Life Begins at Conception

[Willamena]

I rather like the wording of a "mark." Its significance is an arbitrary authority. Brilliant.

 

[smokydot]

Isn't the zygote just what we call this stage of development - it develops into what we call the blastocyst... it's not like we have a whole new thing that appears spontaneously.

Okay, let me use the way someone else says what I am saying, regarding life beginning at conception:

1) What is conceived is the product of human parents.

2) What is conceived is a unique human individual with its own unique genetic code.
No new genetic info is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual.
This organism--like the newborn, the infant and the adolescent--needs only to develop in accordance with its already designed nature which it received at conception.

3) This is not a metaphysical assertion, it is plain experiment evidence.
Humans do not come from a zygote, or embryo, or fetus, or adolescent. . .humans once were a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, an adolescent.
The organism is a being who is in the process of becoming. It is not a becoming who is striving toward being.
It is not a potential human life, but a human life with great potential.

4) The same being that begins as a zygote continues to birth and adulthood.
There is no decisive break in the continuous development of the human entity from conception to death that would make this entity a different individual before birth.
That's why we say, "When I was conceived. . ."

So how is this substantively different from what I have been saying about human life beginning at conception?
And since this is plain experimental evidence (#3, above), why is it not what is clearly seen in creation? (Rom 1:19-20)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

4) The same being that begins as a zygote continues to birth and adulthood.
There is no decisive break in the continuous development of the human entity from conception to death that would make this entity a different individual before birth.
That's why we say, "When I was conceived. . ."

And here's where you get into trouble, as I've been trying to point out.

In the case of identical twins, you start with one zygote (one "human entity", as you put it) but you end up with two people (two "human entities"). Somewhere along the way, a second "human entity" managed to poof itself into existence.

Now... once you concede that it is possible for this post-conception poofing to occur in the case of twins, what reason do we have to exclude the possibility that the "human entity" can't poof into existence post-conception in the case of a single birth?

BTW - you do occasionally hear people saying things like"when I was conceived"; you also hear people saying things like "when I was a gleam in my father's eye". Literary licence isn't really an effective argument here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm still wondering about those abnormal pregnancies.

 

[McBell]

I'm still wondering about those abnormal pregnancies.

well duh...
They just don't exist.

 

[Quiddity]

Avoidance of hipocrisy immediately comes to mind.

You'd make a good reporter for CNN. Asking set up questions to get others to confess to what you already believe to be true.......genius!

Seriously, your analogy is faulty and comparing early stages of life (something you know with certainty....excluding personhood) with a theoretical as you noted is lacking.

Please keep in mind that I'm making a distinction between your position (an embryo/fetus is a definite person) and the position you're advocating for others (treat the embryo/fetus as a definite person...apparently, even if you believe it isn't a person but aren't completely certain).

Your position... fine. It's based on premises I don't personally agree with, but I see it's consistent. The position you're advocating for others, though... I think it doesn't work logically. If the rationale for it is actually correct, then it would have absurd implications, as I've been trying to point out.

It would if we were somehow implying that personhood can be found in trees, spaghetti, and any clump of atoms. But we aren't. Just in the process of what normally makes life and a person.

So... in your mind, if a person reflects and comes to the sincere conclusion that a fetus is not a person to a reasonable degree of certainty (but not a perfect degree), you would agree that such a person could be justified in participating in an abortion?

Not necessarily. People can do it merely on convenience or as a form of contraceptive. Not everybody getting an abortion gets raped or is doing it for financial reasons. But to me it's an odd question to ask me. It would be like me asking you "If someone had a certain degree of certainty that a 6 month old was not a person......" who she then be justfied? What would you say to that? I mean, I might as well say anything under the sun is justified if I'm not going to call upon those faculties that tell me something is wrong.

Again... it's not your personal position that I'm taking issue with. It's the position that you've said that others should take. It seems to me that it's a product of the premises that you've assumed (e.g. your religious beliefs on "ensoulment") and therefore doesn't work when someone who hasn't accepted those premises tries to apply it.

Obviously, they aren't under the same modus operandi...

But if we are right (and please don't start with your hypotheticals on this as well) then you'd agree that our reactions weren't even moved as it should be.

Also, most people value babies over fetuses, and fetuses over embryos.* I think your argument throws the hierarchy you refer to out the window.

Not really. I'd still support it even if we started off as a glob of poo. Which you'd agree with me is low in the hierarchy.

*And I think even the Catholic Church acknowledges this in its own way. I've never heard of a live-born baby born to a Catholic family not having a funeral (if it dies, of course). I occasionally hear of miscarried late-term fetuses receiving funeral rites... but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I've never ever heard of a Catholic funeral for an embryo or a first-trimester fetus.

It address this above. Also, most catholics might not go the formal route, but so what? There is all sorts of reasons why they don't (financial, etc.). Also, even if they don't go the formal route, they do mourn it.

 

[smokydot]

And here's where you get into trouble, as I've been trying to point out.

In the case of identical twins, you start with one zygote (one "human entity", as you put it) but you end up with two people (two "human entities"). Somewhere along the way, a second "human entity" managed to poof itself into existence.

Any "poofs" from a human organism are likewise human organisms, from the moment of "poofing."
Just as any organism that "poofs" from the union of human ovum and sperm is a human organism.

Now... once you concede that it is possible for this post-conception poofing to occur in the case of twins, what reason do we have to exclude the possibility that the "human entity" can't poof into existence post-conception in the case of a single birth?

