in the case of twins it wouldn’t be too far out to say it was one soul that split into 2 fully formed souls. Based on my limited knowledge of twins many of them have the same habits and thought processes but may try to become more individualized due to societal pressures.

As for double-homicide laws, I think that law was made to morally punish some one for killing a pregnant woman. It just seems inherently wrong and a lot of our laws are based on different levels of morality.

I’m not sure Christianity deals with this issue head on but I think that God takes care of a baby the moment it is conceived. I don’t think humans will ever be able to calculate the exact second/moment in time a particular baby is conceived.

When I look at an embryo I don’t think person - I think possibiility of one but when a fetus starts developing hands, eyes and features it feels more human and “alive” .

That depends on your definition of “life.”

I think life starts at birth. That’s when you start to LIVE. but of course, I know a fetus is ALIVE.

But think of it this way; sperm cells are alive. eggs are alive. but life does not start when sperm and eggs develop int heir respective parts.

Even when they join up it can take a while for things to get going. sometimes the sperm is rejected by the eggs too. so what then? they’re together but not growing?

Interesting point on the twin thing. that’s never occured to me.

Perhaps it’s when the zygote developed into a fetus.

Maybe it’s when the fetus becomes a baby that moves and stretches and wakes up within the womb.

If this is about abortion and ending a life, and trying to figure out either at what stage of pregnancy abortion should cease to be an option or should not be an option at all, there is a difference between technical life, such as a fertile chicken egg, and cognition and consciousness.

Perhaps when that consciousness begins to develop, that it where life starts.

For the record, I’m an atheist, Pro-choice, and believe that when it comes to an unborn child it is the decision of the parents of what it best, whether they keep it or not. To each their own.

My daughters baby was sucking her thumb before she was born. If that’s not life I don’t know what is.

lolzy wrote:
do you think it’s a waste of time to try to figure out when life begins? is it completely irrelevant to life in general? i hate to bring up abortion or stem cell research, but do you feel compelled to have any strong opinion on those subjects based on moral standards? or is it entirely an intellectual issue?

Again, depends on your point of view.

Some may consider a waste of time, others won’t. It just doesn’t matter to me, because I don’t have a saying in whatever the law says, and because I’m not affected by it, I’m alive after all =P

Well, you could have two possibilities (and everything in the middle) with a fetus: the next Gandhi, or the next Hitler.

Based on my morals, abortion should be allowed in certain cases, and that contraceptive surgeries should be allowed in all those who wish it. Who are we to decide what to impose to others? If they don’t want to have a baby fine by me.
I personally think that cancer and war are a bigger concern when it comes to life.

Dr. Ralph wrote:
My daughters baby was sucking her thumb before she was born. If that’s not life I don’t know what is.

And I moved to music, but that’s just a reflex.

¡ ¡ MuƒƒÍπ§ � wrote:
That depends on your definition of “life.”

I think life starts at birth. That’s when you start to LIVE. but of course, I know a fetus is ALIVE.

But think of it this way; sperm cells are alive. eggs are alive. but life does not start when sperm and eggs develop int heir respective parts.

Even when they join up it can take a while for things to get going. sometimes the sperm is rejected by the eggs too. so what then? they’re together but not growing?

Interesting point on the twin thing. that’s never occured to me.

Perhaps it’s when the zygote developed into a fetus.

Maybe it’s when the fetus becomes a baby that moves and stretches and wakes up within the womb.

If this is about abortion and ending a life, and trying to figure out either at what stage of pregnancy abortion should cease to be an option or should not be an option at all, there is a difference between technical life, such as a fertile chicken egg, and cognition and consciousness.

Perhaps when that consciousness begins to develop, that it where life starts.

For the record, I’m an atheist, Pro-choice, and believe that when it comes to an unborn child it is the decision of the parents of what it best, whether they keep it or not. To each their own.

you have some very good points..lots of things are alive…but we don’t ascribe sentience to them.

lolzy wrote:

domestic wrote:
oh I didn’t type very clearly… I meant I don’t think the soul matters because one doesn’t know if it would have lived and I don’t believe any deity would punish a child in the afterlife. As far as the double murder thing… it wouldn’t really matter as long as they got the appropriate sentence which would be life in prison. But, if the intent of the murderer was to kill the unborn child, I guess that has to be considered somehow.

that’s interesting. but why would a deity be more likely to judge a newborn than an unborn? biologically and cognitively, they’re not much more different.

I don’t think there is a difference…these ideas that so called unsaved children can be punished makes no sense to me….honestly I don’t understand why people think hell makes sense. Why would god want to punish you forever? What would be gained?

lolzy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think in the case of twins it wouldn’t be too far out to say it was one soul that split into 2 fully formed souls. Based on my limited knowledge of twins many of them have the same habits and thought processes but may try to become more individualized due to societal pressures.

As for double-homicide laws, I think that law was made to morally punish some one for killing a pregnant woman. It just seems inherently wrong and a lot of our laws are based on different levels of morality.

I’m not sure Christianity deals with this issue head on but I think that God takes care of a baby the moment it is conceived. I don’t think humans will ever be able to calculate the exact second/moment in time a particular baby is conceived.

When I look at an embryo I don’t think person - I think possibiility of one but when a fetus starts developing hands, eyes and features it feels more human and “alive” .

fully formed souls, but identical copies of one another? do their souls change as they grow older?

but do the double-homicide laws logically make sense to you? we can’t just approve of a law simply because it “feels” just.

i generally don’t think a fetus is human until there is brain activity. until then it is potential.

i think i’ll agree to that; potential life until brain activity ensues. untill then, while it is technically living it isnt… alive…

you know what i mean lol

domestic wrote:

lolzy wrote:

domestic wrote:
oh I didn’t type very clearly… I meant I don’t think the soul matters because one doesn’t know if it would have lived and I don’t believe any deity would punish a child in the afterlife. As far as the double murder thing… it wouldn’t really matter as long as they got the appropriate sentence which would be life in prison. But, if the intent of the murderer was to kill the unborn child, I guess that has to be considered somehow.

that’s interesting. but why would a deity be more likely to judge a newborn than an unborn? biologically and cognitively, they’re not much more different.

I don’t think there is a difference…these ideas that so called unsaved children can be punished makes no sense to me….honestly I don’t understand why people think hell makes sense. Why would god want to punish you forever? What would be gained?

As my catholic formation forces me to tell you, God doesn’t send you to hell, only Satan.
A fallen angel who believes we’re crap, wants to be God himself, and drives ppl away from the supernatural being because…well…we’re crap ^^

GoodFeeling wrote:

domestic wrote:

lolzy wrote:

domestic wrote:
oh I didn’t type very clearly… I meant I don’t think the soul matters because one doesn’t know if it would have lived and I don’t believe any deity would punish a child in the afterlife. As far as the double murder thing… it wouldn’t really matter as long as they got the appropriate sentence which would be life in prison. But, if the intent of the murderer was to kill the unborn child, I guess that has to be considered somehow.

that’s interesting. but why would a deity be more likely to judge a newborn than an unborn? biologically and cognitively, they’re not much more different.

I don’t think there is a difference…these ideas that so called unsaved children can be punished makes no sense to me….honestly I don’t understand why people think hell makes sense. Why would god want to punish you forever? What would be gained?

