Life Begins At Conception

[chipbennett]

The beginning of life is apparently quite spectacular:

Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg

Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ‘fireworks’ on film.

An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.

Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans.

The beginning of life - new, biologically and genetically unique life - happens at conception:

Not only is it an incredible spectacle, highlighting the very moment that a new life begins...

“It’s a way of sorting egg quality in a way we’ve never been able to assess before. “All of biology starts at the time of fertilization, yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”

...

The bright flash occurs because when sperm enters and egg it triggers calcium to increase which releases zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up my camera microscopes.


Over the last six years this team has shown that zinc controls the decision to grow and change into a completely new genetic organism.

There are obvious moral and ethical implications of recognizing that life begins at conception; but to me, these breakthroughs are truly awe-inspiring.

 

[T.Lex]

Wow. Fascinating. And the technology to "see" it - incredible.

By the way, at first I thought this to be an Onion-style report, but the interaction of zinc and the enzymes does make some sense.

 

[miguel]

Hey, where have we heard this before?

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

 

[singlesix]

How about this one

From Love emerged Light, followed by Gaea, the earth.

 

[68NOVA]

You guys don't remember the opening credits from the movie, Look Who's Talking...?

[video]https://youtu.be/np1E1m-cMS8[/video]

 

[snorko]

It's the Allspark.

 

[HoughMade]

...There are obvious moral and ethical implications of recognizing that life begins at conception....

You'd think so, but the relevant law doesn't take this into account at all. Legally, as it stands now, when a distinct human life begins just doesn't matter.

 

[indiucky]

I hate Woody Allen...But this is funny....Burt Reynolds is a riot in this clip....

[video=youtube;dh4LikiGBrQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4LikiGBrQ[/video]

 

[chipbennett]

You'd think so, but the relevant law doesn't take this into account at all. Legally, as it stands now, when a distinct human life begins just doesn't matter.

Freudian slip on my part? I meant moral and ethical implications.

 

[indiucky]

Freudian slip on my part? I meant moral and ethical implications.

Penn Gillette once summed it up pretty well, I will paraphrase..."I am tired of this lack of clarity...Everyone is pro life and everyone is pro choice..The actual debate is that you either think life begins at conception or you think it begins at birth...Everything else is just noise..."

There is more than a little truth to that statement...

 

[HoughMade]

Penn Gillette once summed it up pretty well, I will paraphrase..."I am tired of this lack of clarity...Everyone is pro life and everyone is pro choice..The actual debate is that you either think life begins at conception or you think it begins at birth...Everything else is just noise..."

There is more than a little truth to that statement...

I'm not aware of anyone, on either side who has studied the issue who actually believes life begins at birth. I am aware of quite a few people who believe life begins before birth, but rights do not.

Freudian slip on my part? I meant moral and ethical implications.

It certainly should.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not aware of anyone, on either side who has studied the issue who actually believes life begins at birth. I am aware of quite a few people who believe life begins before birth, but rights do not.



It certainly should.

I will add: while I knew that the discussion turning that direction would be inevitable, I honestly posted the OP because of how awesome it is a) that life begins so spectacularly, and b) that human technology has advanced enough that we can actually witness it.

 

[PaulF]

This is interesting to watch, but it represents no new knowledge...it simply illustrates visually what has already been measured in the lab...a visually interesting chemical reaction to which some people will try to attach meaning.

Also, there is no "beginning" of life here. Life "began" eons ago. Both the egg and the sperm were "alive" before they came in contact with the other. Sexual reproduction is simply one mechanism by which life is propagated, one that ensures genetic diversity and fluidity.

So, what we see here is the beginning of a zygote...and without a consenting host within which it may attach and incubate, that is all it will ever be.

an acorn is not an oak tree, and a zygote is not a man.

I dont see moral or ethical implications here at all. I see chemistry, physics, and technology.

 

[chipbennett]

This is interesting to watch, but it represents no new knowledge...it simply illustrates visually what has already been measured in the lab...a visually interesting chemical reaction to which some people will try to attach meaning.

Indeed; that's why I posted.

Also, there is no "beginning" of life here. Life "began" eons ago.

Obviously, the beginning of all life is not what is being discussed here.

Both the egg and the sperm were "alive" before they came in contact with the other. Sexual reproduction is simply one mechanism by which life is propagated, one that ensures genetic diversity and fluidity.

But neither represented human life.

