When does a 'human life' begin?

[DigitalShadow]

First of all, I am not LDS and quite frankly I am skeptical of the idea of a soul to begin with, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility of it existing. So, assuming there is a soul or spirit or whatever you like to call it that exists outside of our physical body, at what point does it get 'bound' (for lack of a better word) to a body?

From some of the discussions here, it seems like many people believe this happens at the moment of conception, but it also seems like many people apply this belief inconsistently. If the killing of the zygote/fetus/baby any time after conception is 'murder', why do people react so differently to partial birth abortions than they do to birth control pills that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? They are potentially 'murdering' a person every month, yet there is far less outrage to that practice than a single partial birth abortion.

I would also like to point out, depending on what statistics you look at, up to 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What happens to those souls if they were allocated at the moment the egg was fertilized? Why would God in His infinite wisdom set up this whole mortal trial but then deny the whole experience to a quarter of His children?

These are my thoughts on the subject. I ask all these questions honestly and I'm not looking to criticize or to start another argument but I would like a calm discussion on the topic so I can better understand the other side of the debate.

Edited November 19, 2008 by DigitalShadow
typo

[Wingnut]

According to the state of Colorado, as of 4 November 2008, human life exists from the moment of fertilization.

[Guest DeborahC]

I'd say at the moment of conception.

I do know you can hear and see the heartbeat on ultrasound by 4 to 6 weeks after conception.

I know some believe that certain souls are so progressed they don't have to stay here long or even to be born. Maybe they change their mind? Maybe they agree to come for some lesson the mother needs? Honestly, we don't know.

One thing I'm sure of and that is that this earth is not all there is.

There is a much bigger picture...

[Misshalfway]

First of all, I am not LDS and quite frankly I am skeptical of the idea of a soul to begin with, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility of it existing. So, assuming there is a soul or spirit or whatever you like to call it that exists outside of our physical body, at what point does it get 'bound' (for lack of a better word) to a body?

From an LDS doctrinal standpoint, I think the answer is that we don't know. As I have asked this question in the past, I have wondered if the spirit might enter at different times based upon different experiences I have heard.

Having been pregnant four times now, there is no doubt in my mind that it happens early. You can hear a heartbeat within the first trimester. Most of the body processes are in place before the end of the first trimester. Whether you believe in the spirit or not, the believe that life has not begun at conception is something that I personally cannot understand.

With regards to miscarriage, I don't know the answers either. I suppose that maybe a spirit would get another chance at life with the next available body. I am not sure a spirit is within each and every failed pregnancy. I know that miscarriage is normal way for the body to terminate a nonviable pregnancy. I don't think we have any medical or spiritual "official" knowledge on the subject. I know individual women who felt different spiritual feelings about their miscarriages. Some felt that a spirit was there. Others perhaps weren't so sure. But beyond that I think the answer is we don't know that either.

My own experience being pregnant is enough to convince me that life starts as early as conception and that the process is indeed miraculous. And I don't think there is any argument that could convince me otherwise.

And in any case, I don't see that the ambiguity for when the spirit enters the body is any justification for abortion in any degree. We are dealing with procreation it is most effective and beautiful and powerful place. I don't think that we have the right to terminate a life just because pregnancy interferes with our life plans.

I had a high risk pregnancy. My doctor even advised me to think about an abortion. I couldn't even consider the idea for a moment. I had my son and dealt with the high risk with the best medical treatments I had available. I still have to deal with the problems that resulted from the pregnancy, but I couldn't in all conscience terminate a pregnancy, just to make my life easier.

[Misshalfway]

I believe life begins at fertilization/conception. My four pregnancies are enough to convince me of that.

I think from an LDS doctrinal stand point, the answer for when the spirit enters the body is "we don't know". And I think we are fine with not knowing. Not knowing isn't a justification for terminating a pregnancy early.

It is clear to me that life does begin. Cels divide. Processes form. Heart starts to beat. Limbs grow. All within the first few weeks. In fact the doc tells you that it is in the first trimester that all the basic formations happen and to be extra careful during that time with regards to what you put into your body.

