Life Begins at Conception

[Big_TJ]

In that souls enter into an egg through the father, yes.

Interesting. . :sad:

Just out of curiosity: Is masturbation murder? Or, is any form of contraceptive use murder (since it will "kill" the sperm cells that contain "Souls")? If these are not murder, why not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Darkness,
There are several scriptures that indicate that God knows that life begins at conception, Ps 139:13-16.
Consider how God spoke about Jeremiah when he was in his mothers belly, Jere 1:4,5.

Those passages hint at life beginning some time before birth, not necessarily at conception.

Proof positive iis found at Ex 21:22,23. We are toold that if two men were fighting and they caused the death of a baby by premature birth, the man responsilbe should be put to death. The Mosaic Law required a life for a life.

This Ex 21:22-23?

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.


Footnotes:

1. Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

The penalty is a monetary fine, not death. If, as you say, Mosaic Law required a life for a life, then isn't this your "proof positive" that Mosaic Law did not consider a fetus to be a life?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I love how people pro-lifers always cry out "Oh, the rights of the baby, the rights of the baby" etc, etc. But if everyone really cared so much about rights, rather than shoving their ignorant, holier than though bigotry down everyone else's throat, then where, is Isis' name, are the rights of the mother?

She decides she wants to have an abortion and suddenly she is no longer human and therefore no longer has any rights?

Calm yourself....some here might start accusing you of making sense.....:cover:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In that souls enter into an egg through the father, yes.

So no more scrambled eggs for breakfast.....

 

[logician]

Since the DNA of all life follows the same general pattern, and we evolved from other life forms, does all life have souls?

If not, why not?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I asked what the net change was. Anything that was there beforehand and is still there afterward is not a net change.

the net change from a sperm to a fertilized egg is twice the DNA.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Interesting. . :sad:

Just out of curiosity: Is masturbation murder? Or, is any form of contraceptive use murder (since it will "kill" the sperm cells that contain "Souls")? If these are not murder, why not?

The Bible makes no reference to self-gratification being murder.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So no more scrambled eggs for breakfast.....

Um, I tremble to ask just exactly what it is that you are eating.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the net change from a sperm to a fertilized egg is twice the DNA.

You're moving the goalposts. There is no DNA in the fertilized egg that was not in the sperm and egg separately beforehand. A human sperm cell contains 23 single chromosomes. A human egg cell contains 23 single chromosomes. A fertilized egg contains 23 pairs of chromosomes. 23 + 23 = 23 x 2. The before equals the after. There's no net change.

The Bible makes no reference to self-gratification being murder.

It also makes no reference to termination of a pregnancy being murder.

In fact, in the one case where the Bible does deal with it (Exodus 21:22), it gives the penalty as a monetary fine... and that's for involuntary termination of a pregnancy as a result of an assault on a pregnant woman.

 

[idea]

Those passages hint at life beginning some time before birth, not necessarily at conception.

you are correct - life begins before birth.
see: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, Jer. 1:4–5

Our life began before the world was formed
see: God chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:3–4.



“Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar. Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory, do we come From God, who is our home: Heaven lies about us in our infancy.” - William Wordsworth

 

[idea]

In the end of your first trimester, your baby’s fingers and toes are fully formed, along with his eyes, ears, mouth, and nose.


Baby born at 23 weeks who is 'living proof abortion limits should be slashed' celebrates first birthday | Mail Online
Lexie was born prematurely at just 23 weeks - a week before the time limit for a termination. Yet although she weighed just 1lb 8oz with crinkled red skin, little Lexie won her battle for survival and has now celebrated her first birthday.

http://colombiaherald.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/another-baby-is-born-after-22-week-pregnancy-video/
Just a few days after the survival of Amillia Taylor in the US and Millie McDonagh in the UK, another extremely premature baby was born, this time in Barranquilla, Colombia....


http://www.abortiontv.com/Growth/BabyBrainWaves.htm
Baby Brain Waves Measured In Womb

they can see / hear / feel pain / create brain waves. If you have ever been prego - you know they are very alive.

