Life Begins at Conception

[DallasApple]

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.

I have a problem with this too.I dont know where to draw the line.I just know the earlier the abortion is the more comforatable I am.

Not even to do neccesarlily to do with the argument of is it a "legal person" or not.Just in general the humanity of it.

Lets just put it this way..If I had a miscariage at 6 weeks pregnant..I would feel quite differently I imagine than if I had a miscarriage at 20 weeks.

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

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.

You're dropping some of the necessary qualifiers, though. I didn't just say A life, I said "an individual human life." Ova and sperm are alive, uncontested, but they are no more individual than skin cells. They do not, alone, have the potential to become new people. Once they combine, a new person begins to form.

Still disagree?

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?

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, so let me restate it, and please clarify if necessary: You seem to be asking if the medical miracles that allow a premature baby to survive in the West artificially move the date of viability to an earlier point. I must admit that this hadn't occured to me. I suppose it does.

 

[DallasApple]

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?

This is true..most (fertile) sexually active women will have statistically a certain amount of miscarriages over her lifetime and never even realize she was pregnant.

Also Im not quite sure on this..but I think their must be implantation before the woman starts to even produce the hormome needed to support a pregnancy.

Also Im not quite sure on this either..But I believe hormonal birth control deosnt prevent fertilization..It prevents implantation in the event fertilazation occurs..IOW it doesnt stop ovulation..and its certainly doesn kill the sperm once in her body.So technically the woman could be miscarrying every month.

Someone can correct me if Im wrong.

Love

Dallas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're dropping some of the necessary qualifiers, though. I didn't just say A life, I said "an individual human life." Ova and sperm are alive, uncontested, but they are no more individual than skin cells. They do not, alone, have the potential to become new people. Once they combine, a new person begins to form.

Still disagree?

Yes. A zygote, alone, does not have the potential to become a new person. Without a womb to develop in, the fetus will not develop properly. This is more than just an issue of viability; the zygote and later the fetus needs things like hormone inputs from the mother at key points in gestation for development to proceed.

Also, we get back to what I touched on before. It may have the genetic information of a whole person, but I think that equating that with "an individual human life" is somewhat like equating a building with its blueprints. Switching building metaphors again, when does the "building" itself become constructed? In conventional construction, we make a distinction between temporary items like scaffolding and formwork and the building itself. However, in the case of a fetus, the "scaffolding" and the "building" are made of the same material, and the "building" itself is re-built and added onto several times before it's finished, creating an even more complex "Ship of Theseus" problem: when was the "ship" actually built if, not only have all the timbers been replaced, but every iteration of the hull was built by forming a new hull around the outside of the old one like successive layers of an onion (though removing the inside layers as you go)?

Heh... hopefully that overuse of mixed metaphors makes sense.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, so let me restate it, and please clarify if necessary: You seem to be asking if the medical miracles that allow a premature baby to survive in the West artificially move the date of viability to an earlier point. I must admit that this hadn't occured to me. I suppose it does.

That's what I was getting at. I don't know about the "artificially" bit, though: I don't really draw a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" in this context. Humans always have and will continue to have methods of providing intervention in pregnancy and neo-natal care. The result of all this will be some point at which the fetus is "viable", if you take viability to be the point at which it has the potential to survive outside the womb.

I think it's especially relevant since I think it's conceivable that at some point, medical science might come up with some method to support a fetus outside the womb right from the moment of conception. If that happens, then even a fertilized egg cell would be "viable" without the mother. Would that mean that if this occurs, abortion would be banned outright?

 

[DallasApple]

If they create artifical wombs who would be responsible to the embryos in storage if both the mother and father were killed?

IOW if I had embryos in a clinic and I was planning on having them implanted at my lesuire and my husband and I died but yet they had the techonology to grow them in an artificial womb who would be forced to grow them?

Love

Dallas

(I know we would have orphanges for embryos...the community in general could pay to keep them alive).ADOPT an embryo!

 

[Storm]

Yes. A zygote, alone, does not have the potential to become a new person. Without a womb to develop in, the fetus will not develop properly. This is more than just an issue of viability; the zygote and later the fetus needs things like hormone inputs from the mother at key points in gestation for development to proceed.