With regards to miscarriages........ whether they happen before or after a spirit ends is also an unknown. Some later miscarriages, I might argue for a "yes" to the question. Some very early ones....maybe not. I don't think any of us can know -- not from a medical standpoint or a doctrinal one. But I bet you there are some mothers who can express feelings one or another in this regard.

But understand that every spirit in the pre-earth life WILL get a chance to come here to the earth. Maybe some of them will have another chance at a healthy body. Maybe some were so righteous in the pre earth life that getting a body....even an under developed one.....was sufficient. My little nephew passed at 24 weeks. He was alive and in the womb one day and gone the next. The birth was still born. There isn't a doubt in my mind that his visit to this earth was short lived and that he won't be back. But that was just the way we all spiritually felt about this one situation.

And if I am not mistaken, the church doesn't view abortion as murder exactly and wouldn't view the transgression of abortion in the same seriousness as murder. Perhaps someone can clarify this better than I.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Misshalfway

[MarginOfError]

Stillborn children pose an interesting conundrum. The First Presidency has stated that they may be included on Family Group Sheets (or whatever they're called), but temple ordinances are not performed for them. At the same time, is was stated that this policy causes "no loss of eternal blessings or family unity." So, on the one hand, they don't need the temple blessings, but this doesn't preclude them from being attached to the family. Conflicting evidence.

I've heard it argued before that the spirit doesn't enter the body until birth. The justification for this was that the night before Christ's birth, He is telling Nephi that he is about to come into the world. In fact, depending on the exact time of Christ's birth, and adjusting for time zones, the difference between His conversation with Nephi and His birth may have been as small as a few hours. To me, however, it seems preposterous to imply that a Being who oversaw all of creation, and regularly communicates via supernatural means, couldn't find a way to send a message across the world.

Some assert that life begins at conception/fertilization of an egg. Yet, for 20 years, the Church has been backing off its position against birth control, leaving the matter to individuals and couples. Furthermore, the Church takes no position (either for or against) embryonic stem cell research, which relies heavily on fertilized eggs, generally two days old. One could argue that these policies imply that the Church doesn't interpret life to begin immediately at conception. More likely, however, the Church just doesn't want to make the interpretation because it doesn't matter.

From my experience, and everything I've read and studied and pondered and felt, my best guess is that there isn't a pre-defined moment when a spirit enters the body. It most likely varies across fetuses. Some are quickened sooner than others. President Brigham Young once stated as his opinion that "when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body" (JD 17:143). Some mothers may feel this early, some may feel it late, and some may not feel it at all and still have a healthy, live child. So, when a mother says she's felt her child's body be quickened, I'm not going to argue. But I don't think it's appropriate to generalize her experience to the entire population.

It's been my observation that this topic is most commonly brought up in relation to abortion, which is somewhat silly to me. I don't think that abortion would be any more morally acceptable to the Church even if it were revealed that the spirit doesn't enter the body until 3 minutes before birth. I've always interpreted the Church's opposition to abortion to be based on principle--against the improper use of our divinely given gifts to create life. (Not sure that made much sense, but I can't seem to compose a better way to say it)

[Lydia]

I'm not sure that it matters, for the abortion debate, when human life begins. Life itself is in any cell, whether it exists on it's own independently, is part of a larger organism, such as a bird or fish, or is still dependant on the mother for survival. A fetus, from the moment of conception, is life.

[Hemidakota]

First of all, I am not LDS and quite frankly I am skeptical of the idea of a soul to begin with, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility of it existing. So, assuming there is a soul or spirit or whatever you like to call it that exists outside of our physical body, at what point does it get 'bound' (for lack of a better word) to a body?

From some of the discussions here, it seems like many people believe this happens at the moment of conception, but it also seems like many people apply this belief inconsistently. If the killing of the zygote/fetus/baby any time after conception is 'murder', why do people react so differently to partial birth abortions than they do to birth control pills that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? They are potentially 'murdering' a person every month, yet there is far less outrage to that practice than a single partial birth abortion.

