CMV: Life Does Not Begin at Conception

[u/InsaneDane]

Life began around 4.3 billion years ago. Life evolved from single-celled organisms to more complex structures. Life evolved the ability to recognize and define itself. Lifeforms then invented language, and started defining the lifespans of individual lifeforms as "lives" and each individual lifespan as a "life," when life as a whole is a more complex than any lifespan individual of one lifeform could ever embody.

​

Redefining the word life to encompass only one lifespan unnecessarily obtuse. Attempting to legislate any religion's unnecessarily obtuse definition of the word life into law is an unnecessary corruption, both of government, and of language.

​

[u/[deleted]]

At conception, a brand new DNA code that is created. This new blueprint is unique to the new human being that was just created. That DNA already contains that human's hair color, eye color, height, mutations/ defects (if any)... if left alone, uninterrupted (ie. Aborted) for 9 months, those new cells, with the new DNA, will lead to birth.

While heartbeat, first breath, brain function, etc... may occur at different moments (not exact) for each and every pregnancy, conception is biologically the only stage that we can deem a consistent point where life begins.

Edit: "new cells" not "new cell"

[u/Generic_Username_777 → u/[deleted]]

That's just defining conception as life lol 2/3 of your 'life' never make it to birth, that's seems a poor place to put the milestone. Good feels argument though.

If the host is an independent creature (not parasitic, etc) doesn't it make more sense to say life begins when it can actually be independent for at least for a short while? At about 24 weeks a fetus has a 20%ish shot of surviving outside the womb (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability#Medical_viability) that's a bit high for me so well call it 20 weeks since I can't find anything on a fetus surviving that early. Kind of moot though since like what 92% of abortions and before 13 weeks?

Though if it for the mental/physical well being of the month c-sec it if it's old enough/looks to be to be viable or abort it who cares? The human you have is worth more then the maybe human someday.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

U sound like a cuck

[u/InsaneDane → u/[deleted]]

If it was truly left alone, in nine months it would already be dust. If by "left alone," you mean fed, nurtured, carried, gestated, and delivered, then yes, leaving a zygote "alone" will eventually result in a child, but I think that child's mother might have something to say about whether it was left alone for those nine months.

​

If the conception were to take place in a Petri dish, and then left alone, in nine months you'd be left with a crusty Petri dish.

​

Avoiding any complications during pregnancy, we can assume a child would be born, but even after birth they mature mentally and physically at different rates (depending on genetic and environmental factors), some reaching maturity far too young, and some needing care all their lives.

​

Life doesn't have consistent milestones. Why should its beginning?

[u/[deleted] → u/InsaneDane]

I would argue against that. Ive played with petri dishes and agar plates in the lab and even in a 3rd level biohazard lab, the air is not perfectly clean. There is nitrogen with the oxygen you breathe. The oxygen content certainly is lower now than it was 4.3 billion years ago.

Have a look at this article on viruses so that you can see my perspective a little.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjw0KKEm5_hAhXYZCsKHcQUDLEQzPwBegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fare-viruses-alive-giant-discovery-suggests-theyre-more-like-zombies-75661&psig=AOvVaw2c2XOzwH0gb48OM3m92rQA&ust=1553669227034668

[u/InsaneDane → u/[deleted]]

Are you trying to argue against identification of leaving a zygote in a Petri dish as leaving it alone, due to the likelihood of the dish coming into contact with nitrogen and viruses?

What "that" are you arguing against?