Life Begins at Conception

[angellous_evangellous]

*kicks a can*

 

[Theo_Book]

First, abortion is not murder because it is state-sanctioned killing, just like killing in war (which includes both military and collateral damage of innocent civilians), by the police, or in self-defence.

The health of the mother, which is determined by her and her doctor with no one between them, is the justification for abortion. Neither you nor I nor the state can dictate a woman's health.

And neither can you determine whether the claim of "health of the mother" is jsutified. As for the Doctor, He/She is a hired employee. May tell truth, may not.

The issue is not my ability to discern, but truth of the matter. Does life begin at conception? Answer: No!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And neither can you determine whether the claim of "health of the mother" is jsutified. As for the Doctor, He/She is a hired employee. May tell truth, may not.

The issue is not my ability to discern, but truth of the matter. Does life begin at conception? Answer: No!

Yeah, that's the point, and that's what I said. I can't evaluate the health of a woman and determine if she needs an abortion. It's between a woman and her doctor - someone who is qualified to help a woman make a choice that is best for her well-being.

I thought you were arguing that life does begin at conception (or actually, before conception)?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is my position, life begins before the moment of birth; even prior to conception.

If the very definition of "life" involves the ability to point precisely to some perceived "spark," at which time an embryo becomes viable, or "alive," then I'm afraid the debate will continue to rage unabated. But I really believe we can do better than that, in our approach to such an important issue.

The first question I would raise, is a very simple one. Was the egg alive, or dead, at the precise moment it was joined by the sperm? If it was dead, how could the gametes then become a zygote, and grow to an embryo? A Foetus? Be born? Become A toddler? The simple answer to this question, then, is, the egg was alive.

OK - did you make this stuff up or did you get it from somewhere else?

 

[AxisMundi]

.....

The first question I would raise, is a very simple one. Was the egg alive, or dead, at the precise moment it was joined by the sperm? If it was dead, how could the gametes then become a zygote, and grow to an embryo? A Foetus? Be born? Become A toddler? The simple answer to this question, then, is, the egg was alive. .....

By your failed and flawed argument, everyone who gets a haircut or trims their toenails is guilty of "murder".

Point of fact: Only religion states life begins at conception, and only by a rather liberal translation of their scripture.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But I really believe we can do better than that, in our approach to such an important issue.

The first question I would raise, is a very simple one.

As I suspected, you're recycling tired old arguments, saying little more than you did back in 1997.

<LI class="g w0">Abortion breaks the cycle of life that began long before the womb.

Nov 17, 2003 ... But I really believe we can do better than that, in our approach to such an important issue. The first question I would raise, ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1023229/posts


Does Life begin in the womb? What does God say?

But I really believe we can do better than that in our approach to such an important issue. The first question I would raise, is a very simple one. ...
swordoftruth.us/.../does-life-begin-in-the-womb-what-does-god-say/?...


- Cached <LI class="g w0">life.html

But I really believe we can do better than that, in our approach to such an important issue. The first question I would raise, is a very simple one. ...
theobook.tripod.com/opine/life.html - Cached

 

[AxisMundi]

And neither can you determine whether the claim of "health of the mother" is jsutified. As for the Doctor, He/She is a hired employee. May tell truth, may not.

The issue is not my ability to discern, but truth of the matter. Does life begin at conception? Answer: No!

I tried to debate with you on a level of mutual respect, but now I see you are merely another demagogue who participates in the politicization of abortion so you won't seem less the Christian.

I found "He/She is a hired employee. May tell truth, may not." to be quite asinine, and indicative of little to no thought in this matter.

Apparently, you have no care what occurs if a doctor "lies". Not only could it cost someone's life, if not at least serious injury and/or a lifelong handicap, they loose their ability to practice medicine and go to jail.

A physician is a professional, requires years of intensive study followed by years of highly supervised "apprenticeship" as an Intern. They are quite capable of determining if a pregnancy will impact the life of the mother.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is my position, life begins before the moment of birth; even prior to conception.

Put this in your smipe and poke it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy#Surgical

 

[Theo_Book]

I tried to debate with you on a level of mutual respect, but now I see you are merely another demagogue who participates in the politicization of abortion so you won't seem less the Christian.

Politization? Really? Usually it is ban accusaqton of "religionizing."

I found "He/She is a hired employee. May tell truth, may not." to be quite asinine, and indicative of little to no thought in this matter.

Am I to take that as a "no" vote? Are you serious? Can't respond, make something up?

Apparently, you have no care what occurs if a doctor "lies". Not only could it cost someone's life, if not at least serious injury and/or a lifelong handicap, they loose their ability to practice medicine and go to jail.

Where was "care" introduced into the question? How does my response give any indication whatsoever as to whether I care or not? You are blowing in the wind.

A physician is a professional, requires years of intensive study followed by years of highly supervised "apprenticeship" as an Intern. They are quite capable of determining if a pregnancy will impact the life of the mother.

