Does the scientific community have a consensus view on when life begins?

Simple question, maybe not so simple answer.

 

the baby has no right until he is born.
she is the part of mothers body.
human, beings bring oxygen the baby does not until he is born

 

Ugh. I didn't intend this to be a thread full of people's opinions on abortion.

The thread title is "Does the scientific community have a consensus view on when life begins?"

If you have any links to help me answer this I'd appreciate it.

 

Yes, it begins when the sperm enters the egg. Biology 101.

 

Links? And I guess I should split this question into two parts:

1. life
2. human life

 

i am only concern about human life. and untill some one can prove that the fetus is human, i say lets be cautious and leave the decision to the mother that we know is human

 

I will find you some info. Now that being said. This is not a pro or anti abortion thread correct? This is a simple question that about beginning of life and we are not discussing abortion? Correct me if I am wrong.

Truly a remarkable reply. If you do not know where babies come from you should attend Obama's five year old sex education class. You cannot be serious.

 

A single sperm is technically "alive", But it's no more alive than a skin cell on your anus is. In real terms, The question of "when does an embryo become a human" is no more likely to ever be answered than the question of "when does a child become an adult" is; Meaning, we can legislate and give rights based on an age, But in scientific terms there is no instant that a child becomes an adult and there is no instant that an embryo becomes a person.

 

Would you consider a heartbeat and brain activity life?

 

I speak only for myself when I say that I am curios about what the scientific community would say. I would like to avoid the abortion topic here as well.

I think stox just suggested that "life" begins as conception. I suggest no implications beyond that.

Edit:
Oops. nope, he's thinking even before that.

 

Here is a link to an excerpt of a book on developmental biology written by an expert in the field. I want to note that you should ask for the consensus from the "specialised" scientific community. Physicists, archeologists and dentists are still part of the scientific community but their opinion in the matter is as valid as the opinion of a financial analyst or a deacon (please note that I didn't say "not valid"). In this case, the specialised people are developmental biologists.

The text won't concretely answer the question, but will provide you with a view of what is involved in answering them, and what is the position from different fields of the scientific disciplines involved.

Read it here

 

Not necessarily. I could, and have, Got a dead organism and produced a heartbeat and brain activity, But that is just the cells doing what the cells do (cardiac muscle cells contract when exposed to a current and brain cells produce neural pathways). The presence of a heartbeat and brain activity, While required for human life, Are not indicative of it.

But like i said, Even sperm are technically "alive", In the same sense as skin cells are, The important thing we have to do is be able to distinguish between "not a person" and "a person".

Should a baby one week before birth be considered human? Yes.
Should a zygote be considered human? No.
While we are never going to be able to decide when exactly the transition into "human" occurs, We should strive to be able to at least identify the two stages.

 

Is a jelly fish consider alive?


I have got to go do some shooting. Try to keep it civil while I am gone. This thread has the potential to be good.

 

Yes. So are sponges, bacteria and human hair. But like i said, Being "alive" isn't getting to the real issue as even sperm are "alive", with human development we have to decide when it becomes a person.

 

after it leaves the body and becomes an air breading individual.
before that it is pre human so the mother takes priority.
further more until we reach a conclusive answer we should leave it to the mother to decide because it also involves her body and life.
for the Christians
if god made humans and made the mother the carrier and provider and the protector of the fetus then who are you to to override god.
waiting for an answer

 

Fourteen Days

 

I don't think a scientific consensus is reached by quoting an obscure webpage which makes unsubstantiated claims about what "most scientists" believe. All you done was copy and paste someone else's argument.

 

If god made humans capable of breeding, why do we use condoms? Who are we to override god?

 

god does jack.
why don't you answer my question. Have i settled the abortion question?

 

I'm not against abortion. I believe a woman has the right to decide if she wants to have a baby or not. Also, given the fact that using protection is not a 100% safe all the time, unwanted pregnancies are bound to happen. So, abortion is necessary.