 

[McBell]

In the end of your first trimester, your baby’s fingers and toes are fully formed, along with his eyes, ears, mouth, and nose.


Baby born at 23 weeks who is 'living proof abortion limits should be slashed' celebrates first birthday | Mail Online
Lexie was born prematurely at just 23 weeks - a week before the time limit for a termination. Yet although she weighed just 1lb 8oz with crinkled red skin, little Lexie won her battle for survival and has now celebrated her first birthday.

Another baby is born after 22-week pregnancy [video] « The Colombia Herald
Just a few days after the survival of Amillia Taylor in the US and Millie McDonagh in the UK, another extremely premature baby was born, this time in Barranquilla, Colombia....


Baby Brain Waves
Baby Brain Waves Measured In Womb

they can see / hear / feel pain / create brain waves. If you have ever been prego - you know they are very alive.

Appeal to emotion argument.

Now, what does this have to do with the debate of when life "begins"?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You're moving the goalposts. There is no DNA in the fertilized egg that was not in the sperm and egg separately beforehand. A human sperm cell contains 23 single chromosomes. A human egg cell contains 23 single chromosomes. A fertilized egg contains 23 pairs of chromosomes. 23 + 23 = 23 x 2. The before equals the after. There's no net change.

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. I fail to see the relevance of this to the op or my op.

It also makes no reference to termination of a pregnancy being murder.

In fact, in the one case where the Bible does deal with it (Exodus 21:22), it gives the penalty as a monetary fine... and that's for involuntary termination of a pregnancy as a result of an assault on a pregnant woman.

The op did not bring up the question of murder only when life bagan according to the Bible.

 

[Smoke]

I haven't looked at this thread for a month, so I missed this:

There's no particular reason to consider a twelve-year-old child more "human" or more "viable" than a zygote.

I don't believe you really believe that. In fact, I don't believe anyone in his right mind could possibly believe that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. I fail to see the relevance of this to the op or my op.

DNA doesn't have relevance to the OP, but it does to your post. And you're begging the question: I asked what the net change was from before fertilization to after; you responded that it was "complete DNA". I pointed out that all the DNA in the fertilized egg is present separately in the sperm and egg. Now, you're saying "the sum of the parts is greater than the whole", which basically amounts to saying "there is a change" without supporting your assertion.

So... again: what's the net change? Preferably one that justifies treating the thing before as not a human life and the thing after as a human life.

The op did not bring up the question of murder only when life bagan according to the Bible.

It's entirely relevant:

- murder is the illegal taking of a human life.
- the punishment for murder under Mosaic law is death.
- Mosaic law establishes that causing a pregnant woman to miscarry by assault is illegal.
- if it were also taking of a human life, then the punishment would be death.
- the punishment for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry by assault is not death.
- therefore, Mosaic law implies that a miscarriage does not take a human life.
- therefore, Mosaic law implies that when a miscarriage occurs, life has not yet begun.

I don't believe you really believe that. In fact, I don't believe anyone in his right mind could possibly believe that.

I was first introduced to the idea of probability in my grade 7 math class. One of the examples my teacher used to illustrate the idea of related probabilities was to point out that the odds of 40-something him surviving until age 50 were significantly higher than those of any particular 12-year-old in the class.

Pick any standard for viability (though personally, I'd say that any 12-year-old child has already met any reasonable standard for viability years before) and an individual who is closer to it is more "viable" than one further away, statistically speaking.

 

[Storm]

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

Actually, I've been told that, by Jewish interpretation, life begins at the first breath. Something about God breathing life into Adam.

I haven't reviewed the whole thread, but from what I have read, the conversation has drifted away from Biblical interpretation, so I'll throw in my 5 cents (inflation ):

I believe that life does begin at conception, and I don't see any way around it. So, for those who disagree, please explain it to me. (And for Mestemia's standard objection, I am referring here to an individual human life - abiogenesis is wholly irrelevant. )

Now, life beginning at conception does not necessitate the belief that a zygote is a person. I'm not sure where to draw that line.

 

[gnomon]

In that souls enter into an egg through the father, yes.

Let's look at this process.

