Life Begins at Conception

[Luminous]

Conception signifies the beginning of a new individual.

If you like, you could say that "life" began when the first living cell appeared in the Earth's primordial ooze.

you kill as many potential humans when you spill seed or ovulate as when you abort a zygote.

 

[AxisMundi]

I wonder how many people know that right up into the 1900's abortion was perfectly legel, and whithout social stigma, until "the quickening"?

 

[smokydot]

And plants don't make good analogies for animals, but we muddle through as best we can.

So... before the "planted seed"/fertilized egg, we still have a human? This implies that the life exists before conception.

You're right! Thanks. Iron sharpens iron (Prov 27:17).

I need to go farther back--to the origin of the seeds.
To produce seeds, seed-bearing plants must be pollinated by another plant from their own species. The seed originates from two separate plants.
And the seed produced from the union of these two non-living entities is, itself, a living entity of the same nature as its origin .
Likewise, the seed produced from the union of two non-living entities (sperm and egg) is, itself, a living entity of the same nature as its human origin.

And, just as the life in the seed has the same nature as the life of the two plants, from the moment it is a seed,
so the life in a human seed (union of egg and sperm) has the same nature as the life of the two humans, from the moment it is a seed (fertilized egg).

According to God's natural revelation in the nature of seeds, human life begins at conception, which is the origin of the living seed, that is the same human nature as the life from which it was produced.

Thanks for helping me clear that up.

 

[Smoke]

According to God's natural revelation in the nature of seeds, human life begins at conception, which is the origin of the living seed, that is the same human nature as the life from which it was produced.

I find it interesting that you just make this stuff up as you go along, without reference to science or scripture, and then declare it to be divine revelation.

 

[smokydot]

I have no idea what you're talking about, then.

1) I misspoke when I said the death penalty applied only to the taking of human life.
2) In response to Angellous-Evangellous, I corrected myself to say: in the taking of a life, the death penalty applied only when human life was taken. It did not apply for the taking of any other kind of life.
3) You presented a counter example to my incorrect statement of 1), above.
4) I responsed that your counter example was previously addressed [as in 2) above.]
5) You responded that your post (regarding injury to a fetus) was not addressed.
6) I pointed out that my response [as in 2) above] was not addressing the issue of injury to a fetus, but was addressing the issue of my incorrect statement of 1), above.
7) You responded that you didn't know what I was talking about. . .

and probably still don't.

 

[AxisMundi]

If there is only a biblical basis for opposition to abortion, then like religion, abortion is a personal matter in the United States.

 

[smokydot]

I find it interesting that you just make this stuff up as you go along, without reference to science or scripture, and then declare it to be divine revelation.

See post #602 for the Biblical basis of natural revelation (from nature) as authoritative.

The science used is the natural science (found in nature) regarding the nature of seeds.

 

[Smoke]

See post #602 for the Biblical basis of natural revelation (from nature) as authoritative.

Even if we were to grant the reality of natural revelation, that doesn't mean anything that pops into your head when thinking about nature is revelation.

The science used is the natural science (found in nature) regarding the nature of seeds.

Likewise, your random thoughts about seeds are not science. Making stuff up about nature is not natural science.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1) I misspoke when I said the death penalty applied only to the taking of human life.
2) In response to Angellous-Evangellous, I corrected myself to say: in the taking of a life, the death penalty applied only when human life was taken. It did not apply for the taking of any other kind of life.
3) You presented a counter example to my incorrect statement of 1), above.
4) I responsed that your counter example was previously addressed [as in 2) above.]
5) You responded that your post (regarding injury to a fetus) was not addressed.
6) I pointed out that my response [as in 2) above] was not addressing the issue of injury to a fetus, but was addressing the issue of my incorrect statement of 1), above.
7) You responded that you didn't know what I was talking about. . .

and probably still don't.

If you still think my question from before doesn't apply, then yes, I still don't:

What makes you think that the ancient Hebrews considered a miscarriage or abortion to be "the taking of life"?

 

[Smoke]

If there is only a biblical basis for opposition to abortion, then like religion, abortion is a personal matter in the United States.

Precisely. But for people who believe the Bible is the authoritative guide to life, there's also the uncomfortable fact that the authors found time to forbid adultery, heresy, idolatry, the braiding of hair and the wearing of gold, but never thought to say a word about abortifacients.

 

[smokydot]

If there is only a biblical basis for opposition to abortion, then like religion, abortion is a personal matter in the United States.

The basis for human life at conception is in nature, in the origin and nature of seeds.

It is the State's function to protect human life, which the nature of seeds shows to occur at conception.

The Biblical authorization of nature as divine revelation is relevant only to the establishment of nature as authoritative on the issue of when human life begins.