I would also like to point out, depending on what statistics you look at, up to 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What happens to those souls if they were allocated at the moment the egg was fertilized? Why would God in His infinite wisdom set up this whole mortal trial but then deny the whole experience to a quarder of His children?

These are my thoughts on the subject. I ask all these questions honestly and I'm not looking to criticize or to start another argument but I would like a calm discussion on the topic so I can better understand the other side of the debate.

Where was the Lord and whom was He speaking too prior to mortal birth? The woman who gives birth should know that question.

[Guest tomk]

First of all, I am not LDS and quite frankly I am skeptical of the idea of a soul to begin with, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility of it existing. So, assuming there is a soul or spirit or whatever you like to call it that exists outside of our physical body, at what point does it get 'bound' (for lack of a better word) to a body?

From some of the discussions here, it seems like many people believe this happens at the moment of conception, but it also seems like many people apply this belief inconsistently. If the killing of the zygote/fetus/baby any time after conception is 'murder', why do people react so differently to partial birth abortions than they do to birth control pills that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? They are potentially 'murdering' a person every month, yet there is far less outrage to that practice than a single partial birth abortion.

I would also like to point out, depending on what statistics you look at, up to 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What happens to those souls if they were allocated at the moment the egg was fertilized? Why would God in His infinite wisdom set up this whole mortal trial but then deny the whole experience to a quarder of His children?

These are my thoughts on the subject. I ask all these questions honestly and I'm not looking to criticize or to start another argument but I would like a calm discussion on the topic so I can better understand the other side of the debate.

D&C 93:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

From all that I have read on the subject, plus my own musings, I see it as this:

The entire universe, all matter, is composed of intelligences. Some of it has agency. Some of it does not.

Our spirits are comprised of intelligences. Intelligences that were once unorganized, raw "material" -- and are now organized. Organized into spirit bodies.

For reasons I don't understand, the spirit can fit into a body of any shape. I just accept this on faith. So, it would make sense to me that a spirit enters the "body" at conception. It is the spirit that keeps the body alive.

We should hold all life sacred, both in and outside the womb!!

Not all spirits need to go through mortality as we do in order to complete the Plan of Salvation. That does not mean that they don't need to have developed faith in Christ, etc. -- it just means they don't need to stay HERE. Christ was a "God" before He came to earth. The whole experience is for us and is according to our needs. I have a 4 year old daughter who, mentally, is about 8 months old. What purpose does she serve? Why does she remain? I don't know. I believe she is here to be loved and to give us a glimpse of heaven. She is already a resident of the Celestial Kingdom. Here to teach by her sweet example.

As far as the 1/3 hosts of heaven who followed Lucifer -- that was their choice. My understanding is, due to eternal law, they will face eventual dissolution. They will return to their native element - raw, unorganized intelligences. Apparently they will be scooped-up again -- but I believe that they will no longer have the same identity or memories.

Edited November 19, 2008 by tomk

[DigitalShadow]

Thank you all for responding in a respectful manner. I made this post just before I went to lunch and I was almost afraid to check it when I got back just now.

I guess the only thing I still don't understand is why people who claim that life starts at conception seem to make differentiations between these scenarios:

-Using birth control that intentionally prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus

-Having an abortion within the first few weeks of pregnancy

-Having a partial birth abortion

-Killing a newborn child

If human life is human life and it starts at conception, wouldn't all those situations be equally wrong and morally offensive? I have no statistics to support this, but would be willing to bet that commonly used birth control pills result in more fertilized eggs being 'killed' than abortions, why is there not more outrage over this from the strongly anti-abortion crowd?

[AngelonaWing]

I believe that when my babies were concieved they gained a spirit! when my babies kicked me or got the hiccups.... THEY were ALIVE inside of me.. I knew they could hear my voice.

[ADoyle90815]

Many pregnancies end without implantation of the zygote, often without the woman missing a period, but that's because there was something genetically wrong from the beginning. If a zygote implants in the Fallopian tube instead of inside the uterus itself, it's a dangerous thing to both the mother and the zygote. A woman is NOT committing murder when such a pregnancy is terminated, especially if she wants to have more children. I personally think actual human life begins when the fetus is actively moving.

