When Does Life Begin?

When does life begin is a serious question asked by many people. Does life begin at conception or does life start at some point before or after conception? The pro choice vs pro life debate often asks this very questions about when does life begin, so this video is made to provide you with answers to the question about when does life being. Join Stephanie Gray for this fun and informative video as we help you answer hard questions and have the tools to respond to hard questions about life.

Comment Policy: We encourage civil discussions. Please keep bad language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and general bad behavior off our site.

[Paulthored]

I think it's Conception. But definitely before birth.

Additionally, I think that we all can agree that pro choice, can't admit that people are people prior to birth...
Because otherwise their whole argument falls apart, except for the basic premise that abortion is sometimes medical needed.

[TheBlueTenor]

Saw this as an ad for a Ben Shapiro video. I had to stop and listen all the way through. I have always been pro-life but found it hard to refute these arguments sometimes. This has helped me know what to say! Thank you so much for producing this video!

[ambivalentdisaster]

I have given these same arguments and have been told I need to “educate myself.” I told them that I side with cellular biologists who are the most qualified to determine when human life begins— the moment of conception.

[gamingelke]

She just convinced me life begins at heartbeat instead of when the human form takes place

[sharonhensley]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

[billbaker]

As a gynecologist who has done a fair amount of work with infertile couples, one could argue that life begins before conception. The life of that baby begins when the couple makes plans to become parents. The 'idea' of that baby, their expectations, hopes and dreams are very much alive. The same should be said for the guy and girl who are just 'hooking-up'. Just because they didn't consciously 'plan ahead' and consider pregnancy as a possibility doesn't change the reality of the 'idea', the expectation and the (in this case the disruption of their) hopes and dreams.

[ATageH]

Always love hearing Stephanie presenting the pro life view, she is the best!

[NamelessNimrod]

Although we base age and birthdays based on the day you where born, you was definitely alive last 9 months before you where born and that is when you body started to breath and develop and all that. But find it Ludicrous that people act like you didn't exist less than 9 months before you where born let alone a 1 day lol. You was alive/existed before birth.

[sdubs]

thank you for this ministry. bold and necessary in these secular times.

[Ashley-gjmi]

Logical fallacies/inaccuracies:
1) a 4-chamber fetal heart is developed around 7 weeks, so the visual of a seemingly almost fully formed baby not having a heart shown in the video is a misrepresentation. (Just pointing out a scientific inaccuracy first prior to illogical arguments)
2) something that is alive (at least at this point in time) needs to come from something that was also living, true. However egg and sperm are living cells.. so this argument for why a zygote is a human life does not hold. The egg and sperm don’t get the same rights as a human life because they are just two cells. Seems obvious. Now because these 2 cells have come together, they are suddenly now a full human life that deserves all the rights and protections of a formed/developed human? Just “because this zygote will one day become a human” is not a sound argument. Why would that argument not also apply to individual egg and sperm cells? since if they were to combine they would then develop into a zygote. Similarly, a whole series of developmental processes must occur prior to the zygote becoming a viable fetus capable of surviving outside of the mother. Why is the step of “zygote creation” identified to be when something now deserves human rights? It should be when the fetus is viable to live outside of the mother.
3) viability — while it does vary based on available technology, why can’t the most conservative approach be taken (fetus viability based on the most advanced technology available in the world)? That earliest metric is at ~22 weeks.

Until a fetus is viable (22 wks, which within my argument is when it is now a human life whose rights need to be protected), the mother should have the power and choice over her own body as this takes priority over the collection(s) of cells that is not yet a human life. Once viability is reached, abortion should not be an option. if there is a health concern to the mother, the viable fetus can then be removed and every resource should be put forth to protect the health of both the mother and the new born baby.

[oobleckoobleck]

Well, if a woman gets a miscarriage, should she be charged for murder?

[Amitaever]

I was listening to a pediatrician speaking on Family Life on the radio and heard a fascinating fact. You've heard the cliched phrase "spark of life"? Turns out its not so cliche. In fact, it's real! According to this pediatrician, when viewed through the right filter, there is a a visible flash of light at the moment of fertilization. It really doesn't even matter if some want to argue that it's just a chemical reaction or something. The fact is it happens when the a sperm successfully fertilizes an ovum and that fertilization starts the development of a new and unique organism... an actual, visible sign that a new life has begun - a literal "Spark of Life"'.

[denniswakabayashi]

We should clarify that "life at conception" means the fertilized egg, the zygote (single cell embryo) is already A person. Now if we would split a human being/person in half you get a whole dead human being/person albeit in 2 pieces whereas if you split an early embryo in half you get 2 new live embryos with potential to produce 2 persons or more. Sets of identical multiples like identical twins, triplets, quads even quints came from the same respective embryo and have the same respective DNA. Identical twins occur when the original embryo splits in two. So what happened to the original embryo (person) which now exist as two embryos (persons)? Surely identical twins are not each half a person. Science destroys the mantra" Life/Personhood at conception".

[curiousdanielle]

I still don’t understand the heartbeat one if someone could elaborate

[cosmicsatan]

If I have a live, born baby in one hand, a cryo tank full of embryos in the other, and I'm going to drop them off a cliff- which one do you save? You can only pick one. And 100 out of 100 times you will pick the born child, because you know that there is a high difference between a born baby and a fetus.

[jeansroses]

these are the best arguments for life beginning at conception that I've ever heard. I wouldn't need to add my own viewpoint. however, I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed in feminists, since they fail to protect the most vulnerable of all females-those in the womb.

[soggybitchket]

Please cite your sources proving that any of your argument is factual.

[margarethope]

Life begins at conception. You are carrying an unborn fetus inside that God created in you. This baby deserves to have life and a chance to be someone in this world.

[LogicAndReason]

If everything that ever lives, dies, where does the "life is sacred" part come in?

[jackschubert]

The viability argument is so flawed... You might as well make a case for the murder of any child up until the age of 16 when they are still dependent