question from my five yr old daughter!

[dean]

I agree with Ulthar on this one: the day the baby becomes a separate entity is an easily defined way of determining the age of a baby.  That and like mentioned: they may not want to hear the gruesome details of when their life started; I wouldn't want to hear some story about how I was born just as the chorus to "Rock you like a hurricane" came on.

I think the best way to teach sex to children is dropping food coloring in a glass of water, then tell the kids to return the water to its normal state without changing the volume of water.

What if we had a 'magical' chemical that when added to the water, changed the colour back to its original clear-self?    I'm just saying there's better ways of teaching that particular lesson is all.

As for the 'those who are for abortion believes in magic' comment - well...

[I'm sorry, I don't intend to stir up debate further, I'll go back in my hole now]

[Skull]

I think the best way to teach sex to children is dropping food coloring in a glass of water, then tell the kids to return the water to its normal state without changing the volume of water.

What if we had a 'magical' chemical that when added to the water, changed the colour back to its original clear-self?    I'm just saying there's better ways of teaching that particular lesson is all.

Lol... the intent on my suggestion is to show how change cannot be reversed.

I think it's more effective then keeping an egg for a week or putting a condom on a banana...

As for the 'those who are for abortion believes in magic' comment - well...

[I'm sorry, I don't intend to stir up debate further, I'll go back in my hole now]

I'll explain my magic comment... A typical argument for justification abortion is to assume that the baby doesn't have a soul until the brain is fully developed. Therefore since the baby doesn't have a soul it seems reasonable to abort the baby at such and such time. The problem with this argument there is no science proof when, how or even if we do have souls. This is a religious faith and not science, therefore if anybody is using the justification to abort a baby at such and such stage because it doesn't have a soul hence its not actually alive...  Do believe in magic.

As far as I know souls are created when the egg and the sperm clashes together.

The basic principle of life is the need for survival; once the sperm hits the egg it develops a need for survival. This is why I think life starts at conception.

[dean]

Lol... the intent on my suggestion is to show how change cannot be reversed.

I think it's more effective then keeping an egg for a week or putting a condom on a banana...

Yeah I got that, I was just being a goof!  As for the debate about souls etc, well that's for another place. 

[Skull]

Lol... the intent on my suggestion is to show how change cannot be reversed.

I think it's more effective then keeping an egg for a week or putting a condom on a banana...

Yeah I got that, I was just being a goof!  As for the debate about souls etc, well that's for another place. 

Agree it's a hard argument to debate... that's why I point out science (aka the basic principles of life)...

[Flick James]

lester, in an earlier reply, posted this:

in the past people didn't know exactly how far along a baby was. you knew you were prgnant when you figured it out. you couldn't do like DNA tests or something to determine the exact moment of conception. so the earliest measurable date was the date of birth.

This is one of the few responses that attempted to answer the original question without trying to inject the abortion topic into it. It's a simple answer that makes sense. It's just the old way of doing things and it just hasn't changed. Period. At this stage of the science game it's kind of hard to deny that a new life exists when there is a distinct genetic identity, thus, at conception. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that. But, like lester said, the law recognizes birth as the beginning of life from a legal standpoint. The law likes to deal with tangibles whenever possible, and a baby that is outside and is tactile to more than just the mother appeals to legal concepts much more practically than a fetus in the womb. Look at things from a perspective of things 100 years ago. Much of what happened in the womb was a mystery. No way was the law going to touch that, so it stuck with the basics: "we've got a tangible life we can see, it's a boy/girl, stamp it as a life and move on." All the rhetoric over abortion rights and when a life begins didn't really matter to the mainstream until science began to be able to do and see more.

[macabre]

hi
Thank you rev! I seem to have this uncanny knack of being misunderstood.My original point was to explain a conversation i had with my five year old daughter.It is not my intention to create arguments between you guys on this site, I understand that this thread may bring up personal opinions and i accept that opinions may clash.I asked a question and i appreciate your reply,s and your honesty but please let us not divert from my original point.

[Skull]

lester, in an earlier reply, posted this:

in the past people didn't know exactly how far along a baby was. you knew you were prgnant when you figured it out. you couldn't do like DNA tests or something to determine the exact moment of conception. so the earliest measurable date was the date of birth.

This is one of the few responses that attempted to answer the original question without trying to inject the abortion topic into it. It's a simple answer that makes sense. It's just the old way of doing things and it just hasn't changed. Period. At this stage of the science game it's kind of hard to deny that a new life exists when there is a distinct genetic identity, thus, at conception. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that. But, like lester said, the law recognizes birth as the beginning of life from a legal standpoint. The law likes to deal with tangibles whenever possible, and a baby that is outside and is tactile to more than just the mother appeals to legal concepts much more practically than a fetus in the womb. Look at things from a perspective of things 100 years ago. Much of what happened in the womb was a mystery. No way was the law going to touch that, so it stuck with the basics: "we've got a tangible life we can see, it's a boy/girl, stamp it as a life and move on." All the rhetoric over abortion rights and when a life begins didn't really matter to the mainstream until science began to be able to do and see more.

I think I need to repeat myself here...

The basic principle of life is the need for survival; once the sperm hits the egg it develops a need for survival.  This is why I think life starts at conception. There is no middle ground, life has been set into motion and its Irreversible.


As for laws they do change... Currently speaking HEALTHCARE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

I think you are bating yourself into this argument... I'm only pointing out that life starts at conception and if they teach that in schools maybe teenagers will think sex differently and understand its a pleasure that shouldnt be treated so lightly. (although that is a long shot)

[Skull]

hi
Thank you rev! I seem to have this uncanny knack of being misunderstood.My original point was to explain a conversation i had with my five year old daughter.It is not my intention to create arguments between you guys on this site, I understand that this thread may bring up personal opinions and i accept that opinions may clash.I asked a question and i appreciate your reply,s and your honesty but please let us not divert from my original point.