A woman ovulates and an egg is released. Sperm is introduced into the environment and fertilization occurs.

According to you a soul is conceived.

1) An egg is fertilized before it implants. It is at this point that the most common reason for miscarriage may occur. The embryo does not implant into the uterine wall. A soul is lost. I've read varying estimates anywhere from 30%-50% of embryos fail to implant. The problem is that these miscarriages cannot often be recognized. It occurs before a recognized pregnancy.

2) An embryo does implant yet during the first few weeks the risk of miscarriage is pretty common. Usually do to some abnormal chromosomal development. As time goes on the probability of miscarriage decreases. The usual number given for rates of miscarriage among recognized pregnancies is 15-20 percent.

In any event, that's a lot of "souls" lost. Sounds like poor programming to me. It also raises the theological question, similar to the old one for the RCC regarding infant deaths, as to what happens to these souls lost?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that life does begin at conception, and I don't see any way around it. So, for those who disagree, please explain it to me. (And for Mestemia's standard objection, I am referring here to an individual human life - abiogenesis is wholly irrelevant. )

Speaking for myself, I'm not so sure that "personhood" isn't just a human-created idea. Using what might be an odd analogy, I think it's like a combined living/dining room: where does the living room end and the dining room begin? Well, the living room ends somewhere after the sofa and begins somewhere before the dining room table... but without furniture, you can't really say.

If that makes any sense at all. I'm still tired from the weekend, so I may be talking nonsense.

My main point is that human development and change is a smooth continuum that starts well before birth and only ends when we die. Some parts of that continuum may be more steeply sloped than others, but it's still a judgement call as to where the transition from one state to another, or one valuation to another, occurs.

Also, I don't know if you're doing this, but I see a line of reasoning often employed on this issue that seems to me to be fallacious: we start at birth and assume that the baby is a full human person. Then, we trace back along the development during pregnancy to find a clear demarcation point between "person" and "not person". Only finding a usually-gentle slope, we conclude that the demarcation point isn't there. We then proceed back to conception, which we identify as a demarcation point in certain respects and conclude that it must be the demarcation point for personhood as well.

I think this reasoning is short on support for the idea that conception should be considered the initial point of personhood, and I think it's incorrect in assuming that "personhood" (however it's defined) is something that cannot be developed gradually and incrementally over time.

To use another analogy, think of digging a hole in gravel by removing it a stone at a time: when you have an 8-foot deep pit, you can be sure it's a hole (though is it a "pit"? Probably not). You can be fairly sure it was still a hole when it was only 1 foot deep as well. In fact, you can't really identify any time when it abruptly changes from "not a hole" to "hole", but does this mean that the ground suddenly became a hole when you picked up the first pebble? I'd say it didn't.

 

[Storm]

With all due respect, Penguin, I think you missed the end of my post:

Now, life beginning at conception does not necessitate the belief that a zygote is a person. I'm not sure where to draw that line.

I do NOT believe that a fertilized egg is a person. I do believe that a baby a week before birth is. I'm fuzzy on the middle, but think a good place to draw the line LEGALLY is the fetus' viability (ability to survive outside the womb). Whenever survival rates hit 51% strikes me fair.

Anyway, to be absolutely clear, I fully support abortion rights.

I'm betting that clarification changes your response to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

With all due respect, Penguin, I think you missed the end of my post:

I do NOT believe that a fertilized egg is a person. I do believe that a baby a week before birth is. I'm fuzzy on the middle, but think a good place to draw the line LEGALLY is the fetus' viability (ability to survive outside the womb). Whenever survival rates hit 51% strikes me fair.

Anyway, to be absolutely clear, I fully support abortion rights.

I'm betting that clarification changes your response to me.

Oh... I think I missed the implied distinction between "life" and "a life".

Even with your clarification, I think I still disagree: life exists before conception. A egg cell and a sperm cell are both very much alive.

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, though: wouldn't your viability standard imply that a fetus in, say, an African village with no medical care and a week's journey from the nearest hospital would not become a legal "person" until quite a bit after a fetus of high-income parents in a Western metropolis?