As my catholic formation forces me to tell you, God doesn’t send you to hell, only Satan.
A fallen angel who believes we’re crap, wants to be God himself, and drives ppl away from the supernatural being because…well…we’re crap ^^

Yeah, but if he’s god he should be able to control his creation… the devil. Why would go let him have his children? It’s not a big deal to me I just don’t see the logic of it. But I don’t see the point of blaming the devil when people do something bad either. It doesn’t make sense to me.

It is alive as soon as a cell is formed.
It does not feel anything until a nervous system is developed, however.
Abortion should be a choice. If you were raped and impregnated, wouldn’t you want to KNOW you have the option to not have it? If you were, say, 16 years old? If the rapist would pass on to the child a serious, life-threatening genetic defect?

I don’t find it sensible to deny such a right. You are forcing someone to have a child which they don’t want, can’t care for. Their psychological health could suffer, the offspring’s health could suffer. I don’t even understand why abortion is something to be debated.

nebula, wrote:
It is alive as soon as a cell is formed.
It does not feel anything until a nervous system is developed, however.
Abortion should be a choice. If you were raped and impregnated, wouldn’t you want to KNOW you have the option to not have it? If you were, say, 16 years old? If the rapist would pass on to the child a serious, life-threatening genetic defect?

I don’t find it sensible to deny such a right. You are forcing someone to have a child which they don’t want, can’t care for. Their psychological health could suffer, the offspring’s health could suffer. I don’t even understand why abortion is something to be debated.

yeah… i agree. and i understand why some people dont… but somehow it still doesnt make sense.

I feel life begins at the biological moment of fertilization and grows from there.

lolzy wrote:

domestic wrote:
I don’t think there is a difference…these ideas that so called unsaved children can be punished makes no sense to me….honestly I don’t understand why people think hell makes sense. Why would god want to punish you forever? What would be gained?

it is a mystery to me as well. :P

especially since god is “loving and forgiving” etc etc.

For some reason I cannot figure out which definition of the word “soul” is intended in the context.

All this talk about souls is terribly annoying.

nebula, wrote:
All this talk about souls is terribly annoying.

it seems to be a common theme lately, doesn’t it?

Ah, thank you for clearing the air. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page about the definition of “soul.” Naturally, I think of “soul” being an immaterial part of the body that is associated with Christianity - which is one of its definitions - so I wasn’t certain if that was the definition you intended for it.

Life doesn’t begin at any given moment. It’s just a steady progression. Everything grows or dies. There is no specific point at which I recognize the humanity of a fetus distinct from its mother. To do so to me seems like self-deception. This is why I would make a very poor judge or lawyer. It’s all semantics to me.

I think we only have souls in a metaphorical/poetic sense. Does a dog have a soul? A worm? A tree? A cell? What about a city or a river? What humans have that these things don’t is a higher state of consciousness. The concept of a soul is binary. We have them or we don’t. Consciousness exists on a scale.. and so does life.

lolzy wrote:

Elk wrote:
Life doesn’t begin at any given moment. It’s just a steady progression. Everything grows or dies. There is no specific point at which I recognize the humanity of a fetus distinct from its mother. To do so to me seems like self-deception. This is why I would make a very poor judge or lawyer. It’s all semantics to me.

I think we only have souls in a metaphorical/poetic sense. Does a dog have a soul? A worm? A tree? A cell? What about a city or a river? What humans have that these things don’t is a higher state of consciousness. The concept of a soul is binary. We have them or we don’t. Consciousness exists on a scale.. and so does life.

but you do believe in the existence of murder, right? clearly that shows a sharp distinction between life and death, and some ethical connotations to altering the state of a thing’s participation in life.

you wouldn’t protest a mother’s decision to remove a wart, would you? would you protest a mother’s decision to remove a fetus? you would protest a mother’s decision to terminate the life of a newborn child, would you not?

The only way I know to approach ethical matters without driving myself crazy is pragmatically. An 8-month fetus will have a greater ability to feel pain and be conscious than a 3-month fetus, so I’d consider it less morally wrong to terminate the life of the 3-month fetus. Likewise, I’d value the life of a newborn child more than an 8-month fetus. But I refuse to specify a certain point at which it is deemed morally wrong or right.

Life begins at ∑jaculatiθn. Mastµrbatiθn is murder.

love4tacobell wrote:
Life begins at ∑jaculatiθn. Mastµrbatiθn is murder.

heh heh heh i said that to one of those “echoes of the holocaust” guys and he couldn’t come up with anything to say back

Life always began. The cells that a man and woman use to make a new person were alive and it pretty much means that even before being a fetus there was life. So for the answer basically it began when people first appeared and didn’t really stop and just kept going.

Impossible to know, for the human soul part. Unless the experiments testing for the weight of the human soul actually held some validity; though they’re just iffy and rather amusing. And it’s unlikely it will ever be possible to be known. So then it becomes a question of, “What do you do when you are uncertain about something?”

lolzy wrote:
i’m guessing your question suggests the answer, “err on the side of caution”?

Does the question imply that answer? Is no other answer correct? I’m merely curious what people do when they are uncertain about things.

The weighing experiments were rather unscientific and pointless, though it was a long time ago if I remember correctly.
I have no belief on it. As I’ve said, it seems impossible to know.

I can’t reply right now, but I’ll come back and put my 2 cents!

Ill be honest, i didnt read the comments. But for me i think life begins at …well.. Its kind of hard. Because life doesnt begin at birth. I know this because i was born 2 months early, and i am perfectly fine.. so i was able to live before the full term. But a baby that is only 2 or 3 months old is unable to live on its own and thus its still just a forming organism. So i see life as starting once a body gets to the point of survival on its own. But thats a huge grey area.

Why do i think this?

Because i dont like how humans make themselves different than animals. For example, if you have two types of dogs… one that has short ears and one that has long ears. a TON of research goes into them to decide what breed they are and such. But a human is a human. Obviously we have different breeds, but they seems to not be stressed in the same way all other creatures are. Likewise, humans see things like organisms (now im talking about the general public, not scientists and such) or other small creatures and just creatures. but a 1/12 cooked baby is a human. Why does one fully developed organism just get “organism” and another half developed organism get a full distinction of human? That seems unfair to me.

At the same time, the whole “humans have souls” what not is unfair. Who says a dog or a bird doesnt have a soul too? just because we cant talk to them doesnt mean they dont have souls. Humans are way too top of the evolution chain-y. But i guess if your into the souls thing, then you dont believe in evolution anyway.

Im not anti religious, nor am i pro religious. I just believe in things the way i see them. Hope my comment gave you help in your answer, i know youll get many different answers. good luck!

My name come from an Australian Aboriginal understanding of how and when life begins. Not my world view, but it sits well with me.

(this is just my interpretation, but I did go and hang out briefly with people from that area)

Life doesn’t begin or end, it’s part of a cycle that involves the land. When a man decides to have a baby, he goes to a certain place ( with my name it was a fresh water pool) and prays to the potential children spirits living in that place. He then procreates, and the child in time is born.

I like it for a few reasons. Conception is deliberate, and children are wanted and based on expected resources etc.
I line doesn’t need to be drawn between life and none life, as it is always life.
Also, they start counting the age from conception. When they are in the womb, they are 1 year, once they are born, they are two years. They didn’t have a zero year.

But they didn’t name the child until it was 12 month old ( or in their counting - 3), as child mortality was high, and names can’t be spoken if someone dies.

My personal view is life begins at the point pain can be felt. Aborting before that might upset me, but aborting after that I personally feel is wrong.

But life really doesn’t start till after you wake up, independent, brave, without ego or addiction. When you can look into yourself and not be hiding anything.

Or is it when you first face death?