Sorry but you already knew this was going to happen... I'm point out when life starts... many has opinions on this issue and for some oddball reason think talking is offensive.

I'm very sorry for saying life starts at conception is offensive... I just dont believe in magic.

[macabre]

hi
I shall not annoy you guys by repeatedly replying to comments so this shall be my last on this subject. Skull you do not need to apologise to me,i count you and all you guys as my friend,Your opinions on any subject are personal to you and mean as much as my or anyone else,s opinion. I just do not want any of you guys falling out over this thread.I acknowledge all your replies. My question as been answered so lets all move on and start another thread.

[Chainsawmidget]

As far as I know souls are created when the egg and the sperm clashes together.

Some theologies don't belive that you're born with a soul, but that you develop one as you begin to learn and make your own decissions. 

[Jim H]

I'll explain my magic comment... A typical argument for justification abortion is to assume that the baby doesn't have a soul until the brain is fully developed. Therefore since the baby doesn't have a soul it seems reasonable to abort the baby at such and such time. The problem with this argument there is no science proof when, how or even if we do have souls. This is a religious faith and not science, therefore if anybody is using the justification to abort a baby at such and such stage because it doesn't have a soul hence its not actually alive...  Do believe in magic.

As far as I know souls are created when the egg and the sperm clashes together.

I'm genuinely curious.  Where did you hear someone argue that the fetus gets a soul once the brain is fully developed?  I've never heard this before, and I thought I'd heard just about every pro and anti abortion argument in the book.  That's why I generally don't post too much in abortion threads anymore - eventually it just goes in circles.  Anyway, the argument sounds like a variant of "they're not truly a person until X" arguments, but those people rarely bring religious ideas like the soul into the equation. 

And by the way (just to be clear here), if you think babies get a soul when sperm and egg collides, or if you think they just get one later, those are exactly equivalent beliefs in 'magic'. 

[Flick James]

lester, in an earlier reply, posted this:

in the past people didn't know exactly how far along a baby was. you knew you were prgnant when you figured it out. you couldn't do like DNA tests or something to determine the exact moment of conception. so the earliest measurable date was the date of birth.

This is one of the few responses that attempted to answer the original question without trying to inject the abortion topic into it. It's a simple answer that makes sense. It's just the old way of doing things and it just hasn't changed. Period. At this stage of the science game it's kind of hard to deny that a new life exists when there is a distinct genetic identity, thus, at conception. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that. But, like lester said, the law recognizes birth as the beginning of life from a legal standpoint. The law likes to deal with tangibles whenever possible, and a baby that is outside and is tactile to more than just the mother appeals to legal concepts much more practically than a fetus in the womb. Look at things from a perspective of things 100 years ago. Much of what happened in the womb was a mystery. No way was the law going to touch that, so it stuck with the basics: "we've got a tangible life we can see, it's a boy/girl, stamp it as a life and move on." All the rhetoric over abortion rights and when a life begins didn't really matter to the mainstream until science began to be able to do and see more.

I think I need to repeat myself here...

The basic principle of life is the need for survival; once the sperm hits the egg it develops a need for survival.  This is why I think life starts at conception. There is no middle ground, life has been set into motion and its Irreversible.


As for laws they do change... Currently speaking HEALTHCARE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

I think you are bating yourself into this argument... I'm only pointing out that life starts at conception and if they teach that in schools maybe teenagers will think sex differently and understand its a pleasure that shouldnt be treated so lightly. (although that is a long shot)

You crack me up, Skull. I'm convinced you will inject a debate into ANYTHING. 

If you looked at my post you would see that I essentially agreed with you almost exactly on when life begins. I was simply providing an amateur analysis of the traditional way a life has been identified according to the law, and not making any political statements of any kind. And yes, to a small degree, I was showing disapproval of people hijacking a topic and turning it into something the original poster didn't intend. While I understand that happens on online forums, and caveat emptor and all that, I'm still entitled to think it's rude. Gee whiz.

[AndyC]

Seems appropriate that Skull mentioned about some things being irreversible. Such as a thread going way off track into a rampaging political/theological/philosophical/economical debate. Trying to get it back on topic can feel a little bit like trying to put the s**t back in the dog.

I will however, stick to the original question. I agree with Lester that people in the distant past didn't have enough of an idea of what was going on inside to put an exact beginning to a pregnancy. But I'd also add that in terms of significance, it's more appropriate to count someone's age from the day someone emerges into the world as a totally distinct individual, with a name and a face, and they begin to interact and gather experiences. And from their parents' point of view, the day of conception was probably fun, but the birth is the exciting time.

That is, of course, from a social point of view. Biologically, I agree that life begins at conception, when two half-sets of chromosomes come together to create a set of genes distinct from either parent. Well, really life began in the primordial soup, and everything since has been one continuous chain of life, but as far as when an individual human life begins, I say conception. A fetus is genetically distinct, making it a separate person, regardless of who it's attached to (which is why I get annoyed with women who make it all about "my body"). As for when a fetus develops awareness (which is probably where Skull got that bit about a soul developing with the brain), that's really irrelevant. What it is at the moment is not the point for me. I see it according to potential - what it would become if left alone.

And all science and philosophy aside, I think surgical procedures should be reserved for correcting medical problems, as prescribed by a qualified physician. They should not be available at the whim of anyone who wants to escape the consequences of their actions. Birth control should be proactive, not retroactive.

OK, that wasn't sticking to the original question. See what I mean about the dog?