When does human life begin?

[ding]

800,000 lives that never existed before are now gone because, in part, we didn't do everything to save them. I guess you'll leave that to the States or SCOTUS to decide. Must be great having such a clear conscience.

I guess I don't get as emotional as you do about events that are beyond my control. When I say that something is up to the states to decide, it's not meant to say that's my preference. It's meant to be a statement of fact as in that is what will happen when Roe v Wade is overturned.

 

[Dadoalex]

I doubt very seriously anyone will be making that argument to SCOTUS. It's a ridiculous argument on so many levels.

Agreed. But, it is the same as any pro-life argument. Relying entirely on my faith in what I might believe and claiming it is science.

 

[ding]

Agreed. But, it is the same as any pro-life argument. Relying entirely on my faith in what I might believe and claiming it is science.

There's no good reason to make a religious argument. None is needed. The science is clear.

 

[alang1216]

I guess I don't get as emotional as you do about events that are beyond my control. When I say that something is up to the states to decide, it's not meant to say that's my preference. It's meant to be a statement of fact as in that is what will happen when Roe v Wade is overturned.

No, you just refuse take responsibility for the hardships your ideological purity would inflict on others. You see only one side of the issue, a few strands of DNA, and ignore the lives of the real human beings that would suffer when abortion is banned.

 

[ding]

it is the same as any pro-life argument

Saying that and proving that are two different things.

 

[ding]

No, you just refuse take responsibility for the hardships your ideological purity would inflict on others. You see only one side of the issue, a few strands of DNA, and ignore the lives of the real human beings that would suffer when abortion is banned.

How do you propose I take responsibility for the hardships my ideological purity would inflict on others?

It must be disconcerting to you that any other point along the humanness continuum other than conception is scientifically arbitrary and capricious because I can't think of any other reason for you to take this so personal and try to make it personal for me. Which by the way, ain't going to happen. Especially since you haven't done anything whatsoever to alleviate something you have already admitted is wrong.

 

[Dadoalex]

There's no good reason to make a religious argument. None is needed. The science is clear.

Yes, it is. Human life begins at birth. There are many stage prior to birth each with a unique name and function but none are human.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is. Human life begins at birth. There are many stage prior to birth each with a unique name and function but none are human.

Arguing that human life begins at conception is a scientific argument and has no need for religious beliefs. So I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Unless you are saying you are making a religious argument.

 

[alang1216]

How do you propose I take responsibility for the hardships my ideological purity would inflict on others?

It must be disconcerting to you that any other point along the humanness continuum other than conception is scientifically arbitrary and capricious because I can't think of any other reason for you to take this so personal and try to make it personal for me. Which by the way, ain't going to happen. Especially since you haven't done anything whatsoever to alleviate something you have already admitted is wrong.

How about you admit that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term may be dangerous for her and detrimental to her family and may inflict great suffering on everyone involved? If you can own all that I'll have much more respect for your position.

 

[Dadoalex]

Saying that and proving that are two different things.

Proving what? That human life "begins" at conception?

Never claimed it.

 

[Dadoalex]

Arguing that human life begins at conception is a scientific argument and has no need for religious beliefs. So I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Unless you are saying you are making a religious argument.

No, it is not. It is an opinion based on the religious command to "go forth and multiply."

The opinion that human life "begins" preconception is every bit as valid as the one that claims it "begins" at conception.

 

[ding]

How about you admit that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term may be dangerous for her and detrimental to her family and may inflict great suffering on everyone involved? If you can own all that I'll have much more respect for your position.

Again... that will be for the states to decide. They will have to determine whose precedence takes priority. But those determinations won't impact the finding of when life begins.

 

[ding]

Proving what? That human life "begins" at conception?

Never claimed it.

You don't have to. It's already been proven. It's in every embryology textbook.

 

[Dadoalex]

You don't have to. It's already been proven. It's in every embryology textbook.

Quote one that specifically says "Human life begins at conception."

The embryo is no more human than the skin cells on your hand or a follicle of what remains of your hair. It is identifiable as coming from a human (the mother) but, like the skin cell or the follicle is merely a part of the human it came from.

 

[ClaireH]

No, it is not. It is an opinion based on the religious command to "go forth and multiply."

The opinion that human life "begins" preconception is every bit as valid as the one that claims it "begins" at conception.

That’s not something easy to grasp Dadoalex, that life occurs PRIOR to fertilization (unification creating a zygote-new life). You are stating that new life occurs PRIOR to the egg fertilized by sperm? Interesting concept. I wasn’t familiar that religious doctrine teaches that concept, but given the numerous religious philosophies I’m sure there are at least a few?

New life is created by the union of the two. Each entity by itself, sperm and egg, does not lead to new life.

Until the active mad scientists, who lack signs of ethical awareness try it. Likely already in the works… man creating new life could eventually lead to our doom, but that’s another topic.

 

[ding]

Quote one that specifically says "Human life begins at conception."

The embryo is no more human than the skin cells on your hand or a follicle of what remains of your hair. It is identifiable as coming from a human (the mother) but, like the skin cell or the follicle is merely a part of the human it came from.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

 

[Dadoalex]

That’s not something easy to grasp Dadoalex, that life occurs PRIOR to fertilization (unification creating a zygote-new life). You are stating that new life occurs PRIOR to the egg fertilized by sperm? Interesting concept. I wasn’t familiar that religious doctrine teaches that concept, but given the numerous religious philosophies I’m sure there are at least a few?

New life is created by the union of the two. Each entity by itself, sperm and egg, does not lead to new life.

Until the active mad scientists, who lack signs of ethical awareness try it. Likely already in the works… man creating new life could eventually lead to our doom, but that’s another topic.

Human is the issue.
When does the fetus become human being as opposed to something else?

As for doctrine? Where in the bible does it speak about sperm and egg, zygote, fetus?

 

[ding]

No, it is not. It is an opinion based on the religious command to "go forth and multiply."

The opinion that human life "begins" preconception is every bit as valid as the one that claims it "begins" at conception.

Dr Jerome LeJeune disagrees.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...."
Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

 

[ding]

When does the fetus become human being as opposed to something else?

Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland, responds...

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When does the fetus become human being as opposed to something else?

Maybe there is just no one, "correct answer" to this. How about we agree on that?

But we have to draw a line in the sand anyway. We don't have much choice but to all agree on that.

For now, that constitutionally protected "line in the sand" is at 24 weeks gestation.

Why 24 weeks? Because a lot of scientists gave opinions on the progression of a fetus, and that was the line agreed upon. An ethical decision, informed by science.