Sorry, but this strikes me as semantic hair-splitting. I'll grant you it's factually accurate, and this is the reason abortion is justifiable to my mind, but it doesn't change the fact that the zygote is an individual human life. I could just as easily argue that since an infant is wholly dependent upon others to survive, it's not an individual human, and I think you would agree that that's ridiculous.

Also, we get back to what I touched on before. It may have the genetic information of a whole person, but I think that equating that with "an individual human life" is somewhat like equating a building with its blueprints. Switching building metaphors again, when does the "building" itself become constructed? In conventional construction, we make a distinction between temporary items like scaffolding and formwork and the building itself. However, in the case of a fetus, the "scaffolding" and the "building" are made of the same material, and the "building" itself is re-built and added onto several times before it's finished, creating an even more complex "Ship of Theseus" problem: when was the "ship" actually built if, not only have all the timbers been replaced, but every iteration of the hull was built by forming a new hull around the outside of the old one like successive layers of an onion (though removing the inside layers as you go)?

Heh... hopefully that overuse of mixed metaphors makes sense.

I think I got the gist, but I also think you're forgetting that I do not confer personhood on a zygote. Am I right?

That's what I was getting at. I don't know about the "artificially" bit, though: I don't really draw a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" in this context. Humans always have and will continue to have methods of providing intervention in pregnancy and neo-natal care. The result of all this will be some point at which the fetus is "viable", if you take viability to be the point at which it has the potential to survive outside the womb.

OK.

I think it's especially relevant since I think it's conceivable that at some point, medical science might come up with some method to support a fetus outside the womb right from the moment of conception. If that happens, then even a fertilized egg cell would be "viable" without the mother. Would that mean that if this occurs, abortion would be banned outright?

1) TBH, I'm of the opinion that we should cross that bridge when we come to it. Figuring out how to cope, legally and morally, with things as they are now is enough of a pickle, but...

2) I'll speculate anyway.
Should such technology become available, there are several other questions I would pose before answering your question:
A) What level of medical risk would such a procedure pose to the mother? More, less, or equal to that of an abortion?
B) What would the odds of adoption be? So many children currently languish unloved in our system that I think adding thousands to it would be reprehensible. Drastic reforms would be required before I would approve of banning abortion.

3) I would be delighted if this option were available to (not required of) women. However, the concerns listed above would have to be addressed before I would support banning abortion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, but this strikes me as semantic hair-splitting. I'll grant you it's factually accurate, and this is the reason abortion is justifiable to my mind, but it doesn't change the fact that the zygote is an individual human life. I could just as easily argue that since an infant is wholly dependent upon others to survive, it's not an individual human, and I think you would agree that that's ridiculous.

An infant requires care and feeding, but apart from malnutrition-related conditions, it doesn't require specific external inputs to guide its development in the same way that a fetus does. A mother doesn't just provide warmth and food for a fetus; it also guides the fetus' development in an active way. She directly affects the person who will result from the process.

For example, take homosexuality: studies now link male homosexuality to birth order, the implication being that with each son, the levels of certain hormones during pregnancy change, which increases the likelihood of homosexuality for each successive son. There are countless other ways that the mother actively guides the development of the fetus; who we are is not just a matter of our genes.

I think I got the gist, but I also think you're forgetting that I do not confer personhood on a zygote. Am I right?

What exactly do you confer on a zygote? You say that it doesn't have "personhood", but you also say that it's "an individual human life". To me, these two things are roughly equivalent; what's your distinction between them?

1) TBH, I'm of the opinion that we should cross that bridge when we come to it. Figuring out how to cope, legally and morally, with things as they are now is enough of a pickle, but...

2) I'll speculate anyway.
Should such technology become available, there are several other questions I would pose before answering your question:
A) What level of medical risk would such a procedure pose to the mother? More, less, or equal to that of an abortion?
B) What would the odds of adoption be? So many children currently languish unloved in our system that I think adding thousands to it would be reprehensible. Drastic reforms would be required before I would approve of banning abortion.

3) I would be delighted if this option were available to (not required of) women. However, the concerns listed above would have to be addressed before I would support banning abortion.

Okay - but as Dallas alluded to, it would create other issues as well: if a couple goes through artificial insemination with the goal of having a single child, they might end up with several leftover, cryogenically-frozen embryos. If these embryos were now considered "viable", would the couple (or maybe the lab) have an obligation to bring them to term by artificial means?