Nah, it’s when you first taste halloumi cheese

i think of the soul as more symbolic

davidshumard wrote:
I feel life begins at the biological moment of fertilization and grows from there.

I agree with this part. I have fraternal, twins(non identical)
Although they can fight like cat&dog they say they cant stand one another!
I believe they share a strong connection as in sometimes share the same thoughs & feel the same pain.

Also I knew I was carrying boys on my 2nd scan.
One was giving me the finger while the other decided to pee, (lol no changes there then.)

The question is silly to me. It begins whenever we decide to define it as having begun. It depends on the terms of your assessment.

In my religion, Islam, “life” starts around 12 weeks after conception, which is around the time the heartbeat starts, I think. This is when most of our scholars say the soul enters the body. However, abortion is not allowed for us at any time because the potential life is also valuable. It just wouldn’t be considered murder before 12 weeks.

My thoughts:
Perhaps the “soul” in the sense that your friend meant is something that we all share in common.
I’ll put it this way. . .
take a loaf of bread, evenly sliced.
Take each slice of bread and place it in a different container.
For example, one container could be full of water.
One could be full of air,
one could be full of fire, one full of rats, one with a strong vaccuum, whatever.
Leave all teh slices of bread, which started out identical, in their containers for a month then take them out and observe the changes.

so, for the twins, they both are given a “slice of bread” at “conception”, which immediately begins changing based on the perspective given to it via its container.

MORE PERSPECTIVES!! perhaps life happens even before the egg is fertilized by the sperm since both materials are technically living.
But, before they have left the body, they could arguably be considered part of the body. . .
In this case life begins (for females) once a month typically, and (for males) at the moment of ejaculation typically.
AND ANOTHER!!!
Since males are (typically) constantly producing sperm, you could say life begins constantly in males but since females cease egg production at some point you could say life begins with them never after that point, unless you consider the potential life-generating ability of actually reproducing which women, aided by men, uniquely possess.

The differences seem staggered from one perspective to the next, I sense a pattern emerging as usual.

Chikokishi wrote:
Ill be honest, i didnt read the comments. But for me i think life begins at …well.. Its kind of hard. Because life doesnt begin at birth. I know this because i was born 2 months early, and i am perfectly fine.. so i was able to live before the full term. But a baby that is only 2 or 3 months old is unable to live on its own and thus its still just a forming organism. So i see life as starting once a body gets to the point of survival on its own. But thats a huge grey area.

That’s actually not a grey area at all, no offense.
The moment a body gets to the point of survival on its own is precisely never, we just broaden our horizons (interesting to note that change is one thing all life has in common (there is a tiny organism called a medusa which is biologically immortal so don’t even try to play the death card here.)) :P

I am little confused about this soul thing. As even our blood cells are alive. So it must be consisting our soul. If we donate it so are we donating our soul. In case of organ transplant does we receive soul of other person.

The bible doses not comment on when life begins.
It all comes from the sentence “all life is precious”.
True life begins at berth, before that the clump of cells is just a Cancerous growth.

fatb.two wrote:
The bible doses not comment on when life begins.
It all comes from the sentence “all life is precious”.
True life begins at berth, before that the clump of cells is just a Cancerous growth.

Then by that logic, before you poop, your poop is you.
An interesting aside: Some children often think that poop is a part of the body.

http://www.circleofmoms.com/article/p…

Hopefully we will all outgrow such notions in the future and cease to be little s**ts.

dazmo wrote:

fatb.two wrote:
The bible doses not comment on when life begins.
It all comes from the sentence “all life is precious”.
True life begins at berth, before that the clump of cells is just a Cancerous growth.

Then by that logic, before you poop, your poop is you.
An interesting aside: Some children often think that poop is a part of the body.

http://www.circleofmoms.com/article/p…

Hopefully we will all outgrow such notions in the future and cease to be little s**ts.

Typical Bible Basher, you must result to foul language when someone disagrees with your falls upbringing.

Post a replyi figure it begins once the two people initial the thoughtof ( lets make a baby tonite) becomes” let my little guys make there journey. why? because the thought of creating a somebody is now there, theyll be geting and unknown being basically.

I believe many here are getting confused.
When dose life begin, and when dose one becomes a living entity?
Also you are confusing the body with the sole.

fatb.two wrote:
I believe many here are getting confused.
When dose life begin, and when dose one becomes a living entity?
Also you are confusing the body with the sole.

the way i see it is the soul begins once the mind is created

AgreeToDisagree wrote:

fatb.two wrote:
I believe many here are getting confused.
When dose life begin, and when dose one becomes a living entity?
Also you are confusing the body with the sole.

the way i see it is the soul begins once the mind is created

That is a fair point.
I could go along with that as a starting point.

haha. i was hoping i’d make sense…..yesss

Personally I believe life, and the soul begin when the mind is developed enough to appreciate it’s own existance. Some people never even get to that point in life, and they never really view themselves as a truly unique individual person with their own life and their own dreams.

It is also my believe the soul is located in the subconscious mind, as well as a sort of personal heaven also located in your mind. I can’t explain it to well or shortly so I wont go into detail, but IMO you get your soul when your mind gains the ability to realize its own existance.

Take the last sentance whatever way you want, what is the meaning of realizing your own existance?

In Judaism, the Talmud states the minimum amount of time as 40 days, if I remember correctly.
Personally, I think it’s bullship. Doctors might not be able to determine whether a fetus in a womb is a future dinosaur or human before some time had passed, but I believe it doesn’t matter when the fact is established; if it’s a human, then that’s what it was fated to be. As for soulish matters, I can’t perceive such a thing so to me one guess of a moment is as good as any.

the soul enters the body at the time of birth

if the body is still born there was no entering of the soul
if the baby lives and is cognitive and dies then the soul goes to heaven

just because the human is in functioning order does not mean there is a soal in it
it is human at first cell split

a house being built is required to be in full functioning order before we move into it
so also is the body

though there are premature birts & entries, but we all know those are perlis times

imagine moving into a house where the pluming dosent work
no electricity
or no roff

it is best the person moves in at the correct apointed time

The whole subject is a bone (of contention) that can be gnawed on ad infinium/nauseum.. without resolution and Lotta tempers flaring up.

samamtha_love72 wrote:
when the heart starts beating!!!

But I’m a heartless SOB. Uh-oh! BraAAlnz!

Thomas Aquinas the guy who basically made the laid the foundations of the laws of the catholic church believed that the souls of boys where implanted at forty days and girls at 90 days, so before then he believed it would be acceptable for a woman to have a child aborted before then and it wouldn’t be classified as murder. It wasn’t until the 17th centry that the catholic church said that they believed ensoulment began at conception.

In my personal view I’d say that life begins when the baby is capable of existing outside it’s mother until then I’d say its a parasite.

Anonymous wrote:
In my personal view I’d say that life begins when the baby is capable of existing outside it’s mother until then I’d say its a parasite.

Without intervention from either a surrogate mother or modern technology, a newborn is not capable of surviving without its mother.

Mariam* wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my personal view I’d say that life begins when the baby is capable of existing outside it’s mother until then I’d say its a parasite.

Without intervention from either a surrogate mother or modern technology, a newborn is not capable of surviving without its mother.

but then its different its born, when in its still in the womb its just feeding of off the mother, which is parasitic, I suppose you could argue that it is a parasite outside of the womb too but I don’t know it seems less so once it out until that point I don’t see it as a person.