All pregnancies "impact" the life of the mother, with motherhood. If you mean "endanger," say so.

Bull.

So in the twentieth century, pregnancy has become the primary cause of death in women?

 

[AxisMundi]

Politization? Really? Usually it is ban accusaqton of "religionizing."

Am I to take that as a "no" vote? Are you serious? Can't respond, make something up?

Where was "care" introduced into the question? How does my response give any indication whatsoever as to whether I care or not? You are blowing in the wind.

All pregnancies "impact" the life of the mother, with motherhood. If you mean "endanger," say so.

Bull.

So in the twentieth century, pregnancy has become the primary cause of death in women?

1. You people are siply incapable of sseperating relgiion from politics. In politicizing the issue, it is you who has allowed the number of abortions to skyrocket by impacting targeted education with your theopolitical rants of "murder" and attempting to legislate past Roe v Wade. If you people really cared about te unborn, you would seek effective, proven avenues to reduce the nubmers of abortions.

2. I responded in a quite succinct and rational manner, unlike yourself. Medical professionals are not going to "lie" to make a buck where a person's health and/or life is concerned. Lying is your job.

3. & 4 Thanks for proving my points even further.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So in the twentieth century, pregnancy has become the primary cause of death in women?

This is quite serious - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

 

[smokydot]

Is there any biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception?

Yes, there is, but it is not in a verse which states, "Life begins at conception." The Biblical "dots" have to be connected on this one. Let's begin with the first "dot."

1)The NT teaches that Scripture is not the only source revealing the existence and nature of God, but that nature itself is also divine revelation.
". . .what may be known about God is plain to them (men who suppress the truth by their wickedness) because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:18-20)
We see the same teaching in the OT (Ps 19:1-4, 97:6).
He goes on to say that God's moral will is also known from nature. Speaking of the same group as vv.18-31, he says that, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Rom 1:32)

What Paul is referring to here is called natural divine revelation, because it is revealed in nature, it is outside the Bible, and the NT presents it as authoritative (men are without excuse for not knowing about God from nature alone, and are morally responsible for practices contrary to God's righteousness revealed in nature alone). Take a moment to let this sink in.
The Bible is called special divine revelation, because we can know its truths only by revelation from God himself.

2) So having shown the Biblical view on the authority of natural divine revelation as seen in creation, let us move to the second "dot" and examine what the natural divine revelation of creation reveals in this regard.
Let's do so with some questions.

What kind of life is in a corn seed, corn life or cotton life? When the corn seed is planted in the ground, what kind of life begins to grow, corn life or cotton life?
And what kind of life is in a cotton seed? When the cotton seed is planted in the ground, what kind of life begins to grow?
And what kind of life is in human seed? When human seed is planted in the womb of a woman, what kind of life begins to grow?
Is there any time when the life produced by the corn or cotton seed is not corn or cotton life, but is tomato or grape life instead?
Neither is there any time when the life produced by human seed is not human life, but generic "animal life" instead.

Note that when the corn plant, the tomato plant, the cotton plant and the grape plant sprout, they all look very much the same, and continue to do so through the initial stages of growth to the green shoot, so that we can hardly tell them apart. Does that mean they are all the same kind of life, just generic "plant life," rather than corn, tomato, cotton and grape life, respectively? It does not.
They are never just generic "plant life" because of the nature of the seed. Generic life does not exist in God's nature, life is always a particular kind of life, determined by the nature of the seed (Lk 6:44).

So God's divine revelation in nature clearly reveals that life from a seed is not generic "plant or animal life," but is always a particular kind of life, determined by the nature of the seed, from the moment that it is life at all.
And so it is, that when we "connect the dots" between God's special divine revelation (Rom 1:18-32) and his natural divine revelation in his law of seeds,
God clearly reveals that life from human seed is human life from the moment of conception.

And finally, do we find this principle, revealed in natural divine revelation, reflected anywhere in the special divine revelation of the Bible? Yes, we do.
Exod 21:22-25 makes clear that prenatal and postnatal life are the same, for the penalty for killing the fruit of the womb is (human) life for (human) life in the womb (v.23).
Note the penalty for killing "animal life" (Lev 24:21) is not the same as the penalty for killing the fruit of the womb (Exod 21:23).
NB: The penalty for killing the pregnant woman is dealt with in Gen 9:6, Exod 21:12, Lev 24:17,19-21, Deut 19:11-13,21.

So the Biblical basis for life beginning at conception is clear.

 

[McBell]

Can we say Forer Effect?

 

[smokydot]

Can we say Forer Effect?

Falls a little short of refutation, don't you think?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Falls a little short of refutation, don't you think?

Maybe you should start at its conception...

A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations. Implicit in the concept of a "pattern of deviation" is a standard of comparison; this may be the judgment of people outside those particular situations, or may be a set of independently verifiable facts.

