If we don’t know when life begins, then we can’t say it has begun at birth, or at age five, or at 50.
The fact is, no scientific, biological, or medical textbook says that life begins at any point other than conception. Further, simple deductive reasoning proves that life begins at conception because that is the only time it can begin. At no moment in a pregnancy does an action take place at the exact same moment in all other pregnancies past, present, and future, other than at conception; that action being the beginning of a life. All pregnancies start at conception, however not all fetuses develop at exactly according times and therefore the start of life can not be pin-pointed other than at conception.
However, even if it were true that no one can prove when life begins, that is not a justification for legalized abortion. To say that no one knows when life begins is, at the very least, an acknowledgment that it might begin at conception.
Still, some abortion advocates will contend that abortion should be allowed even if we accept that the unborn are living human beings. The question then becomes, if the humanity of the unborn is irrelevant when deciding whether they can be killed, why is the humanity of a new born, five-year-old, or 50 year old relevant when making the same decision?
As for the argument that women must be allowed to decide when the lives of their children have begun, imagine two children who are conceived at the same moment. Three months later, one mother talks about her baby, knows its sex, has heard it's heartbeat, and has even seen it on an ultrasound screen. The other mother believes that the life of her child hasn’t begun yet and decides to have it killed by abortion. The pro-choice mentality is that both mothers are right, despite the fact it is physically impossible for that to be true.
Reply
William
3/26/2009 03:07:01 am
Well said, Patrick!
Reply
Anon.
3/30/2009 02:17:05 am
Being nearly seven weeks pregnant I don't understand how anyone could say that an unborn child is not a life. My body has been extremely affected by this child inside of me. Knowing that the decisions I make now affect not only me, but an innocent life has made me change the way I live. I may be a college student, but as of seven weeks ago I became a mother. My main purpose in life has changed, it is now to take care of myself and this child. This child who has a heart beat, legs, arms, a nose, mouth, two eyes, and ears. A child that depends on me, just as an infant does.
Reply
Meredith
4/7/2009 02:24:32 pm
I find it funny that two of the three people debating this are male, AND WILL NEVER. BE. PREGNANT.
Get your religious dogma out of my uterus and away from my government.
Reply
Patrick
4/10/2009 12:12:36 pm
While I can understand the logic of this argument, it is a very discriminating belief. Your opinion that men shouldn't be able to debate this topic is contradictory. We all know that it takes a man and a woman to create a life. This life is both the responsibility of the woman and the man; a 50/50 responsibility. A great example of this is child support. Child support is put in place to help support the child's financial needs if problems arise in the parental relationship. Men are often required, by law, to provide payments to the child's mother on behalf of the child's financial well-being. Why do some women believe that men should have to pay child support, but also believe that a man's right to an opinion is unjustified? This is extremely contradicting because in one instance men are not wanted, and in the next instance they are. As you can see, taking a man's opinion away on the issue because they will "never be pregnant", is the same as men not paying child support simply because they aren't raising the child. Neither holds much ground.
Secondly, speaking for myself, I am not religious; I'm Agnostic. Your assumption does not apply to all pro-life believers. Many view abortion as wrong for reasons other than religious teachings. Will this change your assumption, probably not, but hopefully you will be a little more accepting seeing that we both agree religion is not a factor.
Reply
Kristi
4/18/2009 02:32:21 pm
I, too, am pro-life for reasons other than religion. It's a big misunderstanding that all pro-lifers hold their beliefs for religious reasons.
This is absolutely ridiculous that this is even under debate. It is just one of many misdirections abortionists use to justify killing a human being. Abortion is simply a tool for people to use to rid themselves of the "inconvenience" of parenthood.
Take the case of Casey and Kaylee Anthony. Casey (allegedly) killed her child because she "got in the way of partying and having fun". She was inconvenienced by the presence of her very own daughter and so what did she do? (Allegedly) Killed her daughter. And the public is outraged that a woman can kill a child for her own convenience. Are we really surprised? It happens every day -- in fact 3,000 times a day -- in this country with abortion. There is no difference.
Life undoubtedly begins at conception. By the scientific definition, a zygote is life.
The debate shouldn't be where life begins, because it forces those who believe in the sanctity of human life to backpedal to defend that position when the position we should be defending is against abortion itself...
Reply
slick
4/28/2009 01:11:53 pm
dammmmmmmmmmm! get it on!.............