 

[smokydot]

Even if we were to grant the reality of natural revelation, that doesn't mean anything that pops into your head when thinking about nature is revelation.

Correct. It must have clear application to the case at hand, as it did for Paul in clearly showing the existence and nature of God.

Likewise, your random thoughts about seeds are not science. Making stuff up about nature is not natural science.

Demonstrate the faulty science therein.

 

[Smoke]

Demonstrate the faulty science therein.

How about the fact that you confidently set forth what you learned from "natural revelation," but when 9-10ths pointed out that it didn't meet your rhetorical needs, you immediately changed your mind and declared a different and contradictory "natural revelation"?

All you're doing is trying to invest your half-formed thoughts with an authority they do not and cannot have. It has nothing to do with science, and almost nothing to do with nature.

 

[AxisMundi]

The basis for human life at conception is in nature, in the origin and nature of seeds.

It is the State's function to protect human life, which the nature of seeds shows to occur at conception.

The Biblical authorization of nature as divine revelation is relevant only to the establishment of nature as authoritative on the issue of when human life begins.

I've tried following your argument, and to be quite frank and possibly insulting, all I see reminds me quite strongly of an anti-gay Christian desperatly twisting things so that his support for discriminatory laws doesn;t apepar to be based purely on religion.

Trouble is, everyone knows it's only based on religion.

To date I have seen you only quoting scriptures, and not science.

That is a religious response, not scientific, and not involving " merely seeds".

 

[smokydot]

Precisely. But for people who believe the Bible is the authoritative guide to life, there's also the uncomfortable fact that the authors found time to forbid adultery, heresy, idolatry, the braiding of hair and the wearing of gold, but never thought to say a word about abortifacients.

When did absence become proof of anything but absence?

 

[smokydot]

How about the fact that you confidently set forth what you learned from "natural revelation," but when 9-10ths pointed out that it didn't meet your rhetorical needs, you immediately changed your mind and declared a different and contradictory "natural revelation"?

I didn't go deep enough into the natural revelation in the nature of seeds.
The prinicple of authoritative natural revelation remained the same.

All you're doing is trying to invest your half-formed thoughts with an authority they do not and cannot have. It has nothing to do with science, and almost nothing to do with nature.

Demonstrate it has nothing to do with nature.

Demonstrate the faulty science.

 

[smokydot]

I've tried following your argument, and to be quite frank and possibly insulting, all I see reminds me quite strongly of an anti-gay Christian desperatly twisting things so that his support for discriminatory laws doesn;t apepar to be based purely on religion.

Trouble is, everyone knows it's only based on religion.

To date I have seen you only quoting scriptures, and not science.

See post #672 for the basis outside "religion."
The Bible is not the basis for the laws of nature. It is the basis for the authority of the laws of nature, which laws do not allow mankind to plead ignorance in cases relating to them
and, therefore, mankind will be held accountable based on those laws.

That is a religious response, not scientific, and not involving " merely seeds".

Demonstrate the faulty science.

The Bible gives divine authority to the laws of nature as they relate to an issue, as in the issue of God's existence and his invisible qualities (Rom 1:19-21).
Those laws being authoritative, mankind cannot plead ignorance, and will be held accountable according to those laws, as they relate to an issue.
The laws of nature regarding seeds relate to the issue of human seed. Those laws are authoritative for the nature of seeds and, therefore,
mankind cannot plead ignorance on the issue of human seed, and will be held accountable based on their laws,
just as the pagans could not plead ignorance on the existence of God and his invisible qualities revealed in nature alone, and were held accountable based on the observation of nature alone (Rom 1:19-21).
This is the Biblical principle of Rom 1:19-31, and it authorizes the laws of nature (regarding seeds) to apply to the issue of human seed, as the laws of nature applied to the issue of God's existence and invisible qualities in Rom 1:19-21.

The Bible is not the basis for the laws in nature regarding seeds. Science is.
The Bible is the basis for the authority of the laws in nature as they relate to an issue, in this case human seed; and, because those laws have divine authority, mankind cannot plead ignorance in cases relating to them, and will be held accountable in those cases.

 

[smokydot]

If you still think my question from before doesn't apply, then yes, I still don't:

That's next. . .

I yield, after reviewing Ex 21:22-25 and seeing that the passage really is not clear, to the ancient Jewish understanding of the passage.

That removes any specific Biblical verse on the origin of human life at conception, and
leaves only Paul's principle of the authority of the revelation in nature (Rom 1:19-21), which holds mankind accountable as it applies to an issue.

 

[smokydot]

[claiming to be using the Socratic method without using the Socratic method]

Damn that's still funny.:yes:

"Be kind, be kind, and you will be saints."

 

[smokydot]

Do you see any basis for it in natural law, as presented in post #602, regarding the nature of seeds?

Make that my corrected post #664.