... though I think I may be taking us off-topic. :run:

 

[DallasApple]

An infant requires care and feeding, but apart from malnutrition-related conditions, it doesn't require specific external inputs to guide its development in the same way that a fetus does. A mother doesn't just provide warmth and food for a fetus; it also guides the fetus' development in an active way. She directly affects the person who will result from the process.

For starters the very oxygen she breaths is shared through her blood.

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

An infant requires care and feeding, but apart from malnutrition-related conditions, it doesn't require specific external inputs to guide its development in the same way that a fetus does. A mother doesn't just provide warmth and food for a fetus; it also guides the fetus' development in an active way. She directly affects the person who will result from the process.

For example, take homosexuality: studies now link male homosexuality to birth order, the implication being that with each son, the levels of certain hormones during pregnancy change, which increases the likelihood of homosexuality for each successive son. There are countless other ways that the mother actively guides the development of the fetus; who we are is not just a matter of our genes.

As you say, "who we are is not just a matter of our genes," or any other factor in our gestation. The quality of care given an infant can affect its development just as radically.

What exactly do you confer on a zygote? You say that it doesn't have "personhood", but you also say that it's "an individual human life". To me, these two things are roughly equivalent; what's your distinction between them?

"An individual human life" is, to me, a simple fact of biology. It's glaringly obvious to me that a zygote qualifies, and attempts to draw the line at any point after conception strike me as :ignore: . The only reason I can see for it is to salve one's conscience in supporting abortion rights. ETA: I mean no offense, just being honest.

"Personhood," otoh, is the trickier, philosophical/ theological, and legal question of when (at a minimum) an individual human life is granted the rights of a person. IOW, when abortion becomes murder.

Okay - but as Dallas alluded to, it would create other issues as well: if a couple goes through artificial insemination with the goal of having a single child, they might end up with several leftover, cryogenically-frozen embryos. If these embryos were now considered "viable", would the couple (or maybe the lab) have an obligation to bring them to term by artificial means?

1) I have no idea how this relates to what I said. :help:

2) You didn't address my points. I can't answer your original question without that, how do you expect me to address the follow-up?

3) Personally, at this point, I think all such embryos should be donated to stem-cell research.

... though I think I may be taking us off-topic. :run:

Way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off-topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As you say, "who we are is not just a matter of our genes," or any other factor in our gestation. The quality of care given an infant can affect its development just as radically.

I don't think it does. I definitely think that quality of care is important, but so long as the child's physical needs are being met, that care isn't the deciding factor between whether the child is a person or not.

"An individual human life" is, to me, a simple fact of biology. It's glaringly obvious to me that a zygote qualifies, and attempts to draw the line at any point after conception strike me as :ignore: . The only reason I can see for it is to salve one's conscience in supporting abortion rights. ETA: I mean no offense, just being honest.

Hmm. To me, the difference is semantic. A thing can be human and alive without being "a human life".

But what do you base your view on? A human egg cell is, well, human, it's alive, and it's individual. How is it not "an individual human life"? Declaring that "an individual human life" forms no earlier than conception, and portraying any stance that this occurs at any time after that to be apparently deliberately misguided isn't particularily helpful, even if you describe your position as "glaringly obvious".

"Personhood," otoh, is the trickier, philosophical/ theological, and legal question of when (at a minimum) an individual human life is granted the rights of a person. IOW, when abortion becomes murder.

Okay, but as I tried to point out before, I consider the terms "person" and "a human life" to be roughly equivalent. I don't really see how the two things can happen at widely different times.

1) I have no idea how this relates to what I said. :help:

You brought up the idea of viability as the legal standard. I tired to point out that this might cause issues in future.

2) You didn't address my points. I can't answer your original question without that, how do you expect me to address the follow-up?

Ah. I thought your questions were rhetorical.

3) Personally, at this point, I think all such embryos should be donated to stem-cell research.

Fair enough, I suppose. Personally, I consider them property of the parents to do with as they please, subject to all the normal laws on body tissue and products... i.e. the law here says that products like blood can't be sold or traded for money but can be freely given for certain purposes (aside: this is why you don't get paid to donate blood in Canada). I'd be happy if unwanted embryos were treated in a similar way. Somewhat like how I feel about organ donation, while I hope that people would choose to donate them to a worthy cause, I wouldn't be in favour of forcing people to do so.