Reply
alex
6/4/2009 07:28:15 am
life begins at conception and that it no questions ask
Reply
Maranatha.Shalom
6/9/2009 11:17:52 pm
In hospitals all across this world, doctors mark the time of death by the cessation of the heart beat. Isn't it completely illogical that we deny the same consideration to the unborn? In a developing fetus, the heart begins to beat during the 3rd week - 21 days after conception. This is a SCIENTIFIC FACT - no faith required - just a beating heart and an open mind.
There's some really good reasoning here. For my part, I agree with Patrick. His logic is sound. I also agree with Kristi, that I am pro-life for reasons other than religious, the main reason being namely that pro-choice arguments are hauntingly similar to the arguments that slave traders put forward in the 1600-1700's. There's lots of good information on that subject for any interested. Thanks for the stimulating topic.
Reply
Elliot
9/7/2009 04:51:16 am
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but do not make such bold statements regarding when life begins. Neither science nor law has drawn a line which points to an absolute start of life. Some believe it is at conception, others say it is the first heartbeat, first conscious thought, or even first breath.
As for Patrick's statement of age 5 and 50, I understand the point he is getting at, however this is obviously too much of a stretch. We still do not know exactly when life begins, but it is no sooner than conception and no later than birth.
Pro-lifers think it is wrong to infringe upon the natural rights of the baby, but what about the natural rights of the mother to decide what to do with her own body? Men are allowed to masturbate even though this may kill potential future kin- because its their body and they can choose what to do. The same goes for women. And until science finds an absolute, and indisputable starting point of life, there will be no morally right answer.
Reply
Elliot
9/7/2009 04:59:05 am
i.e., I am saying that neither side is absolutely right (yet), but currently feel that Choice is the right option for reasons of extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest, or injury/death to the mother.
P.S. I am an agnostic and never consider religion as a basis, only science and morals.
Reply
Pearl
9/9/2009 05:20:41 am
Techincally Elliot, science does define life... The key ingredients to life (the definition of life) "1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt
"According to this definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). " Just thought I would throw that out there...
Reply
Mike
9/12/2009 04:58:21 am
Pro-Life Formula in Scriptures...
Makeup of a Person 1. Body/Soul -- Psalm 139-13. 2. Intellect -- Sirach 1-12. 3. Name -- Isaiah 45-10, 49-1, 49-15. 4. Person -- Luke 1-41.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
Reply
Elliot
9/12/2009 06:34:09 am
Pro-lifers obviously place a very high value on life, and we all should regardless of our stance on this issue.
Now let me ask you a question about life: is life purposeful, something with values and goals and meaning- or are we just living for the sake of living?
If the first is true, which I certainly hope, then would you want to bring a life into this world if it will be living under terrible circumstances, experiencing a life of pain, and lower the overall quality of life for its society by straining limited resources? Obviously this is not usually the case, but when it is, shouldn't we give ourselves the choice to prevent pain and lower quality of life for society and the newborn?
Or, if the second is true, that we are simply living because we are here, and we reproduce thoughtlessly just for the sake of continuing the human race, then certainly abortions should be unlawful because they are a detriment to keeping the human race going.
I value the sanctity of life, which is why I would not want to live in a world so grossly overpopulated that the whole human race suffers, and constantly shed blood fighting over scarce resources- simply because we denied ourselves the right to choose.
Reply
Levi
9/24/2009 01:49:07 pm
Elliot,
The idea that the earth can be overpopulated is an utter fallacy. Thomas Malthus thought in the late 1700s we'd run out of food by 1800. Why didn't it happen? The industrial revolution. Because of the human ability to form capital, conditions in a free market are relentlessly improving.
Everyone has there own opinion. This debate will never end. Cant we just all get along?
Reply
Jennifer
11/5/2009 12:30:27 pm
Elliot,
While I cannot deny there is suffering in the world, I don't think you would agree that I would have the right to kill you if you if I judged you were living under terrible circumstances. I don't think the child would choose death over potentially enduring some suffering. Would you? Who has the right to decide for someone else? Why don't we just kill all the poor people and people in war-torn countries and just put them out of their misery? I admire your sympathy, but it is not logical or ethical.
Some abortion advocates will contend that abortion should be allowed even if we accept that the unborn are living human beings. The question then becomes, if the humanity of the unborn is irrelevant when deciding whether they can be killed, why is the humanity of a new born, five-year-old, or 50 year old relevant when making the same decision?