So, what we see here is the beginning of a zygote...and without a consenting host within which it may attach and incubate, that is all it will ever be.

Your limitation here is arbitrary, and based only on the advancement of human technology. I do not believe you to be so unimaginative as to believe that humans will never devise a completely artificial environment suitable for development of human zygotes outside of the womb.

an acorn is not an oak tree, and a zygote is not a man.

And yet, "zygote" and "man" are both merely developmental states of a human.

I dont see moral or ethical implications here at all. I see chemistry, physics, and technology.

You see only what your own confirmation bias allows you to see, but what you see contradicts accepted scientific fact, as quoted above, that biologically and genetically unique human life begins at conception.

What is sad is that, by focusing on the mental gymnastics necessary to make scientific fact fit your worldview, you seemingly miss any appreciation for a wonderous, spectacular look at the earliest moments of human life, made possible by advancement in human technology.

 

[PaulF]

You see only what your own confirmation bias allows you to see, but what you see contradicts accepted scientific fact, as quoted above, that biologically and genetically unique human life begins at conception.

What is sad is that, by focusing on the mental gymnastics necessary to make scientific fact fit your worldview, you seemingly miss any appreciation for a wonderous, spectacular look at the earliest moments of human life, made possible by advancement in human technology.

That door swings both ways, Chip.

You are desperately trying to equate the combination of human genetic material with the genesis of individual legal rights.

I am simply pointing out the obvious to you...by your definition a zygote may be "human", but so is a cancerous tumor.

Neither of those things has any legal right to exist simply based on the fact of their creation. Countless human eggs get fertilized but fail to yield developed human beings...untold billions of "humans" have been "created" but never progressed beyond a few foetal cells. Let's cut to the quick of your argument...did those zygotes, embryos, and foetus' all have full legal rights as men?

Your argument is ridiculous beyond words. There is no point to the "life begins at conception" argument beyond controlling women. Your argument is a pseudo-intellectual attempt to cover the fact that you want to use government force to coerce women to use their bodies against their own will...as forced incubators to host potential future human beings.

 

[HamsterStyle]

 

[singlesix]

So if this thread goes off the rails and a Mod is involved does this mean another Mod has to closed the thread?

 

[T.Lex]

I am simply pointing out the obvious to you...by your definition a zygote may be "human", but so is a cancerous tumor.

Only 1 of those has a legitimate chance of being birthed. The other is mathematically eliminated (to use the phrase of the day) due to insufficient genetic delegates.

Let's cut to the quick of your argument...did those zygotes, embryos, and foetus' all have full legal rights as men?

That's kinda what the abortion debate is all about, right? What lines to draw where. Doesn't change what we call the cluster of incubated cells.

 

[CindyE]

Your argument is ridiculous beyond words. There is no point to the "life begins at conception" argument beyond controlling women. Your argument is a pseudo-intellectual attempt to cover the fact that you want to use government force to coerce women to use their bodies against their own will...as forced incubators to host potential future human beings.

I just don't see it that way. I understand accidental, unplanned pregnancies happen, and I certainly wouldn't want to find myself in that situation, at my age. I know there are a number of reasons women choose to abort. I just don't see how any woman who has carried a child can think it's not a living being, even early on.
Sorry, I know better than to get into these discussions, but I just don't get the controlling women part, never have.

 

[chipbennett]

That door swings both ways, Chip.

You are desperately trying to equate the combination of human genetic material with the genesis of individual legal rights.

Biologically, physiologically, and genetically, "life" has a known, specific meaning - as does "human being".

I am simply pointing out the obvious to you...by your definition a zygote may be "human", but so is a cancerous tumor.

Completely false, and utterly absurd. A cancerous tumor may be living tissue, but it is not a human being.

Neither of those things has any legal right to exist simply based on the fact of their creation. Countless human eggs get fertilized but fail to yield developed human beings...untold billions of "humans" have been "created" but never progressed beyond a few foetal cells. Let's cut to the quick of your argument...did those zygotes, embryos, and foetus' all have full legal rights as men?

That could be a legitimate question, at some point.

Your argument is ridiculous beyond words. There is no point to the "life begins at conception" argument beyond controlling women. Your argument is a pseudo-intellectual attempt to cover the fact that you want to use government force to coerce women to use their bodies against their own will...as forced incubators to host potential future human beings.

No, I was merely enjoying a pretty awesome, scientific observation. This thread has nothing to do with abortion. If you want to argue abortion, use one of the myriad threads started for that purpose.