That's not the same kind of "poofing" as in my response above.
There is no break in my "poofing" from zygote (union of sperm and ovum) to "poof."
Your "poof" has a break between human zygote (the product of human parents) and your "poof's" origin,
after which break your "poof" becomes a human organism.
So what was it in the break between human zygote (product of human parents) and "poofed" human organism?

And to anticipate your possible objection: the zygote is the parent only if it produced an ovum and sperm to effect the split.
Other than that, the split is a sibling.

BTW - you do occasionally hear people saying things like"when I was conceived"; you also hear people saying things like "when I was a gleam in my father's eye". Literary licence isn't really an effective argument here.

True, but "gleam in your father's eye" is not a biological term as is "conceived,' so they are not equivocal.
Therefore, one being a "literary license" does not equivocatee to the other being one also.

 

[smokydot]

I'm still wondering about those abnormal pregnancies.

They're still pregnancies. . .so what is it you are wondering about?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They're still pregnancies. . .so what is it you are wondering about?

If it's murder to abort the fetus when it threatens the life of the mother.

In these abnormal pregnancies, both the fetus and the mother will die without an abortion.

 

[smokydot]

If it's murder to abort the fetus when it threatens the life of the mother.
In these abnormal pregnancies, both the fetus and the mother will die without an abortion.

Would that not be considered self-defense in the case of the mother, not unlike taking the life of one who is trying to take yours?

 

[smokydot]

Let's argue that life begins at kerception. It's a made-up version of human development that I can change at my whim under the guise of my equally incompetent theological interpretations of the Krible, which I also can change at any whim.

A. If men are without excuse because knowledge of the invisible God has been made so plain that it is clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,

then how much more is the nature of life at conception clearly seen and understood from what has been made, and shown in plain experimental evidence (which does not even exist for God's eternal, divine, righteous nature)?

B. The "made-up" version of human development is accurate:

1) It begins as two human cells, sperm and egg, called the zygote. If those two cells split apart, that is the end of the zygote.
The zygote doubles itself before cleavage into separate blastomeres.

2) The zygote is a unique human individual with its own unique genetic code. No new genetic info is needed to make the unborn entity a unique idividual.
It needs only to develop in accordance with its already designed nature which it receives at conception.

3) It develops by doubling the human zygote to become a human blastomere, and continues to split and double through human morula, human blastocyst, etc.

4) The same being that beginss as a zygote continues to birth and adulthood. There is no decisive break in the continuous developement of the human entity from conception to death
that would make this entity a different individual before birth.

5) This is all plain experimental evidence.

You might want to file this with your Krible, sassumptions, kerception, sisyphus, whimsical human development and incompetent theological interpretations. . .

 

[smokydot]

That's well below biology 101.

So why is there misunderstanding that the zygote is a two-cell union of the egg and sperm?

And that if the union is split, (9-10ths Penguin says it splits, post #939), it's back to the individual sperm and egg, and the end of the zygote. It must double before it splits.
That's the reason for my statement about ending if it splits.

A simple dictionary definition will not help you understand the mechanics of human development needed to avoid this blunder (among many others):

What is my blunder here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And that if the union is split, (9-10ths Penguin says it splits and doubles), it's back to the individual sperm and egg, and the end of the zygote. It must double before it splits.

Read for comprehension, please:

Mitosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[smokydot]

Read for comprehension, please:

Mitosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't that apply to tissues--nerve, muscle, connective, epithelial--rather than zygotes?

A zygote (union of egg and sperm) does not split, it doubles itself before cleavage into a blastomere.
It is the blastomere that splits.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Would that not be considered self-defense in the case of the mother, not unlike taking the life of one who is trying to take yours?

Absolutely not, because it is possible that the human being (according to your argument) is not intentionally causing harm and it could possibly be born naturally even though it is a medical emergency for the mother who could also survive.

So we need to rely on the judgment of the doctor in individual cases rather than passing legislation that the pro-lifers want.

 

[smokydot]

Absolutely not, because it is possible that the human being (according to your argument) is not intentionally causing harm and it could possibly be born naturally even though it is a medical emergency for the mother who could also survive.

So we need to rely on the judgment of the doctor in individual cases rather than passing legislation that the pro-lifers want.

If you're referring to me, I'm not proposing we pass legislation on the issue.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you're referring to me, I'm not proposing we pass legislation on the issue.

Convenient.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't that apply to tissues--nerve, muscle, connective, epithelial--rather than zygotes?

No, it applies to all of them... including zygotes (emphasis mine):

In the gametic life cycle, of which humans are a part, the species is diploid, grown from a diploid cell called the zygote. The organism's diploid germ-line stem cells undergo meiosis to create haploid gametes (the spermatozoa for males and ova for females), which fertilize to form the zygote. The diploid zygote undergoes repeated cellular division by mitosis to grow into the organism.

Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A zygote (union of egg and sperm) does not split, it doubles into a blastomere.
It is the blastomere that splits.

The zygote doubles by splitting. This doesn't mean that the egg and sperm detach from each other; it means that the zygote splits into two cells, both with the combined DNA from both the egg and the sperm.

 

[smokydot]

Convenient.

Applying to me how?

And how does leaving it to the doctor keep it from being murder?
The mother has to give consent to terminating the life.

 

[smokydot]

No, it applies to all of them... including zygotes (emphasis mine):

Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks.

Do you have something that says human zygotes are eukaryotic cells--have a definite nuclear membrance?

The zygote doubles by splitting. This doesn't mean that the egg and sperm detach from each other; it means that the zygote splits into two cells, both with the combined DNA from both the egg and the sperm.