Apparently, the religious on RF don't even know the difference between good and bad.

[Vile Atheist]

Ok... thanks for the clarification.

Yep. For me the issue is sentience vs non-sentience.

And I must add that you are one of the few theists who have bothered to ask me an honest question with the intention of actually getting another perspective. I respect that. If you don't mind me asking, what's your view? If it's the same as the Catholic Church's, then don't bother re-iterating it. Trust me lol. I know it quite well as I have had many debates with my religion teacher over it.

But I hope there is some variation as variation is indicative that you are a person who thinks for yourself and that is a trait that should always be lauded. That and it would make things more interesting.

 

[McBell]

How can you kill something that isn't yet alive?

You must be in possession of a most interestingly different definition of the word "alive".

Seems to me that it takes a LIVING sperm cell to fertilize a LIVING egg cell.
If either are dead, there is not fertilization.

If at any point of the development it dies it is called a miscarriage.

So it is plain to see that it is in fact "alive".

 

[Vile Atheist]

You must a most interestingly different definition of the word "alive".

Seems to me that it takes a LIVING sperm cell to fertilize a LIVING egg cell.
If either are dead, there is not fertilization.

If at any point of the development it dies it is called a miscarriage.

So it is plain to see that it is in fact "alive".

I make a distinction between "alive" and "sentient".

Sentience, I define largely as brain activity in an organism. Life, I define vaguely as a system of interactions that result in the sustainability of that system [i.e. mitochrondria in a cell providing energy for it, etc. Lungs filtering out oxygen from the air to send to other parts of the body, etc.] (which I know is lacking, but at 4am, and you requesting a definition of "life"...my brain is starting to get a little "non-sentient").

Cells are alive. But a human being at conception is not. Not until the central nervous system and endocrine system is developed.

But we have millions of live cells that get killed everyday. Does that mean we are not sentient? Of course not.

Life can be sentient or non-sentient. A sentient being cannot be dead. That's the distinction.

 

[Scott1]

If you don't mind me asking, what's your view? If it's the same as the Catholic Church's, then don't bother re-iterating it.

Same.

But I hope there is some variation as variation is indicative that you are a person who thinks for yourself and that is a trait that should always be lauded.

Please don't make the mistake that when I agree with Catholic teaching it is because I can't think for myself... there are, in fact, a few instances where my beliefs differ from current RC teaching... but it just so happens that my personal belief is that life starts at conception.

I just can't support the "sentience" view... seems a bit like splitting hairs to say that killing something that (under normal circumstances) will certainly become sentient is ok... but I do certainly respect that you've obviously given this subject your honest and careful consideration.

 

[McBell]

I make a distinction between "alive" and "sentient".

Sentience, I define largely as brain activity in an organism. Life, I define vaguely as a system of interactions that result in the sustainability of that system [i.e. mitochrondria in a cell providing energy for it, etc. Lungs filtering out oxygen from the air to send to other parts of the body, etc.] (which I know is lacking, but at 4am, and you requesting a definition of "life"...my brain is starting to get a little "non-sentient").

Cells are alive. But a human being at conception is not. Not until the central nervous system and endocrine system is developed.

But we have millions of live cells that get killed everyday. Does that mean we are not sentient? Of course not.

Life can be sentient or non-sentient. A sentient being cannot be dead. That's the distinction.

So now I am at a complete loss as to why you would even ask the question:

"How can you kill something that isn't yet alive?"
​

 

[Vile Atheist]

Please don't make the mistake that when I agree with Catholic teaching it is because I can't think for myself... there are, in fact, a few instances where my beliefs differ from current RC teaching... but it just so happens that my personal belief is that life starts at conception.

I just can't support the "sentience" view... seems a bit like splitting hairs to say that killing something that (under normal circumstances) will certainly become sentient is ok... but I do certainly respect that you've obviously given this subject your honest and careful consideration.

Oh no. I wouldn't make that mistake. And as you said you do differ from the RC Church on some issues. So you do think for yourself.

"Will become sentient" is not "Is sentient".

I would assume you cut your nails? Wash yourself? You are getting rid of live cells when you do that. This is life you are deposing of by your own view because the cells themselves are "alive". But even though these cells are alive and they are human cells...it's not a person. You aren't killing a person when you cut your nails or wash yourself.