Given the nature of your cognitive bias, it's quite an insightful refutation.

note: Forer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[simon kole]

Maybe you should start at its conception...
Given the nature of your cognitive bias, it's quite an insightful refutation.

The Bible is not to be used to answer the question, in post #572, about its content, "What is the Biblical basis for the claim that life beings at conception?"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Bible is not to be used to answer the question, in post #572, about its content, "What is the Biblical basis for the claim that life beings at conception?"?

It addresses your misuse of your "evidence" by pointing out your bias.

Besides, I don't think that he was addressing you, but those of us who know what the Forer Effect is, can easily identify it in your post, and have a little chuckle.

It was meant, I think, to go so far over your head that you just continue on your merry way not knowing that the rest of us got just a little laugh at your expense. And I mean a little laugh, not a knee slapping fit or blow milk out of our nose.

 

[simon kole]

It addresses your misuse of your "evidence" by pointing out your bias.

Besides, I don't think that he was addressing you, but those of us who know what the Forer Effect is, can easily identify it in your post, and have a little chuckle.

It was meant, I think, to go so far over your head that you just continue on your merry way not knowing that the rest of us got just a little laugh at your expense. And I mean a little laugh, not a knee slapping fit or blow milk out of our nose.

Thanks.

Well, it does go over my head.
Would you please explain how I misued my evidence?

My point is that the notion that life begins "sometime" after conception means one of two things, if not both:
1) there is a period when the fertilized egg is not life at all,
2) the life at conception is not human life, it's just "life," which becomes human life somewhere down the line.

Nowhere in nature does one find the phenomenon of life occurring with no determination of its nature at its very outset. One has to go outside the laws of nature to posit such a notion.
That this notion is fabricated from whole cloth is indicative of its perverseness, which is to justify ending the life in the womb.
The NT teaches that God holds accountable those who practice idolatry even though they had no association with Israel to learn about him, because creation alone teaches them his nature, as well as his righteousness, which makes them also accountable for their practices of immorality, even though they also did not have the knowledge of his laws as Israel did.

I submit that observation alone of God's creation teaches that the two statements enumerated above are preposterous, that being totally contrary to the laws of God's creation, those who hold them will be held accountable for any actions accordingly, just as those who practiced idolatry were held accountable, based only on the observation of God's creation.
I submit that this principle is the mind of the NT, as revealed in Rom 1:18-32.
I submit that those who hold the two statements enumerated above are no more ignorant than those in Rom 1:18-32, who were held accountable, based only on the observation of God's creation.

 

[McBell]

Thanks.

Well, it does go over my head.
Would you please explain how I misued my evidence?

My point is that the notion that life begins "sometime" after conception means one of two things, if not both:
1) there is a period when the fertilized egg is not life at all,
2) the life at conception is not human life, it's just "life," which becomes human life somewhere down the line.

Nowhere in nature does one find the phenomenon of life occurring with no determination of its nature at its very outset. One has to go outside the laws of nature to posit such a notion.
That this notion is fabricated from whole cloth is indicative of its perverseness, which is to justify ending the life in the womb.
The NT teaches that God holds accountable those who practice idolatry even though they had no association with Israel to learn about him, because creation alone teaches them his nature, as well as his righteousness, which makes them also accountable for their practices of immorality, even though they also did not have the knowledge of his laws as Israel did.

I submit that observation alone of God's creation teaches that the two statements enumerated above are preposterous, that being totally contrary to the laws of God's creation, those who hold them will be held accountable for any actions accordingly, just as those who practiced idolatry were held accountable, based only on the observation of God's creation.
I submit that this principle is the mind of the NT, as revealed in Rom 1:18-32.
I submit that those who hold the two statements enumerated above are no more ignorant than those in Rom 1:18-32, who were held accountable, based only on the observation of God's creation.

Please see my posts #14 and #26.
Between the two of them it is clear that you are merely looking for Bible verses that can be twisted around to ratify your preconceived notion that life begins at conception.
This "technique" is called ratification and the Forer Effect is one of the most common tools used to achieve it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks.

Well, it does go over my head.
Would you please explain how I misued my evidence?

My point is that the notion that life begins "sometime" after conception means one of two things, if not both:
1) there is a period when the fertilized egg is not life at all,
2) the life at conception is not human life, it's just "life," which becomes human life somewhere down the line.

The whole "life beginning at conception" debate is a question of when a fetus becomes human, not 'living.' You're arguing semantics here, and not very well, because no one would say that a sperm or egg is not alive. We agree, I think that they are not human life worthy of human dignity and rights.

So the argument is more aptly described as "human life begins at conception" and therefore must be protected. It's no less inacurate to say "life begins at conception" than the words sunset or sunrise.

So, turning to your argument, the 'seeds' are alive, we argee, but that does not mean that at conception it is "human life" - because other philosophers and even the Roman Catholic church argue that there is a quickening sometime in the womb where a human being is more human than zygote or a mass of cells.