Skip to comments.Questions regarding when life begins (Vanity)
Posted on 01/22/2013 10:49:32 AM PST by GreenEyedGal
I am asking for personal philosophies regarding when life begins. I believe a strong case can be made scientifically that life begins at conception. However, I've had conversations with the culture of death and they insist that a fertilized egg isn't alive; that a child growing in the womb is a parasite on the mother's body (which, a thought just occurred to me - parasites are living beings as well!); that it's not alive until it's viable (which means my four year old isn't alive!); that because it's attached to its mother's body, mother can decide whether she wants to keep it or not; that the growing, developing fetus is like cancer cells, which also reproduce.
Can you share your thoughts with me on these issues? I'm writing an article in defense of life. I would love to hear from a biologist or a medical doctor. I am also curious about abortifacients. What qualifies as an abortifacient? Pro-death advocates, and even some people who believe abortion is wrong believe the morning after pill is not an abortifacient. And David Green's stand on "week after" birth control is silly because there's no such thing. I thought it was RU486, but supposedly RU486 isn't the same thing as the week after pill.
Thanks for your input.
And just to clarify, I am prolife. Even in cases of rape and incest. I do not believe that the validity and value of life is determined by the circumstances of conception.
When this vanity ends!
Live is a continuous process.
Life is a continuous process.
Does Psalm 139 help?
if they found a single-celled creature on Mars it would be hailed as the greatest discovery ever
When the sperm enters the egg, cells start the process, mitosis and meiosis, of replicating. Those cells, however few they are, have their own DNA. They are a separate organism.
That is when life begins. This is not opinion. It is biology. The above is true regardless whether we’re talking about chickens, dogs, or humans.
1) Sperm is alive
2) Eggs are alive
3) When the sperm enters the egg, everything dies immediately.
4) And later it comes back to life and is a baby.
Personally, I find that to be flawed. I say sperm is alive, egg is alive, both together are alive. More -- when both are together they have a unique chromosonal pattern which is identifiably and indubitably human. There is an individual, living human, right there at the earliest point.
And they want to kill it.
When you have a new fundamentally distinct genetic signature (i.e. not merely a single nucleotide polymorphism or other mutation) such as produced at fertilization.
Exodus chapter 21 refers to a child in the womb as “Yelodehah,” which translates as “her child.” (KJV so delicately translates this as “her fruit.” Yelodehah is no orange.)
Clearly human life begins at date well before birth. The Talmud says that human life begins when the spirit and the body are united, which it says is the 40th day after conception, which, I would imagine is when a woman, or, perhaps the authorities, would be certain, in pre-technological societies, that she is with child.
But the Talmud was written by men, in pretechnological societies. We may be more capable of determining for certain if a woman is with child well before the 40th day.
The two cells that join in conception are alive even before the conception - life doesn’t “begin at conception”, it exists even before the conception.
You’re trying to get these people [sic] away from their pro-death position using logic, but logic will never get someone out of a position that logic didn’t get them into.
at conception.....they are entitled to their own opinion but they cannot have there own facts. Babies in utero do not become anything other than human given enough time to grow
Because all is vanity?
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost,even from his mother's womb.
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.
(1) A living thing's own young are never described as "parasites" - by definition a parasite is an organism of one species who takes resources from an organism of another species, usually resources that are meant for the host organism's own young.
(2) From the moment of conception until death, there is no stage of development that can be clinically described as a "non-living" state of the organism.
It is a continuous process.
It is impossible to detect the precise moment of "viability" or any other invented milestone.
Spectacular video. Even science gets it now.
If life begins before conception is it a sin to not have as many babies as is humanly possible?
Have you ever heard anyone give a rational reason for drawing a line at any point between conception and a natural death?
As a computer geek, I see DNA as Gods version of a .zip file.
When the two compressed DNA programs from the parent processes are merged, and launched as a child process, that process is a complete design that should run for an average of 70 years, until it self terminates.
No, I’m just saying that every cell of every human being has an unbroken pedigree of living cells stretching back to the dawn of humanity.
Actually the abortionists don’t care about the answer to that question. Even birth doesn’t put a child beyond their grasps.
—The two cells that join in conception are alive even before the conception - life doesnt begin at conception, it exists even before the conception.—
They are “alive” but they aren’t life/soul. They need to be combined to form life.
Abortion stops a beating heart. If a beating heart isn’t proof of life I don’t know what is. An infant outside the womb is just as dependent and parasitical as an infant inside the womb; the feeding is merely a little less automatic.
