savethedreams
Active Member
the definition of life, is based off of its characteristics, from what i gathered to learn.
so in other words, if it can eat, grow, its alive..right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life Begins at Conception
- Thread starter Darkness
- Start date
- Status
the definition of life, is based off of its characteristics, from what i gathered to learn.
so in other words, if it can eat, grow, its alive..right?
Thanks.
How would you distinguish life between the gamete and the zygote, embryo, etc. . .one with the six essential characteristics of life and the other without?
I'll reword for comments from the rest of the Brain Trust.
Last edited:
Yes, life has six essential characteristics.
But we are now calling cells alive, even though they do not have the six essential characteristics of life.
Okay, Brain Trust (a-e; 9-10ths Penguin; Mestemia), would you guys please lead me on this?
A) Does the following work?
1)Two human gametes, both alive but incapable of sustaining life for more than a few days,
2) unite to form an organism of the same nature as the gametes (human), capable of sustaining life in the right conditions (womb),
3) which from the moment of union (conception) contains the same DNA as the human gametes, with all the genetic code for a unique mature human being,
4) transforms through various stages into a (or multiple) unique mature human being(s).
Is this a correct argument for human life beginning at conception?
B) And is the following correct, for those who raise questions about the soul?
Since the soul, by definition, is the animating (life giving) principle, or actuating cause, of life, is it not present from the moment of conception?
Comments?
A) Does the following work?
1)Two human gametes, both alive but incapable of sustaining life for more than a few days,
2) unite to form an organism of the same nature as the gametes (human), capable of sustaining life in the right conditions (womb),
3) which from the moment of union (conception) contains the same DNA as the human gametes, with all the genetic code for a unique mature human being,
4) transforms through various stages into a (or multiple) unique mature human being(s).
Is this a correct argument for human life beginning at conception?
B) And is the following correct, for those who raise questions about the soul?
Since the soul, by definition, is the animating (life giving) principle, or actuating cause, of life, is it not present from the moment of conception?
Comments?
Last edited:
savethedreams
Active Member
So, does cell have life are they alive. Well, I have personal feelings based off moral but all in all sense a cell doesn't not have the six essential things to define life then it's not life or alive. You will have to invent or come up with a new word to define something alive/dead not having the essentials. But life is not a cell definition now.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
He still hasn't explained how a zygote dies.
McBell
Unbound
He is also stuck on his own personal definition of life.
But then, he kinda has to be in order to make his position seem plausible.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The funny thing is that the principle arguments for life beginning at conception have nothing to do with biology, but with philosophy and religion.
They do attack pro-lifers and others for their lack of concern for the "human being" in its various stages of earliest development to later stages. This is where sky is marooned in a mixture of misunderstanding and half-baked fantasy.
So I disagree - sky is under the delusion that his position that he made up concerning life beginning at conception is irrefutable.... it is implausible, therefore, that further fantasy has no impact on the plausibility of the first opinion.
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
Are you now going to suggest that life begins at birth? Sonogram technology prove otherwise, as does the fact that the newborn is born with vital signs already in motion.
Incorrect. The gametes are themselves alive.
Incorrect. An embryo can't sustain its own life.
Incorrect. There's more to the development of an embryo into a mature human being than DNA.
This bit's mostly correct: the embryo does develop into a mature human being.
However, as we touched on with the issue of identical twins before, an embryo doesn't necessarily develop into a unique mature human being.
No, it's not. None of your premises are entirely correct, and even if they were, your argument still doesn't support your conclusion. Nothing you've given here implies that an embryo is a "human life".
Who says that's the definition of the soul?
McBell
Unbound
You've responded to the unrevised post, which I revised after Mestemia's comments. Sorry for the confusion.
Would you please comment on its revision, post #1085?
Thanks.
Is there more than genetic code? If so, would you please explain.
The premises have been revised in post #1085.
You don't think that originating from two human gametes,
with all the genetic code for the development of a mature human being,
who then goes through various stages of development, both inside and outside the womb, to become a mature human being,
implies human life?
Would you please explain why?
"Soul" is the translation of the Latin anima. This has always been its definition.
Check it out.
And I'd appreciate your comments on post #1085.
Would you please comment on its revision, post #1085?
Thanks.
Is there more than genetic code? If so, would you please explain.
The premises have been revised in post #1085.
You don't think that originating from two human gametes,
with all the genetic code for the development of a mature human being,
who then goes through various stages of development, both inside and outside the womb, to become a mature human being,
implies human life?
Would you please explain why?
"Soul" is the translation of the Latin anima. This has always been its definition.
Check it out.
And I'd appreciate your comments on post #1085.
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
My indivual existence began at conception. The instant my father's sperm fertilized my mother's egg, I began to exist. At that moment, my entity was formed. But of course my parents could only give me life because they had been given it by their parents. So I guess life is not so much given as transferred.
A haploid zygote does not "split."
If such an aberant anomoly occurred and the involved cells survived the split, the zygote (union of two gametes) would cease to exist, and supposedly be two gametes again.
Call it destruction, call it death, call it driving backwards through the universe. . .whatever, the haploid zygote is gone. . .fine. . .nada.
Only diploid zygotes split.
And when they do, they are no longer zygotes.
Last edited:
Would you please explain any erroneous definition of life in post #1085?
I don't want to get the facts wrong.
McBell
Unbound
Why is biology excluded?
I can't make it irrefutable if it is not.
I can only show it is irrefutable if it is.
Do you think the four statements in post #1085 are correct?
If not, would you explain where they are not.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Gametes do not each have 46 chromosomes and, though alive, are not human life, but the precursor of human life.
Therefore, human life occurs with the union of the two gametes; i.e., conception.
I would like to know where I am incorrect regarding the biology of it all.
McBell
Unbound
Yet you specify that they are BOTH human and alive....
Of course, once you remove the human part, then it could be argued that two frog gametes...
Right. . .thanks.
"Human gametes, though alive, are not human life, but a precursor of human life."
That's why I included the qualifiers for the human gametes--i.e., "incapable of sustaining life for more than a few days"--to distinguish living gametes from the living zygote which continues to live and develop into a specific mature human being.
Like human gametes, human non-reproductive skin cells are also alive, but no one mistakes them for the human itself.
And like human gametes, human skin cells are incapable of sustaining life for a long period, and also die.
There is human non-reproductive cellular "life" without the six essential characteristics of life and therefore, it is not human life;
and there is human reproductive cellular "life" without the 46 chromosomes necessary for human life and therefore, it is not human life, but is a precursor of human life;
and there is the human zygote with 46 chromosomes and all the essential charcterisitcs of life and therefore, it is human life.
Last edited:
- Status