And you could certainly use the "potential for life" argument - that a fertilized egg will eventually develop into a fully-functional human being. But I could also counter that with today's genetic engineering technology, they can take any cell off your body and make another you. When you scratch your nose, it's a "potential" Holocaust. You are killing millions of cells that could - through given efforts - become live, sentient humans.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So now I am at a complete loss as to why you would even ask the question:

"How can you kill something that isn't yet alive?"
​

By "something", I mean a sentient entity. It's component cells may be alive. But it itself isn't until it acquires sentience.

 

[McBell]

By "something", I mean a sentient entity. It's component cells may be alive. But it itself isn't until it acquires sentience.

It is either alive or it is not.
It is either sentient or it is not.
Alive and sentient are not synonyms.

 

[Scott1]

And you could certainly use the "potential for life" argument - that a fertilized egg will eventually develop into a fully-functional human being. But I could also counter that with today's genetic engineering technology, they can take any cell off your body and make another you.

Not sure why you can't see the difference between a fertilized egg being different from "any cell off your body" --- the moment you take that cell and make another me, I don't think you should kill that either.

When you scratch your nose, it's a "potential" Holocaust. You are killing millions of cells that could - through given efforts - become live, sentient humans.

Again, not sure why you can't see the difference between an eventual outcome and a possible outcome.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It is either alive or it is not.
It is either sentient or it is not.
Alive and sentient are not synonyms.

No, as I said before, I make a distinction.

Something can be alive, but not sentient. But if something is sentient, it has to be alive.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Not sure why you can't see the difference between a fertilized egg being different from "any cell off your body" --- the moment you take that cell and make another me, I don't think you should kill that either.

Oh no, there is a physiological difference between a fertilized egg and just any old cell off your body.

I don't think I should kill that cell that was made into you, either, so long as you have brain activity.

 

[McBell]

No, as I said before, I make a distinction.

Something can be alive, but not sentient. But if something is sentient, it has to be alive.

But your distinction only makes your question more puzzling.
You question makes it seem as though you believe that it has to be sentient to be alive.
And that is simply not true.

 

[Vile Atheist]

But your distinction only makes your question more puzzling.
You question makes it seem as though you believe that it has to be sentient to be alive.
And that is simply not true.

Read back to what you quoted. I said "Something can be alive, but not sentient".

Perhaps I could have worded that question a little better. But you know the distinction now and I'm sure you're able to understand what I meant by it. You're a smart guy.

 

[McBell]

Read back to what you quoted. I said "Something can be alive, but not sentient".

Perhaps I could have worded that question a little better. But you know the distinction now and I'm sure you're able to understand what I meant by it. You're a smart guy.

My point is that what you meant and what you actually said seem to be two different things.
Thus I wanted to get the clarity of it.

I believe that you have clarified it.

Thank you

 

[Vile Atheist]

My point is that what you meant and what you actually said seem to be two different things.
Thus I wanted to get the clarity of it.

I believe that you have clarified it.

Thank you

Great

 

[McBell]

However, I still do not understand this whole "life begins at conception" thing.....

 

[Madhuri]

However, I still do not understand this whole "life begins at conception" thing.....

The life (not sentience) of that individual begins at conception. Even if you were once a clump of multiplying cells, those cells were still you- just underdeveloped. And that individual was a living thing.

 

[McBell]

The life (not sentience) of that individual begins at conception. Even if you were once a clump of multiplying cells, those cells were still you- just underdeveloped. And that individual was a living thing.

I have to disagree.
The sperm and the egg both have to be ALIVE for conception to even take place...

So it seems to me that that particular life started when the sperm was that fertilizes said egg is created.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I have to disagree.
The sperm and the egg both have to be ALIVE for conception to even take place...

So it seems to me that that particular life started when the sperm was that fertilizes said egg is created.

I agree with your disagreement.

Essentially millions of sperm deaths occur to make one potentially viable human child.

Edit: Am I the only one who realizes how far off-topic we are lmao?

 

[Madhuri]

I have to disagree.
The sperm and the egg both have to be ALIVE for conception to even take place...

So it seems to me that that particular life started when the sperm was that fertilizes said egg is created.

However, before the sperm and the egg meet you do not exist. Isn't it upon conception that you begin to exist? Ie/ living cells combine to create a new individual life that is you?