Edited November 19, 2008 by ADoyle90815

[abqfriend]

Human life according to Catholic Doctrine begins at fertilization/conception.

The Catholic Church opposes embryonic stem cell research, any form of birth control other than natural family planning.

Most birth control pills which are hormones-inhibit fertilization in the first place-so I would not call that murder-nor would the Church.

The "Day-after Pill" called U-47-does indeed have the potential to destroy a fertilized egg.

-The Catholic Church would call that the destruction of a human life poential.

The Catholic Church still opposes any form of birth control-as a natural creative act is being stopped by mankind.

About half of Catholics practice some form of birth control-contrary to Church teaching.

Misscarriages/still births and aborted fetus/zygote, etc-are given into the hands of a loving God. There would be no "mortal trial" for these "individuals."

God did not cause their destruction.

God is not the creator of abortion-which the Church calls "intrinsically evil."

Misscarriages at any stage are natural events with many causitive factors-as are most deaths occuring at any stage of life.

The Catholic Church opposes abortion.

-Carol

First of all, I am not LDS and quite frankly I am skeptical of the idea of a soul to begin with, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility of it existing. So, assuming there is a soul or spirit or whatever you like to call it that exists outside of our physical body, at what point does it get 'bound' (for lack of a better word) to a body?

From some of the discussions here, it seems like many people believe this happens at the moment of conception, but it also seems like many people apply this belief inconsistently. If the killing of the zygote/fetus/baby any time after conception is 'murder', why do people react so differently to partial birth abortions than they do to birth control pills that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? They are potentially 'murdering' a person every month, yet there is far less outrage to that practice than a single partial birth abortion.

I would also like to point out, depending on what statistics you look at, up to 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What happens to those souls if they were allocated at the moment the egg was fertilized? Why would God in His infinite wisdom set up this whole mortal trial but then deny the whole experience to a quarder of His children?

These are my thoughts on the subject. I ask all these questions honestly and I'm not looking to criticize or to start another argument but I would like a calm discussion on the topic so I can better understand the other side of the debate.

[goofball]

Brigham Young felt it was when you first felt the baby stir within you. It is in his journal of discourses. I don't know what that feels like and never will seeing that I am not a woman. (leave out sarcastic comment here to those who read this post)

[mightynancy]

Exactly, Carol. Birth control pills work by inhibiting ovulation - there is no egg to fertilize. RU-486 prevents implantation, as does the IUD.

I agree with MOE that we can't possibly know when a spirit enters the body, and that it probably varies. For every "I knew it was life before I took a shower!" there's someone with the opposite experience. I don't want to share my personal experiences, but I feel that it does indeed vary.

[Hemidakota]

Tom, he was referring to the time of mortal fertilization.

[Hemidakota]

To my own musing, life of the baby in its pre-birth state is handled by other intelligences that we are not privy too at this time. When the spirit does enter the body, I suspect, it takes full control and heads others within.

[Maureen]

IMO, life begins at implantation. Fertilization begins with a zygote, then as the zygote divides into multiple cells it becomes a blastocyst. If the blastocyst is successful and implantation occurs, it becomes an embryo. Without implantation, the process would end, and no pregnancy would occur.

[DigitalShadow]

Exactly, Carol. Birth control pills work by inhibiting ovulation - there is no egg to fertilize. RU-486 prevents implantation, as does the IUD.

I realize that it is not the primary mechanism of most birth control pills, but the last part of this paragraph on "How Birth Control Pills Work" leads me to believe that preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus is an intended failsafe.

Birth control pills are a synthetic form of the hormones progesterone and estrogen. They prevent ovulation by maintaining more consistent hormone levels. Without a peak in estrogen, then, the ovary doesn't get the signal to release an egg. No egg means no possibility for fertilization and pregnancy. They also thicken cervical mucus so the sperm cannot reach the egg, and make the lining of the uterus unreceptive to the implantation of a fertilized egg.

(source)

Interestingly that same site also defines conception as "when a fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine lining." Perhaps I misunderstood the definition of conception to begin with? I thought it was another word for the moment of fertilization?

