Here’s an article I found interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamara-mann/heartbeat-involuntary-miscarriage-and-voluntary-abortion-in-ohio_b_2050888.html?utm_hp_ref=religion&icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl22%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D229457
There are numerous debates on when life begins, but this article presents an interesting definition based in the Jewish faith that seems more rational than many other arguments I’ve encountered. According to the article, life begins with breath and so an unborn child is not a life. However, there is a recognition of the potential for life accorded to a fetus still in utero. While it seems from the article that Ohio is moving toward finding that the existence of a heartbeat makes a fetus alive, the Jewish faith says that the potential for life requires that the child be able to live outside the mother’s body. The debate as to when life begins is still raging in both law and science, as well as in many religions. I thought this particular intersection of faith, science, and law was an interesting one and I was surprised to find the more sensible argument being made by religion.