Way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off-topic.

Yeah. So... the Bible?

 

[gnomon]

If they create artifical wombs who would be responsible to the embryos in storage if both the mother and father were killed?

IOW if I had embryos in a clinic and I was planning on having them implanted at my lesuire and my husband and I died but yet they had the techonology to grow them in an artificial womb who would be forced to grow them?

Love

Dallas

(I know we would have orphanges for embryos...the community in general could pay to keep them alive).ADOPT an embryo!

Hatcheries!

In the year of our Ford........

 

[Storm]

I don't think it does. I definitely think that quality of care is important, but so long as the child's physical needs are being met, that care isn't the deciding factor between whether the child is a person or not.

That's exactly my point. A week-old infant is unquestionably a person, so why isn't a 9-month fetus?

Hmm. To me, the difference is semantic. A thing can be human and alive without being "a human life".

Oh, it's definitely semantic.

But what do you base your view on? A human egg cell is, well, human, it's alive, and it's individual. How is it not "an individual human life"?

An egg is NOT individual, it's a body part. Once it's fertilized, it becomes someone else's body part.

Declaring that "an individual human life" forms no earlier than conception, and portraying any stance that this occurs at any time after that to be apparently deliberately misguided isn't particularily helpful, even if you describe your position as "glaringly obvious".

I'm just trying to convey the extent of my lack of comprehension. I've tried and tried to understand "Life begins when the nervous system develops," for example, and it just. doesn't. make. sense. It's as arbitrary and nonsensical as "conception vreates a soul." So why would anyone say it? I can only think of the one reason.

Okay, but as I tried to point out before, I consider the terms "person" and "a human life" to be roughly equivalent. I don't really see how the two things can happen at widely different times.

You don't understand the distinction between biology and ethics?

Ah. I thought your questions were rhetorical.

Nope.

Fair enough, I suppose. Personally, I consider them property of the parents to do with as they please, subject to all the normal laws on body tissue and products... i.e. the law here says that products like blood can't be sold or traded for money but can be freely given for certain purposes (aside: this is why you don't get paid to donate blood in Canada). I'd be happy if unwanted embryos were treated in a similar way. Somewhat like how I feel about organ donation, while I hope that people would choose to donate them to a worthy cause, I wouldn't be in favour of forcing people to do so.

Oh, I wouldn't support laws enforcing it or anything. But, as things are now, I'd prefer that the default were donation to science, rather than being thrown in the trash.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's exactly my point. A week-old infant is unquestionably a person, so why isn't a 9-month fetus?

Is a 9-month-old fetus conscious? From what I've read, a strong argument can be made that consciousness isn't acheived until the baby takes its first breath.

However, the question in my mind is whether the state of a week-old infant is directly relevant to our opinions of a 2- or 3-month fetus.

An egg is NOT individual, it's a body part. Once it's fertilized, it becomes someone else's body part.

What leads you to that conclusion? Between release and implantation, an egg isn't physically attached to any part of the woman's body. Its DNA is distinct from that of the woman's. What do you think makes it a "body part" during that stage?

I think a clearer example is with sperm: when sperm are in the birth canal but haven't yet reached the egg, are they still "body parts" of the man? They're certainly not parts of the woman's body; they don't depend on the woman for support in any way (actually, the woman's body provides a rather hostile environment for the sperm) and they don't share any genes with the woman. Whose "body part" would that be?

Now... I realize that body parts can be separated from their body, but sperm and eggs are different from, say, shedded hair: hair is dead tissue, but human sperm and egg cells are still alive. When something is physically detached from the body that produced it but still continues to live, can it still be considered a "body part"? I personally don't think it can.

I'm just trying to convey the extent of my lack of comprehension. I've tried and tried to understand "Life begins when the nervous system develops," for example, and it just. doesn't. make. sense. It's as arbitrary and nonsensical as "conception vreates a soul." So why would anyone say it? I can only think of the one reason.

Personally, I think "life begins at conception" is just as arbitrary. The things that lead to conception are very much alive. Life doesn't suddenly start at conception; it was there already.

You don't understand the distinction between biology and ethics?

I do; I just don't think the way you've defined "an individual human life" meshes very well with biology.