Anonymous wrote:

Mariam* wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my personal view I’d say that life begins when the baby is capable of existing outside it’s mother until then I’d say its a parasite.

Without intervention from either a surrogate mother or modern technology, a newborn is not capable of surviving without its mother.

but then its different its born, when in its still in the womb its just feeding of off the mother, which is parasitic, I suppose you could argue that it is a parasite outside of the womb too but I don’t know it seems less so once it out until that point I don’t see it as a person.

I realise my grammar is terrible, sorry slightly tired lol.

Anonymous wrote:
but then its different its born, when in its still in the womb its just feeding of off the mother, which is parasitic, I suppose you could argue that it is a parasite outside of the womb too but I don’t know it seems less so once it out until that point I don’t see it as a person.

It exclusively feeds off the mother for the first few months outside the womb unless we use infant formula, which can be seen as a technological intervention.

I think humans are a bit like marsupials - their young come out of the womb not yet fully formed. I heard a scientist describe the first three months as “the fourth trimester of pregnancy”. An infant is not capable of living without its mother until it is nearly a year old, and even longer before it is able to be self-sustaining.

Mariam* wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but then its different its born, when in its still in the womb its just feeding of off the mother, which is parasitic, I suppose you could argue that it is a parasite outside of the womb too but I don’t know it seems less so once it out until that point I don’t see it as a person.

It exclusively feeds off the mother for the first few months outside the womb unless we use infant formula, which can be seen as a technological intervention.

I think humans are a bit like marsupials - their young come out of the womb not yet fully formed. I heard a scientist describe the first three months as “the fourth trimester of pregnancy”. An infant is not capable of living without its mother until it is nearly a year old, and even longer before it is able to be self-sustaining.

That’s an interesting view especially the fourth trimester of pregnancy. In answer to the question though, I’m still going to say a baby does not count as a person until it is born, even if it is dependant on a mother or something afterwards. It may sound kinda stupid but when you can physically hold and see the baby and imagine what it is going to become that is when I think it is a human or person.

DPT wrote:
Life begins when the gestating creature is independantly viable extra-eutro.

what is extra-eutro?

DPT wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DPT wrote:
Life begins when the gestating creature is independantly viable extra-eutro.

what is extra-eutro?

Anything happening extra-eutro.

ohhhh, lolz got it now. you meant utro?

i’ve heard that God blows a soul into a feotus after a few weeks.
however, it makes sense to say that an embryo at the time of contrception is a living thing because it is made of alive cells…. but i dont think u can say there is a soul in it yet…..

when a sperm and egg meet, they are nothing but two seperate cells joining. there is no soul involved. Surely there must be need for some sort of body like shaped figure to blow a soul into.

i think that when the heart is created and starts beating is when God probably puts the soul into the being. after all heart beating has always been a sign of life… that someone is alive.

fatb.two wrote:

dazmo wrote:

fatb.two wrote:
The bible doses not comment on when life begins.
It all comes from the sentence “all life is precious”.
True life begins at berth, before that the clump of cells is just a Cancerous growth.

Then by that logic, before you poop, your poop is you.
An interesting aside: Some children often think that poop is a part of the body.

http://www.circleofmoms.com/article/p…

Hopefully we will all outgrow such notions in the future and cease to be little s**ts.

Typical Bible Basher, you must result to foul language when someone disagrees with your falls upbringing.

Ignorance does not impress me sir.

DPT wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DPT wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DPT wrote:
Life begins when the gestating creature is independantly viable extra-eutro.

what is extra-eutro?

Anything happening extra-eutro.

ohhhh, lolz got it now. you meant utro?

Be verrrrry careful here. Pointing out bad spelling is a bannable offence here.

(please do not ban me for this. this is a valid, true response to a valid, truthful post.)

I wasn’t pointing out bad spelling as such I genuinely didn’t know it what meant until I tried spelling it differently and then looking it up. Why do all your posts end with please do not ban me?

DPT wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DPT wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DPT wrote:
Life begins when the gestating creature is independantly viable extra-eutro.

what is extra-eutro?

Anything happening extra-eutro.

ohhhh, lolz got it now. you meant utro?

Be verrrrry careful here. Pointing out bad spelling is a bannable offence here.

(please do not ban me for this. this is a valid, true response to a valid, truthful post.)

It’s utero. You were closer, lol.

My use of the term soul means the life force that inhabits and animates the body, the conscience or self awareness that a person has, the self awareness that can exist outside of the body. And I think that twins support the view that the life of the soul begins at conception.

Twins have reported this phenomenon of seeming to share thoughts or feelings at the same time. For example, one twin may feel the fear or pain of the other twin even though they are separated by many miles. I think that this is evidence that the self awareness of both twins existed together somehow in someway before the split in the womb, thus their self awareness or “soul” existed essentially at conception. What else could cause them both to have the same mind? (so to speak)

Kind of what I was saying…

Anonymous wrote:
when you can physically hold and see the baby and imagine what it is going to become that is when I think it is a human or person.

What about those surgeries which are done on the fetus while it is still in the womb? The surgical team sees and touches the child long before it is ready to be born.

Well, I read some time ago, that when a person dies, he loses a peculiar, almost insignificant amount of weight, to this day, No one (as far as my knowledge is concerned) has any explanation as to why this occurs. Personally, I believe it’s the soul leaving the body.

Now in terms of when Life begins, I honestly have no idea. People have claimed to have interaction with their children during various times of their pregnancy, So all this makes my decision inconclusive. ^_^;; Sorry.

Life begins at conception. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t want to face the truth. Plain and simple.

Life begins once you are born into the world, and able to survive outside your mothers body!
Anything before that is note life but just a possibility!

not

the beginning of life is not important. the charity of raising that life is. here is a famous part of a series of thought experiments you should consider. If there were people seeds that floated around in the air, and even though you keep a screen on your window, somehow one gets in, and sprouts a human fetus. if you remove it to transplant it, it will die. If you do not take care of it for 9 months, it will die. are you responsible for keeping the seed baby alive?

but if you really want to talk about the beginning of HUMAN life, why not start it at the point where dna begins to divide and replicate in a manner that is entirely individual to a human life.

Its like taking a bunch of legos, dumping them in a pile with a kid… you can’t really call it a house or the beginning of a house until it starts to take the shape of a house. until then, it could still be a rocket ship, an unfinished nothing, or simply a pile of untouched bricks. This is like conception. when the two parts meet, it is like throwing the bricks of dna in a pile together. until they start assembling into a human being with thoughts and awareness it is only the foundations for the house, and not a house itself. once you get that basic function, you have your four walls and your roof, you can call it human life.

otherwise, you could consider condoms to be murder if you talk about “the potential for life,” or even the decision not to have children, or to adopt.

those bumper stickers reading “lucky for you, your mom chose life.” could just as well read “lucky for you, your mom chose not to adopt.” or “lucky for you, your mom didn’t use birth control.”

also, while on the topic of life. Before you can start asking when life begins, don’t you need to define life?

calemus wrote:
the soul enters the body at the time of birth

Is this a medical FACT?
How does one prove or disprove this statement?

dazmo wrote:

fatb.two wrote:

dazmo wrote:

fatb.two wrote:
The bible doses not comment on when life begins.
It all comes from the sentence “all life is precious”.
True life begins at berth, before that the clump of cells is just a Cancerous growth.

Then by that logic, before you poop, your poop is you.
An interesting aside: Some children often think that poop is a part of the body.

http://www.circleofmoms.com/article/p…

Hopefully we will all outgrow such notions in the future and cease to be little s**ts.