Some will argue that we cannot know when the soul enters the body and a fetus lacks a soul. We really don’t know this. However, technically our beloved pets lack souls but none of us would claim they are not ‘alive’ or that their lives are parasitical and worthless.
Abortion is nothing more than a murder of convenience.
Good stuff there!
Oh and Nancy Pelosi being sentenced to life in the Colorado supermax prison would be a nice finishing touch as well. Life would be like the ending to "A wonderful life" all the time.
"Daddy, everytime a bell rings that means another constitution shredding Democrat went to jail!"
"That's right! That's right!"
If you’re looking for a more scientific way to say it, perhaps you could say that since at conception, there is enough genetic material in place to define a new individual, that that would be the beginning of a new life.
Life begins w/ “AHHHHH”!
Or mayybe “O G*D”!
Questions make for excuses.
They need to combine, they need to successfully implant in the uterine wall, and they need to not spontaneously abort . . . I read somewhere that 20-25 percent of pregnancies spontaneously abort.
I wonder what the purpose of all that spontaneous aborting is, and what it portends for the ensoulment of babies.
Human life begins at conception without a doubt because it has never occurred otherwise, since a male and female human first walked this earth. No conception, no life, period, end of discussion.
Even in test tube babies, conception is the FIRST requirement. You can destroy sperm or an egg individually without killing a human but once those two meet, life begins.
After conception, cells are reproducing, which is another proof or requirement of life.
However, you may be wasting your time as the religion of death has overwhelmed us to the point where we would even elect a Marxists to the highest office in the land.
But a heart beat doesn’t start until about 18 days after conception (I’d always heard 21, but three days give or take - point is, it begins very early after the act of conception). In the development of my thoughts, I know that every cell in the body, skin, hair, bone, eye, kidney, liver - you name it - is a diploid cell. The two chromosomes contained therein contain two sets of DNA, one set from each parent. They split evenly to reproduce. I know I’m skipping over stuff, but I’m crunched for time. With reproductive cells, haploid cells, they require another haploid of the opposite sex to survive and reproduce. And when it joins with another haploid, the resulting cell has its own DNA. Its DNA is not identical to its mother or its father. Its DNA is all its own. To me, having your own unique DNA is the beginning of life. And then that one cell with its own unique DNA splits and becomes two, then four, eight, 16, 32, 64 and so on. If it’s not living, the number of cells wouldn’t reproduce exponentially, would they?
This is one of the reasons I would REALLY love to hear from a biologist or medical expert. I’m not clear on all the science, but I’m pretty sure it proves that life begins at conception.
I have not seen that before. Thank you.
You are alive before conception. And move into your new digs at conception.
If life didn’t begin until after conception you are automatically a resurrected being.
There is no question when Life begins. There never was. Period. You’re playing THEIR game.
Please watch the video at post #17.
I’m not a medical professional, so can’t say for certain with any authority what the fertilized human egg “is”, although if left alone, unmolested, I know what it “becomes”...
Human beings progress thru many stages in our lives, from birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adult, middle and old age, and finally death...
The moment of conception and the brief time spent in our mother’s womb are but more stages in this lifetime...
I believe a human life begins at conception...
Abortion for any reason other than a doctor’s advice based on sound medical necessity, and the mother’s life/good health is murder by the most fundamental definition of the term...
You are brave and have a sense of humour. I commend you for that, for what it’s worth.
Have you researched the history of this debate, when and how it started, what the ancients thought, wrote of it?
Does the belief that life begins at conception require the belief in a Creator God? I happen to believe in a Creator God, but I’m looking for a way to explain things in a way that is logical that will lead people who don’t necessarily believe in God to think about this very important issue. We could discuss the fact that if you don’t believe what the Bible says or in God, it’s impossible to truly value life (I am pretty sure this will offend some, but it can’t be helped). But we have to start somewhere. We have to get people thinking. We have to change the change the way this country views life in the womb or we’ll be talking about 60,000,000 aborted since Roe v. Wade before you can blink. I’m overcome with such grief when I think about all the children, grandchildren, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers we’ve killed since 1973. And our society is so calloused about it. So if we can make inroads through logic, we can add Creator God into the argument. I think one follows the other. Certainly, if you truly believe in a Creator God, you will come to the realization that life begins at conception. I believe it’s possible to move hearts and mind by attacking it from the opposite end, too.
Matthew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
As an active Christian man, I have to think of everything in "God" terms or I will go astray.
And look at this: Notice that the fertilized egg grows from a single cell to a blastocyst of about 100 cells before it ever implants into the uterine wall. It is living and growing all on its own without the mother's help before it attaches.