[zookeeper]

First of all, I am not LDS and quite frankly I am skeptical of the idea of a soul to begin with, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility of it existing. So, assuming there is a soul or spirit or whatever you like to call it that exists outside of our physical body, at what point does it get 'bound' (for lack of a better word) to a body?

As far as I know, we don't know exactly when the spirit attaches to the body. Therefore we have to just trust the Lord when He reveals, through his prophet, that abortion can only be considered in certain instances. And even then only OK with proper counsel and personal revelation. With miscarriages...again we don't know. But we do know that God has a plan for all of us and trust, as we live righteously, that these heart breaks are all part of that.

[Wingnut]

Exactly, Carol. Birth control pills work by inhibiting ovulation - there is no egg to fertilize. RU-486 prevents implantation, as does the IUD.

There are a few things that need clearing up. Fertilization is not the same as implantation. An egg is released from the ovary and will die within 12-24 hours, if not fertilized in that time. As it generally takes longer to reach the uterus than that, an egg is generally fertilized in the fallopian tubes. The fertilized eggs then continues traveling toward the uterus, where it implants into the uterine wall.

An IUD prevents sperm from getting through cervical fluid to get to the egg in the first place. It is made of copper and kills the sperm.

RU-486 is not emergency contraception. RU-486 is an abortion pill (a two-parter, actually) that can be taken within the first 49 days of a pregnancy. It is a steroid that blocks progesterone, which is needed to sustain a pregnancy. For better of for worse, RU-486 has made it possible for many women to have their abortions in the privacy of their own homes, with their partner, friend, or family with them, rather than in an embarrassing procedure conducted in a sterile, unfeeling environment. To read more about RU-486, click here: RU486Facts.org - Medical Information about RU-486 (Mifepristone).

"Plan B" is emergency contraception (also a two-parter). It can be taken within 72 hours after having unprotected sex (or birth control failure), though its efficacy diminishes the longer you wait. There has been debate over whether Plan B suppresses fertilization or whether it terminates an existing pregnancy (for this reason, doctors within the same practice often had conflicting agendas as to whether or not to prescribe it). The conclusion seems to be that it is the former. For more on Plan B, click here: Plan B®: Home.

The reality is that when a man and a woman have intercourse, semen can stay alive for up to five days. It is unlikely that a woman will have conceived by the end of the same day. (This is also why ovulation predictor kits are not very effective: they tell you when you already have ovulated, not when you're considered "fertile," which are two different thing. By the time it registers that you've already ovulated, and hubby gets home from work and you have dinner and get the kids to bed, the egg may have already died, or may have by the time the semen reach it.)

[Moksha]

A fetus, from the moment of conception, is life.

Could be as soon as the third date.

[KristofferUmfrey]

First of all, I am not LDS and quite frankly I am skeptical of the idea of a soul to begin with, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility of it existing. So, assuming there is a soul or spirit or whatever you like to call it that exists outside of our physical body, at what point does it get 'bound' (for lack of a better word) to a body?

From some of the discussions here, it seems like many people believe this happens at the moment of conception, but it also seems like many people apply this belief inconsistently. If the killing of the zygote/fetus/baby any time after conception is 'murder', why do people react so differently to partial birth abortions than they do to birth control pills that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? They are potentially 'murdering' a person every month, yet there is far less outrage to that practice than a single partial birth abortion.

I would also like to point out, depending on what statistics you look at, up to 1/4 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What happens to those souls if they were allocated at the moment the egg was fertilized? Why would God in His infinite wisdom set up this whole mortal trial but then deny the whole experience to a quarter of His children?

These are my thoughts on the subject. I ask all these questions honestly and I'm not looking to criticize or to start another argument but I would like a calm discussion on the topic so I can better understand the other side of the debate.

I'm consistent, I believe birth control is wrong too.

My personal belief is that the spirits that go to children who ultimately miscarry are "reassigned" somewhere else or perhaps to the same family through a later successful birth. Either way whether they return or not, they never became accountable for any sins are are received into Paradise to await the resurrection.

[Hemidakota]

For the early birds, go ahead and show up early. But for me, I will arrive at the last minute,