Typical Bible Basher, you must result to foul language when someone disagrees with your falls upbringing.

Ignorance does not impress me sir.

You probably know far more Ignorance than me.
You seem to talk nonsense.

http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_deve…

Life is one big adventure ^_^

Anonymous wrote:
http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_deve…

CRAP

fact?
u ask for a medical fact on a spiritual question, that is interesting.
ok, scientificly plaes explain to me how we as humans have a soul
and a tree, or a dog does not.
this cann go on to a rather interesting an deep conversation

calemus wrote:
fact?
u ask for a medical fact on a spiritual question, that is interesting.
ok, scientificly plaes explain to me how we as humans have a soul
and a tree, or a dog does not.
this cann go on to a rather interesting an deep conversation

it most likely will haha.

but i feel the soul and any perception of what the soul is, all starts with the mind. with out the brain itself, we would have nothing at all. the soul may begin when the brain is at its earliest form, or later… fact of the matter remains, well never know.

lolzy wrote:

dazmo wrote:
(said stuff)

i like your bread analogy. i know my question is ambiguous, but that’s because everyone’s beliefs and definitions of all of these terms are so varied. is a soul just a slice of the humanity we all share? is it representative of the individuality of a person? is it’s someone consciousness? is it “life-force”?

whatever the soul is, i’m interested in the implications that result from saying that twins share souls, or have copies of souls, and what it might mean in terms of religion or a personal understanding of individuality.

dazmo wrote:
(said more stuff)

then we start looking at the value of life. does it just have to be living and with human DNA to be “human” with a capital H? living cancer cells, parasitic twins, blood, all of those are technically living, but no value of “human” is placed upon them. i’m wondering where the distinction takes place.

Interesting that the value of a humans body and the value of their soul are similarly difficult to pinpoint, isn’t it?
Everything makes a lot more sense to me when viewed as a simulation, but that’s just me.

lolzy wrote:

irregularone wrote:
Personally I believe life, and the soul begin when the mind is developed enough to appreciate it’s own existance. Some people never even get to that point in life, and they never really view themselves as a truly unique individual person with their own life and their own dreams.

It is also my believe the soul is located in the subconscious mind, as well as a sort of personal heaven also located in your mind. I can’t explain it to well or shortly so I wont go into detail, but IMO you get your soul when your mind gains the ability to realize its own existance.

Take the last sentance whatever way you want, what is the meaning of realizing your own existance?

i love your reply because it opens up a whole new can of worms. before a person reaches a certain stage of enlightenment, it might be possible that they do not have a soul?

this brings us back to the other consequences of this thought. if a person has not yet aquired a soul, whose fault is that? and in that situation, is their death truly a loss of life? is murder before this stage truly so heinous a crime? or is it less so? is the person’s existence still valuable before this point? or is it valueless until they can prove something of themselves? or is it only valuable in the sense that it contains POTENTIAL life?

Even before conseption the possible person to be is alive, even when they are seperate cells - sperm and egg. Being alive and having a soul are two completely different things though, and the confusion between the two, IMO, is where so much conflict arises. Plants are a specimin that have no thought, but they are alive and made of organic material. Do you feel that you took a life when you step on a plant? Of course not. The fetus is alive, but until it can be conscious then it’s just in a growing phase. While it’s growing it is alive, but it doesn’t have it’s ’soul’ yet. Some find it cruel and murderous to end something before giving it a chance at life, and others, like me, find it completely fine to ‘kill’ a fetus before it has the perception of what life is. If you end something before it started, did you really end something? you prevented it, and sometimes prevention is neccesary for the parents, and it’s not murder, it’s the taking of a life that has yet to grow a soul.

014050 wrote:
i think of the soul as more symbolic

symbolic of what? humanity?[/quote]

no, i just mean that i dont believe there is a physical soul, that the soul is like a phrase which symbolises the person, eg having a good soul may have characteristics of being nice, kind to others, gentle, etc, or a bad soul as someone who is disturbed or a hard / mean person. this is like a general sort of idea for me, cant get into too much details atm

lolzy wrote:

vikram wrote:
I am little confused about this soul thing. As even our blood cells are alive. So it must be consisting our soul. If we donate it so are we donating our soul. In case of organ transplant does we receive soul of other person.

i’m asking what are your beliefs. is soul just “life”, or is it something more? is it “humanity”? is it “character”? there’s no right or wrong answer. :)

fatb.two wrote:
The bible doses not comment on when life begins.
It all comes from the sentence “all life is precious”.
True life begins at berth, before that the clump of cells is just a Cancerous growth.

yup, the bible stays away from the subject, as far as i am aware.
but what about premature babies? what is it about the “due date” that allows a baby to graduate to human status? what is it about the location of the body that can make a baby a growth in one case, and a human in the next?

AgreeToDisagree wrote:
i figure it begins once the two people initial the thoughtof ( lets make a baby tonite) becomes” let my little guys make there journey. why? because the thought of creating a somebody is now there, theyll be geting and unknown being basically.

that’s really interesting. i guess that has got to make me wonder what’s the status of “accidental” babies. or is any act of sex a subconcious “let’s make a baby tonight” thought?

its all in the brain :] but i believe the those two things you mentioned, could go right in the fate category if you choose to beleive in it

First off I’m not ranting, just trying to present my opinion clearly :] so don’t think I’m yelling or anything haha….

Why does life begin at conception? Because the cells and tissues that a embryo is composed of are all living, not abiotic. Also, some infants have been known to survive outside of the womb only after 4 months of development–meaning that life and the soul do indeed begin BEFORE conception.

I personally believe that the soul is formed before a baby’s life is even created. Therefore, when you destroy a fetus or embryo by aborting it, you’re destroying it’s body and not giving the soul the chance to live its life. It’s a devastating blow.

For those of you who don’t believe that abortion is killing baby, go google pictures of aborted fetuses and your minds will be COMPLETELY changed. It’s a tragedy. We’re killing millions of human beings each year and half the world doesn’t even think it’s wrong.

I know many of you won’t agree with me but this is my opinion as a christian AND a medical professional.

The public has closed it’s eyes to abortions because it’s more convenient. People that abort their children don’t have to be responsible for their actions. While it’s true that many people shouldn’t become parents, practicing safe *** would solve a majority of these problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_deve…

CRAP

Blindness is not the loss of physical sight..
but spiritual.
Limitations come from the Ego’s of those that THINK themselves above others with there pseudo intellectual hatred towards things that they can not yet understand.
[BTW This is a medical site genius.]

I was induced two months early and lived in an oxygen tent as a newborn. I would have died otherwise. I would have been stillborn 100 years ago, the technology was not there. I guess I am lucky I had parents who cared and doctors who were gifted.

Dr. Ralph wrote:
I was induced two months early and lived in an oxygen tent as a newborn. I would have died otherwise. I would have been stillborn 100 years ago, the technology was not there. I guess I am lucky I had parents who cared and doctors who were gifted.

same deal with my sister, but she developed a minor case of cerebral palsy.

when i was born my mom thought she was there take a computer home.

i think we were created the moment adam and eve were created. we lived our lives, and it’s just manifesting now

lolzy wrote:

014050 wrote:
that the soul is like a phrase which symbolises the person, eg having a good soul may have characteristics of being nice, kind to others, gentle, etc, or a bad soul as someone who is disturbed or a hard / mean person. this is like a general sort of idea for me, cant get into too much details atm

i understand, and i kind of meant it in this question. but there has to be a real moment, right? an actual moment in time where you say: that is something with a soul. that is human. and i’m wondering for each person what they think that moment is.

ah i see. im not sure :D lol

namewithnoface wrote:

Dr. Ralph wrote:
I was induced two months early and lived in an oxygen tent as a newborn. I would have died otherwise. I would have been stillborn 100 years ago, the technology was not there. I guess I am lucky I had parents who cared and doctors who were gifted.

same deal with my sister, but she developed a minor case of cerebral palsy.

when i was born my mom thought she was there take a computer home.