Nope.

Well, since you were asking about a hypothetical future technology that both of us have now agreed is off-topic, hopefully you won't mind if I leave your questions unanswered.

Oh, I wouldn't support laws enforcing it or anything. But, as things are now, I'd prefer that the default were donation to science, rather than being thrown in the trash.

Yeah, me too. I think that people should have the right to refuse to donate the embryos, but I'm okay with embryo donation being the default option... just as I am with organ donation.

 

[Storm]

Is a 9-month-old fetus conscious? From what I've read, a strong argument can be made that consciousness isn't acheived until the baby takes its first breath.

Such as?

However, the question in my mind is whether the state of a week-old infant is directly relevant to our opinions of a 2- or 3-month fetus.

My point is that many of the arguments against considering such a fetus human apply just as easily to infants.

What leads you to that conclusion? Between release and implantation, an egg isn't physically attached to any part of the woman's body.

Of course it is. Once it leaves the body, it dies.

Its DNA is distinct from that of the woman's.

Not really, in my book. It's half of her DNA.

I think a clearer example is with sperm: when sperm are in the birth canal but haven't yet reached the egg, are they still "body parts" of the man?

Yep. How long can they survive, without an egg to fertilize?

Now... I realize that body parts can be separated from their body, but sperm and eggs are different from, say, shedded hair: hair is dead tissue, but human sperm and egg cells are still alive. When something is physically detached from the body that produced it but still continues to live, can it still be considered a "body part"? I personally don't think it can.

It takes a while for healthy cells to die when cut off from the body, does it not? How are sperm and ova exceptional?

Personally, I think "life begins at conception" is just as arbitrary. The things that lead to conception are very much alive. Life doesn't suddenly start at conception; it was there already.

I'm not contesting that, I'm saying that sperm and ova are not individual life forms until fertilization.

I do; I just don't think the way you've defined "an individual human life" meshes very well with biology.

I honestly can't see the problem.

Well, since you were asking about a hypothetical future technology that both of us have now agreed is off-topic, hopefully you won't mind if I leave your questions unanswered.

OK. If you care to make another thread to explore it, I'll participate.

Yeah, me too. I think that people should have the right to refuse to donate the embryos, but I'm okay with embryo donation being the default option... just as I am with organ donation.

Ditto.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Such as?

From what I remember, the first breath triggers the change from fetal circulation to post-natal circulation. Until that time, neural function is suppressed, including many basic reflexes and, IIRC, consciousness.

My point is that many of the arguments against considering such a fetus human apply just as easily to infants.

I think here's where we are getting bogged down in terms again.

Personally, I think that a human fetus or zygote is "human" all the way along. I also think that a human sperm or egg cell are equally "human" prior to fertilization.

If you're talking about "a human life" again, here's where I disagree. Any argument you could make about, say, a 2-month fetus would apply less and less well the later you get in pregnancy. It would apply even less well after birth and continue to be less and less valid as the child develops. At some point, we could probably say that the argument applies so poorly that it ceases to be valid altogether. We could also say that the range for which is is valid with any sort of certainty is even smaller.

Of course it is. Once it leaves the body, it dies.

No, it's not attached. It's free to move... or at least it is as long as there isn't some sort of medical problem.

Not really, in my book. It's half of her DNA.

And in having only half her DNA, its DNA is distinct from the woman's.

Yep. How long can they survive, without an egg to fertilize?

Two days or so, IIRC. About as long as if they remain in the man's body.

It takes a while for healthy cells to die when cut off from the body, does it not? How are sperm and ova exceptional?

Well, for one thing, sperm and ova aren't body tissue by the conventional definition. And in the case of sperm, they are no longer dependent on the original source body for shelter or sustenance. They're genetically distinct, autonomous, and physically separate from the organism that produced them. Yes, they die within a few days, but so do fruit flies. So does E. coli. Are these things "body parts"?

I'm not contesting that, I'm saying that sperm and ova are not individual life forms until fertilization.

And I'm saying that this is only valid if you make certain assumptions about what constitutes an "individual life form". I personally have difficulty in seeing how a fertilized egg cell is an "individual life form" in a way that an unfertilized egg or a sperm cell is not.

I honestly can't see the problem.

Maybe it would be more clear if you tell us what your definition of an "individual life form" is.

