Pro-lifers: I need your help! What's the definition of life?

Question

There's a girl in my History class that I have been having a mature and informed debate with. She's pro-choice, I'm pro-life. However, we're both open-minded and willing to have an intelligent and adult argument. I asked her the what the main reasons she is pro-choice are, and I came up with refutes to just about every single one. She stumped me on one of them though, and I told her that I would get back to her on it. She agrees with me that just minutes after conception, that "blob of tissue" does have a heartbeat and DNA. She also pointed out that plants have "fingerprints" and do technically pump "life-sustaining liquid" through their veins. Point taken. Well, this is where it got really messy: she told me that her definition of life includes being able to sustain life on oneself. If a fetus is living in its mother, then it is technically not supporting itself. I don't know how to respond to this. Does anyone have an informed response? Any help would be appreciated! Thanks so much!

Nerys · Accepted Answer

Ask her if she would also consider a person living on a respirator to be alive (someone who is conscious and living on a respirator). Without the respirator, the person would not be sustaining life on his/her own. But does that mean that the person is no longer a life form?

Garden Girl · Answer

First, I am also pro-life.  It is a very grey area of when a fetus becomes what our "government" believes to be a living being.  I guess if you want to get technical about it, then the definition of life would have to be; being able to sustain life on oneself.  But, what about living humans who have lived on this earth and now are on life support?  Does that make them no longer a living human being?  If so, then the Dr. would pronounce that person dead at the time life support is started.  There is also the point of full term babies being born unable to survive without some kind of support.  So, although she does have a point of when life may begin in the womb, she still does not have a valid point of why it should be okay to never give a chance at surviving.

LolaCorolla · Answer

Granted...the fetus isn't able to sustain life on it's own...but it has the POTENTIAL to become a viable self-sustaining life form...IF given the opportunity.  She's also right about her 'plant' argument...BUT she should also remember that even when you pick a fully grown flower...it dies soon after...NOTHING that doesn't have life can 'die'.

If there were NEVER a chance at a viable life at some point...then no...there is no life.

Anonymous · Answer

Okay, so I actually went back and read your question...and discovered that you really don't know what you're talking about.  Minutes after conception, that "blob of tissue" does not have a heartbeat --that takes 4-5 weeks.  

Also, your friend's last argument is pretty lame.  Premature babies are born that can't support themselves...is she pro late-term abortions too?

Trending News

Pro-lifers: I need your help! What's the definition of life?

4 Answers