Hah. . . your mom!

yo momma so poor she couldnt afford her mortage on her cardboard box…ha ^^ xD

My belief is that life is fluid and connected in various spectrums. Our biological, intellectual, spiritual, and economical realms are what makes u s as human beings complete. A new being comes to life when God breathes the soul into the body. While in the womb of the mother, the baby is sustained in the environment and has all its needs taken care of. The intricate process which takes place over the gestational period is too awe inspiring to be taken for granted. The health and science classes I have taken in addition to my religious and diplomatic upbringing are my sources. Good discussion.

what happens to the souls of fetuses/babies that die? keep in mind that purgatory was a pagan invention adopted by the catholic church during the crusades.

do they go to heaven and live out eternity as babies?

i covered that in an earlyer post here,,i’ll copy paste
and your correct
the catholic church is the result of mixing paganism with what once was Christianity

the soul enters the body at the time of birth

if the body is still born there was no entering of the soul
if the baby lives and is cognitive and dies then the soul goes to heaven

just because the human is in functioning order does not mean there is a soal in it
it is human at first cell split

a house being built is required to be in full functioning order before we move into it
so also is the body

though there are premature birts & entries, but we all know those are perlis times

imagine moving into a house where the pluming dosent work
no electricity
or no roff

it is best the person moves in at the correct apointed time

why is the line for the soul entering the body drawn at birth?

the breath of life.

King James Bible
Genisis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

before the breath it was just a body, a perfect, perhaps functioning body just “born”
but upon the breath going in
then the soul was entered

calemus wrote:
before the breath it was just a body, a perfect, perhaps functioning body just “born”
but upon the breath going in
then the soul was entered

Interesting theory, but what about babies who are born before they are able to breathe, and are kept alive on machines? Do they have no soul until they breathe outside air? Are you sure this “breath of life” mentioned in your Bible is the same as air?

breath = the intake and expulsion of air into a bodys respritory cavity processed to sustain life

they are breathing. even if it artificial means

calemus wrote:
the breath of life.

I 100% agree. Adam was not Adam when the first 2 atoms of dust were meshed together. Eve was not Eve when Adam’s rib was first removed. It wasn’t until they both received the breath of life were they considered living.
Lazarus was brought back to life after death. How? Receiving a new breath of life. Even Jesus. We celebrate his birth in just a few days, when he first drew his first breath on earth. Not when he was conceived in Mary’s womb.

Sorry to go against my fellow Christian brethren but that is my take on when life begins. And it concurs with what the Bible teaches us.

southern_comfort wrote:
Even Jesus. We celebrate his birth in just a few days, when he first drew his first breath on earth.

Someone obviously knows jack-diddly about when Jesus was born. It’s actually more likely that he was conceived on Christmas.

Also, this leads to the question, when does the soul leave the body? A baby has brain activity before it leaves the womb and breathes. People are still alive and can be resuscitated if their lungs stop.

Figurative language should not be the basis and foundation of your reasoning. Especially since it was translated from an ancient language.

synapsis i.e. brain activity is also in dogs
they do not have a soul
so as synapsis is in a fetus because the brain is the motherboard for wich the machine is controled, this does not indicate a soul

yes you are correct, chrismas has nothing to do with Jesus Christ birthday as it is a pagan holiday
the people are taught falsly, pleas over look thier ignorance
blame the society, and parents that have brought so many to live comfortably in lies

but Jesus was not concieved. he was spoken into exsistance. mary’s egg has nothing to do with God, she was simply an incubator for a seperate life form. nothing more.

dogs breathe when they are born. dogs are not people, so they should not apply to your argument.

But like I said, when does the soul LEAVE the body?

If they started replacing my body parts one by one with machine parts, until I was entirely machine, at which point would I stop having a soul? When my arms and legs are replaced? How about my vital organs. heart? lungs? stomach? when my brain is replaced? This could be done in any order. So which part makes me lose my soul?

Do I even lose my soul? Could I have a soul as a machine? But if I kept my soul, when would it go to heaven? If I was shut down, even for a hundred years, they could fix and power me back up again. Would my soul get to wait in heaven and then be taken back into my machine body after a hundred years? If you could make an identically functioning, but differently thinking machine from scratch, would it have a soul?

Imagine if they could do this with people. Say immediately after you die, before your brain becomes permanently damaged, they freeze you. You were dead, so would your soul leave and then come back when they unfreeze you in a hundred years, fix, and resuscitate your body?

southern_comfort wrote:

calemus wrote:
the breath of life.

I 100% agree. Adam was not Adam when the first 2 atoms of dust were meshed together. Eve was not Eve when Adam’s rib was first removed. It wasn’t until they both received the breath of life were they considered living.
Lazarus was brought back to life after death. How? Receiving a new breath of life. Even Jesus. We celebrate his birth in just a few days, when he first drew his first breath on earth. Not when he was conceived in Mary’s womb.

Sorry to go against my fellow Christian brethren but that is my take on when life begins. And it concurs with what the Bible teaches us.

I don’t think that it does concur with what the Bible says, because both Jesus and John the Baptist were living souls in the womb. This is what happened when Mary was pregnant with Jesus and Elizabeth was pregnant with John:

Luke 1:39 -
Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

The baby leaped for “joy”, so the baby was alive with a soul.

ok
these are dirrect responce to redez post
im not religious thread jacking
Jesus Christ, the Son of God is just the body, or shell God made to live in.
The Life was God Himself, the Holy Spirit. (Holy Ghost, same thing)

John the Babtist was at first a dead fetus, at hearing the name Of His Lord the body was stimulated and he recieved the babtism Holy Ghost.

If anyone wishes to stretch that set of points into further discussion I’d like to take it elswher so as to not thread jack.

The point of the soul of a person entering after the “matrix” is breached, as stated in the old testiment, is still scriptural. recap, Jesus wasnt just human, He’s God = rules are different for Him
John the Babtist = the only human to recieve the Holy Ghost before birth = you would jump to. Thats not Johns soul.

ummmm how does a baby leap in a womb? (and I noticed we’ve started ignoring me)

namewithnoface wrote:
ummmm how does a baby leap in a womb? (and I noticed we’ve started ignoring me)

You’re obviously never been pregnant. They do all sorts of activity in the womb - stretching, jumping, wiggling, punching, kicking. Why not leaping?

I lived with my best friend through her entire pregnancy. I know a thing or two.

I’m not sure you understand the verbs jump and leap all that well though… it does not mean, thrust legs downward.

again leaping for joy is an expression, which is silly to make assumptions based off of.

and again… a baby kicked, so that means it had a soul and was filled with the holy spirit? you’re pulling at straws there, I’m afraid.

leaping does not imply one has the Holy Ghost, or is under the influence of. but in this particular circumstance, yes.

why in this particular circumstance and not others? you aren’t really backing up your statement.

and again, getting back to the whole idea of when life begins. you never responded to my, “when does the soul leave the body” reply. I mean, if you want to know where something begins, find where it ends and apply the principle in reverse order.