They want to make it seem like the baby is a parasitic entity that relies completely on the mother from the moment of conception. Not so.
To me there is a point at which the human exists, if we don’t kill it.
Once an egg is fertilized, then we already know what it is, it is the earliest age of a person, it won’t come out as a puppy or an apple, and it isn’t a wart or a tumor, it is already a separate being, alive and growing and fully involved it’s own life-cycle, if no one kills him while he is at that vulnerable stage, then soon, he will be walking among us and speaking for himself.
(1) Fusion of gametes (the sperm and the egg) to form a single cell, or
(2) Fusion of gametes to form a single cell, followed by several cell divisions and then successful implantation.
I believe that the second definition provides a clear moral line, although I completely understand those who choose the first definition out of an abundance of caution or a deferral to innocence. Given the frequency with which a fertilized egg fails to implant for natural reasons, I find it hard to consider that fertilized but not yet implanted zygote a self-sustaining individual who would, in the absence of outside intervention, become a fully-independent person.
The major moral issue with morning after pills is that they can first prevent ovulation (egg release) in violation of Catholic teaching, second prevent implantation of the fertilized egg, killing a human being under definition (1) but not under definition (2), and finally slough off the uterine lining, carrying away a fertilized and implanted egg and thus killing a human being under both definitions (1) and (2). The moral decision on a morning after pill seems clear to me, although in practical terms I do not believe that a law banning abortion in the first few days of pregnancy is any more enforceable than a law banning adultery. However, the moral decision on Obama's HHS decree that pro-life Christian employers must pay for killing an implanted fetus for their employees is clear. The HHS mandate is an act of pure evil, government imposing itself between us as individuals and our duty to God as we see that duty.
One other thing as well. A mother’s immune system’s only job is to be able to tell what IS part of her body from what ISN’T part of her body.
During pregnancy, the fetus needs to be shielded from the mother’s immune system. If that doesn’t happen, the immune system attacks it and kills it.
Why? Because it doesn’t recognize the fetus as part of the body.
The immune system makes a liar out of every pro-choicer. She may say “its my body” with her mouth, and believe it in her head, but her own body contradicts her every second of every day.
When you’re coppin’ a feel at the movie theater, of course!
Seriously, though, looking at it strictly from a scientific point of view, the only legitimate answer is “at conception”. At this precise moment, the DNA from two separate sources combine to become something completely new: a cell with the DNA blueprint of a specific individual human being. At no other point in the growth cycle is there such a dramatic and sudden change that can be pointed to as something worthy of defining “alive” vs. “not alive”.
All other attempts to draw that line are based on perception in some manner, not a specific single moment where a change occurs. When the heart beats? That observation is limited by the ability to detect the heart beating. When it can survive outside the womb? Medical technology continues to improve over time, so what won’t survive today might survive tomorrow — you have no “bright line” to point to.
I was taught, per my chiropractor, that only 7 hours after conception the entire brain and nervous system is developed, so basically before the mother-to-be gets a full nights sleep the little one is capable of thoughts and feelings.
Or look at it this way - that unique human DNA is composed of 3 billion lines of unique living code [hence the scripture where God fearfully and wonderfully knits us together in our mother’s womb]. DNA or 3 billion coded sets of A,C,T,& G is the logic/code if written in books would require approx 4,000 average sized books - a stack that would equal the height of the Washington Monument [555 ft]. AND we are not the largest genome in the animal kingdom but we are certainly the most complex and have a god-likeness [i.e. ability to think abstractly, create, etc.] The brain can hold over 6 peta bytes of information and is millions of times faster than the average computer.
Lastly, consider Shannon’s theory of information which basically says if you have symbolic code [i.e. written spoken language, computer language op systems, compiler, or DNA/rNA] that indicates intelligence - intelligence required by and created by an highly-intelligent being. The many varied life kinds indicate a higher-intelligence far surpassing the accumulated knowledge of mankind.
SIMPLY PUT - Any symbolic code can never write itself, it has to have intelligence from outside of the organism acting upon it. And BTW this DNA/rNA code corrects, reproduces, and has natural adaptations and variations so no 2 organisms are exactly the same. Heck not even 2 snowflakes nor fingerprints are exactly the same!
To simplify though I only have 3 problem with dem/libs:
1.) Worship only God [not gov nor anything man-made nor God-made].
2.) Sanctity of Life.
3.) Sanctity of Marriage.
These firm foundations are laid out clearly in Genesis 1 and the warnings for these failures in Romans chapter 1.
I remember asking my mom about this... ‘when should a mother be able to terminate the kid”
“Senior in High School” was her reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.