 

[Storm]

From what I remember, the first breath triggers the change from fetal circulation to post-natal circulation. Until that time, neural function is suppressed, including many basic reflexes and, IIRC, consciousness.

Then why do fetuses respond to light, stroking, and music? Just off the top of my head.

I think here's where we are getting bogged down in terms again.

Personally, I think that a human fetus or zygote is "human" all the way along. I also think that a human sperm or egg cell are equally "human" prior to fertilization.

If you're talking about "a human life" again, here's where I disagree. Any argument you could make about, say, a 2-month fetus would apply less and less well the later you get in pregnancy. It would apply even less well after birth and continue to be less and less valid as the child develops. At some point, we could probably say that the argument applies so poorly that it ceases to be valid altogether. We could also say that the range for which is is valid with any sort of certainty is even smaller.

I'm beginning to think this discussion will prove fruitless.

No, it's not attached. It's free to move... or at least it is as long as there isn't some sort of medical problem.

So is hemoglobin.

Two days or so, IIRC. About as long as if they remain in the man's body.

Are you sure? I thought it was a matter of minutes, if not seconds.

Well, for one thing, sperm and ova aren't body tissue by the conventional definition.

Why not?

Maybe it would be more clear if you tell us what your definition of an "individual life form" is.

Distinct, separate. I'm running out of variations.

 

[S-word]

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

None whatsoever! It depends on what you define as life, if one accepts that the singularity of origin which burst forth with a mighty bang and has evolved to become this entire universal body and all life forms therein, then life has neither a beginning nor an end.

On the other hand you might define a male sperm as life which enters a dormant female egg in which are the dead characteristics of our ancestors, which spem cell then dies as it is broken down to its individual living ancestral charactistics which then marry up with and give life to the chosen charactistics within the dormant egg to which they are attracted. Much the same as the spiritual body of God's first born son was torn assunder and poured out as fire on the dead that are within him who is born in our future.

But if you are defining life as a living human being, then the answer to your question, "Is there any biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception?" is NO.

God does not deem the unborn to be a living Human being who is “Body, Soul and Spirit,” and concerning this, it's written in Exodus 21: 22, If some men are fighting and a pregnant woman gets involved and is hurt so that she loses her unborn foetus, but the woman herself is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the husband demands, which is in accordance to the approval of the Judges. (This is the same law that applies to someone who causes the death of a man’s animal.) But if the woman herself (A human being) is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. A forming feotus is no more that a potential human being.


For a human is a triad being, consisting of a body of animated universal elements, and an inner spirit which is the gathering of the best ancestors (IE: Survival of the fittest who are able to pass from one speices to the the next) that have evolved since the singularity of our origin burst forth from the great abyss and has become all that is, which includes you and I, then there is the mind that is you the personality, or godhead that is developing in that body; which person is all the knowledge that has been taken into that body from the time that it drew its first breath. Any knowledge taken in before birth is shared knowledge from your mother body and is not the independent person who is you, who is the developing mind and a potential child of the Mind that is God and the only part of you that will survive the first death when the elements from which your body was formed are returned to the universal body from which they came.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then why do fetuses respond to light, stroking, and music? Just off the top of my head.

Don't know, but off the top of my head as well, I don't think consciousness is necessary for response in that way.

I'm beginning to think this discussion will prove fruitless.

Maybe.

So is hemoglobin.

And hemoglobin's not a "body part" either. However, it doesn't typically function outside the body and it's not genetically distinct from the rest of the body.

Are you sure? I thought it was a matter of minutes, if not seconds.

Not to get too personal, but according to our doctor, pregnancy can still occur if intercourse occurs a day before ovulation, and in rare cases it will occur if intercourse occurs two days before.

Why not?

Because they're not organized into ensembles of cells performing a function together, for one. Sperm cells don't perform a function together; they all attempt to perform the same function individually. And egg cells aren't ensembles of cells in any sense.

Distinct, separate. I'm running out of variations.

And I would argue that an egg cell is distinct and separate. A sperm cell certainly is. That's the whole point I've been trying to make.

 

[logician]

It's not really what you, or I, or the church down the street thinks, but what the woman in question thinks, that is important, as far as abortion is concerned.

 

[mobious]

its not about weather it is alive or not it is about weither the mother wants it or not