I still don’t see how you can be taking figurative language so literally though. There is ALOT of stuff that when taken litteraly, just doesn’t quite make sense. Like God making everything in 7 days. Earth has pillars that shake. The Earth doesn’t move. You should cut off or otherwise remove any of your body parts that cause you to sin.

If I say, “I was flying down the road in my sports car when the cop pulled me over” you would understand that I was getting a speeding ticket and not a citation for flying my sports car too low.

not backing up my statment? where am i not backing up my statment?
in what particular circumstance?
as in john being differnt?
i did imply he recieved the gift of the holy ghost
i did not imply his body obtained it’s soul
i hope thats clear enough

as for when the soul leaves thats a different conversation
as i mentioned earlyer
im not willing to thread jack

This was directed at the person who said at the end of their statement “therefor john had a soul”

but still, the principle is the same, figurative language seems to be taken quite literally under your interpretation, and I’m not quite sure that is the best way to discern an answer in this case.

and the discussion about when the soul leaves a body is directly related, becuase if you know that, you can just put the process in reverse to consider when it entered. That is unless becoming alive and no longer being alive are not connected from your point of view. In which case, how can one be used as a basis for considering when life begins and not for when it ends?

life is over whene the body no longer functions
i.e. heart beat, breath, brainfunction
as there are some cases of sort of inbetween i am without definat answer.
many things in life find me without an answer

as for a soulless baby feeling joy, the body and the person both have desires, and frequently are in conflict with one and another

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) Galations 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other:

cant tell me u aint never looked at a great big pile of sugary desert and wanted, but fought to control your self
your body likes pleasure, your spirit fights to keep control over the body

and so also whene you give the body a overdose of goodness, or electric shock or whatever the case my be u jump, shuder, fall, or what ever

and in balance of whene Jesus said He taught in parables in order to confuse people, then interperated it to His deciples yes i do very much believe the litteral Word of God.
but as Christ Himself said, it does not mean what you think you read, it is encoded in parable. not to be unto everymans interperatation, but His interperatation

if life functions are the basis of a soul leaving a body, why is the soul entering the body limited to breathing air? blood is flowing, neuron pathways are being reinforced (learning), emotions are even active in the unborn. Could it be a kind of awakening?

calemus wrote:
but as Christ Himself said, it does not mean what you think you read, it is encoded in parable. not to be unto everymans interperatation, but His interperatation

what makes you believe your interpretation is the right one? you are not god or jesus. you are a person and are subject to human fallibility.

also, jesus didn’t really say all of his word is parable, and more specifically, he recites stories that are not assumed to be fact, but hypothetical instead, and they are told in a distinct manner of story telling. the rest of the bible is the word of god, and not presented in parable form. Otherwise one might even consider the story of christ to simply be a parable, and the entire bible itself nothing but a collection of historical fiction parables. This likelyhood is doubled by the fact that so many similarities exist between it and other religious doctrines.

If there’s not too much offense, I will respond to this post with a
Christian perspective.
The Bible says that who we are as an individual is already thought of, by God, a long time ago. It would seem that the determination of timing becomes an interesting question as to when we are commissioned into life.
The easiest to explain on any level is physical existance.
More complex, though, is how is our soul made. Honestly, who really knows, but as a Christian I know that we are Created by God and Im sure this process is very interesting. I’ve given this some thought and (of course) came up with my own conclusion that I feel comfortable with, so, here it is.
I think that once God determines which era we will enter life (physically), He determines the family tree by which we will proliferate from. And when the time is right, I think that God literally, for one second of time, becomes us and then splices that part of Him from His Totalness (if there could be such a word). Then there we are - a soul.
Like peeling a splinter from a lit, woodn match.
And then that soul is infused into the physical realm (conception), at the right time.

but the question is, WHEN does this happen? At what point does a pile of sperm/egg genetic soup become a human being that is alive, and a secondary question is when does that human being get a soul?

immediately from conception? does that sperm and egg have a soul before conception? some time after the development of the fetus? or at birth? or even some time after birth?

the problem is the fallacious assumption that we all have souls and that we are all actually alive.

John Henry wrote:
the problem is the fallacious assumption that we all have souls and that we are all actually alive.

well at least i know that i exist

“I think I am therefore I am I think” does not prove life or a soul. The other problem is you people are trying to reconcile biology with theology and vice-verse. They are disciplines of completely separate natures. Its like trying to use a hammer to pound in screws.

Life is a word. And existence is the first step you have to take to being alive… if you don’t exist, you can’t be alive.

You are splitting hairs though. The first given of the question at hand is that things can be alive. You are denying this, so you might as well be talking about nothing.

Also, life is a word. Its meaning is given by the people who use it. So your point is moot becuase, while we are trying to come to an agreement on what that definition is, you are simply saying there is no such thing.

The soul argument was simply a branch off of the main point in an attempt to create a definition. If you can’t define life by biological standards, then the only way you can is through metaphysical reasoning. I don’t really consider the soul debate to really apply, but since the beginning of life is most divisive when it comes to moral arguments, and becuase those arguments are often based on religion, then it only makes sense to take that religion’s concepts into consideration.

Its like trying to argue the existence of god to a theist by saying, god does not exist. That is not a valid argument.

Also, Carpenter pro tip: if you run out of nails, screws make pretty good replacements if they’re made of the right stuff and don’t break. ;)

Edit:
Its like trying to argue the what kind of God there is to a theist by saying, “God does not exist.” That is not a valid argument for a kind of God and not even a valid argument against the existence of God.

I apologize for muddling the issue by trying to negate the meaning of the word life. My original statement is that this whole argument is based on assumptions and is therefore fallacious (logically unsound). So what has and will continue is only going to be opinions based on beliefs and not facts. Which is fine but if you are going to REASON then you cannot use beliefs to argue facts and the other way around so yes you are right this is a search for meaning but if you fail to take in the whole picture you are going to only arrive right back where you started which is probably the opinion you started off with.

all arguments are base on assumption deary.

skepticism 101, you can’t know anything ever.

empiricism, you can only know what you can experience and derive from the senses.

rationalism, you can only know what you can derive from reason.

and yet all these are based on their own assumptions about what you can know.

the truth is, existence itself is based on a belief. in reality, you could be a pickled brain/entity in a jar with a program telling you that you are seeing this message.

Also, a fact, knowledge, the truth… these are not stand alone concepts. they are a collective agreement. if you are asked to prove that 2+2=4 then first you have to agree that objects can have amounts, then you have to agree on what these amounts can define, with one of them being 2 and another being 4. then you have to agree on the defined values of 2 and 4. then you have to agree on the operation of addition… etc etc etc.

If you disagree at any stage, the proof is rendered moot.

shared beliefs are as good as facts becuase they are agreed to be true. If you want an empirical definition of life, then I’ll first tell you to prove that you aren’t a brain in a jar before you start arguing about why your so called facts are more valid than a theist’s beliefs when making a definition of life.

It’s true, you could take a skeptical standpoint, but this is useless becuase nobody can apply it. From a technical standpoint, we are all just particles whizzing around to which life has no meaning. But we still call a living person alive, and a dead person dead. We base our most extreme laws on this concept alone. That is why it is important to allow all considerations into the argument.

Life itself is a belief that people agree on. Just becuase you use a different criteria to define it than a theist might does not make you any more right than they are.

But before I get too much further. When do YOU think life begins? and check our my questions from above… do you have any good answers to them?

