Originally Posted by Foxtrotx1
If you are using the same definition for life that you assign to Escherichia coli then yes.
Since humans are a more complicated species than arguably any other on the planet, I think we deserve a more evolved definition of life.
As you know, when it comes to humans there are four main schools of thought on this. There is the neurological view
, which it sounds like you are espousing, that says "personhood" (if not actual human life) begins with brainwave activity, then there is the embryologic view
, which holds that life begins with gastrulation at about 14-17 days after conception. There is also the genetic view
, which holds that human life starts at conception when a novel genome is created, and rounding the field out is the at-or-near-birth view
which goes by the standard of viability outside the womb.
While you may privately hold that the neurological view is the correct one (please correct me if I am wrong on your beliefs here), there is no denying that a great many biologists, geneticists and doctors hold with the other schools of thought, especially the genetic and embryological schools. There is simply too much congressional testimony, white papers and published research from leading experts in these disciplines to deny that such is the case.
As I have said, it is a very split field, and I'm not attempting to state which school of thought is "right". Hell, the scientists themselves don't agree on it, but to argue as kalashnikev did that NO scientists believe human life starts at conception is simply wrong.