First of all I am not simply trying to be skeptical nor am I postulating some absurd notion that we are just brains in a jar on someones desk. I am trying to offer a legitimate understanding. Secondly don’t call me deary… thanks. Lastly by asking me when life begins you are essentially doing what you’ve accused me of trying to do to this post. Example:

namewithnoface wrote:
Edit:
Its like trying to argue the what kind of God there is to a theist by saying, “God does not exist.” That is not a valid argument for a kind of God and not even a valid argument against the existence of God.

So I will answer your question and I am not trying to be difficult or obstinate or skeptical
but before I do I would like to know the definition or idea that is “life” that is generally assumed by everyone.

By the way the “skeptical technical” standpoint that you presume that I am taking is totally applicable it just requires you to take the view point that life as we know it does not actually exist as we suppose it does. Having to do this is hard it assaults our identity and notion of self. But if you can make pretend or allow yourself to venture into such uncomfortable grounds you will find that there is much that makes sense and it is ok that it does. As for the question to the post “when does life begin” you will either come the conclusion that since life does not exist it cannot begin or you can say that life began when the universe began which is a beautiful notion to me in a reasonable, logically sound, observable way everything that is has always been and will be till it ends and meaning and identity are not all together unimportant just second to the realization that everything is connected and everything that you and I physically are at this moment was something else in the past and will be something else in the future. Little mini reincarnations every moment transforming ourselves and the world around us. As for the soul… I think that soul is a mysterious blue sparkly energy that surrounds us that you can’t see unless you die or someone else who has died comes to you in moments of extreme peril or insight that you only obtain once you have become one with the force.

The question that should be asked is “when does the church think life begins and how does this compare to what we know in biology?” Or “What are the biological processes that form a life and how does this reconcile with (insert a religion)’s views?” So the problem isn’t really the answer it is just a poor question.

Anonymous wrote:
So I will answer your question and I am not trying to be difficult or obstinate or skeptical
but before I do I would like to know the definition or idea that is “life” that is generally assumed by everyone.

That is what this discussion is all about.. trying to come up with an agreement on the answer to this question. when life begins goes directly towards answering what life is and what it means to be alive.

Also. Your answer, from what I gather, is first, life may not exist, to which I would ask, what grounds does the law have to try someone for murder? Terms like kill would hold no meaning if there was no life to end. So should we abandon these laws?

Your second answer is that life began at the beginning of the universe.

But these are both a bit off from answering the questions about life.

How bout I pose the question in a more easily understood manner to avoid further obfuscations. Lets start with a few givens. You and I are alive. Abraham Lincoln was once alive but is now dead. A child I may have in the future will be alive, but right now is not alive.

Now then, with those given premises in mind, at what point will my future child become living and at what point will we become dead?

namewithnoface wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I will answer your question and I am not trying to be difficult or obstinate or skeptical
but before I do I would like to know the definition or idea that is “life” that is generally assumed by everyone.

That is what this discussion is all about.. trying to come up with an agreement on the answer to this question. when life begins goes directly towards answering what life is and what it means to be alive.

so when I offer up that life might not exist how is this not trying to come up with a definition? I simply saying that we ought to first examine the parameters of the question.

To answer this statement/question: Terms like kill would hold no meaning if there was no life to end. So should we abandon these laws? You are making the assumption or postulating as truth that kill would have no meaning. Killing is harming and causing suffering directly and indirectly and moreover it is a law to protect human rights and keep society in order. We don’t just punish killers because they end someone’s life. Though that is the result there are many reasons why we have that law that don’t hinge on whether or not our definition of life is accurate. I assume that if we thought that life didn’t exist as we thought it did we may have to re-examine some of our laws but causing harm and suffering is generally frowned upon by most societies so I don’t think that laws that protect against that would change much.

Assuming that your statements above are true. I would have to say that a new life begins when the sex cells fuse and start replicating. We are dead when cellular respiration ceases.

Please reiterate

I thought my reply did a pretty good job of reiterating the main point of this post. there are those who are not yet alive, there are those who are alive, and there are those who are dead and no longer alive… the question is, when (at what stage or point in time) does not yet living become living?

my own addendum to this question, which i believe to be relevant, is when does the living become dead?

I don’t really think you did you just state things like they are true and hope that someone will agree with you.

life begins when we start commiting mistakes and later @ a point realize what we had done.. n start to rectify them…

lolzy wrote:
The main question is: when does a person become a person?

For the religious, this leads to the question: when (specifically) does a person get their soul?

Further interpretations of the question are: when does life begin? what constitutes a living person? When does a person gain their humanity?

Other questions which i ask you to think about after you state your beliefs:
when, along the development of a person, is extinguishing that growth murder?
when does life end?
what defines a human person?
do you agree with the law that pins a person with a double-homicide if they murder a pregnant woman?
When do identical twins become two distinct humans?
in the case of human chimeras, where fraternal twins fuse to form a single baby, when is humanity acquired by this person? did a person die during this process?
what is the difference between a newborn and a baby about to be born?
what is the difference between life and potential life? when is the exact transition?
is removing vital organs from a beating-heart patient (a donor who is brain dead but still has a functioning heart that beats without assistance) murder?
is it possible to be born without a soul? or, is it possible to be born not entirely a human?
is human cloning tampering with humanity that is already there? or is it part of a process in which a person can gain humanity? or, does human cloning interfere with the soul?

BIG AL ONE wrote:
The Bible says that who we are as an individual is already thought of, by God, a long time ago. It would seem that the determination of timing becomes an interesting question as to when the soul is commissioned into life.
The easiest to explain, on any level, is physical existance.
More complex, though, is how is our soul made. Honestly, who really knows, but as a Christian I know that we are Created by God and Im sure this process is very interesting. I’ve given this some thought and (of course) came up with my own conclusion that I feel comfortable with, so, here it is.
I think that once God determines which era we will enter life (physically), He determines the family tree by which we will proliferate from. And when the time is right, I think that God literally, for one second of time, becomes us and then splices that part of Him from His Totalness (if there could be such a word). Then there we are - a soul.
Like peeling a splinter from a lit, wooden match.
And then that soul is infused into the physical relm (conception), at the right time.

To answer further you questions is to look at what is obvious - it’s obvious that killing a new-born baby is murder. Is it so just seconds before it is born? I think so. A day before it’s born? A month? Two months? Six months? What about the time when a sperm has carried its 23 chromosomes to the egg which also bears 23 chrosomes to combine together 46 chrosomes (the full compliment of a human being at any point in a persons life. . .)
Look. . .things on a physical can become obscure and therefore can or should be answered only from a spiritual perspective - because it’s nearer to what the truth is, at least, in my opinion. I think that God has an intent on infusing a soul into a human being at the point of conception. Killing the flesh, in and of itself may not be what constitutes the murder, but when it gets in the way of what Gods intent is. . .perhaps so. . .

Yes, I do agree with the double homicide law if the woman is pregnet because (if not her) then what the father and other family members expect that unborn baby to be under the assumption of its birth.

I personally believe the human soul resides in the brain. I don’t think my soul lessens say if I’ve had my legs or arms cut off - so many things can be removed from a person, physically and they are no less of a person - it is because that person resides in the mind. Research the Thalamus. So, I don’t necessarily believe that removing a still beating heart from a totally brain dead person is murder - or killing for that matter.

I think that physically identical twins each recieve seperate souls at that specific point where the group of cells fully divide into seperate whole(s).

Though many disagree, I do not believe that human cloning interferes with that person having a soul.

today