When does life begin?

[mrsx]

When does life begin?
Human life began when God created Adam and it has continued in an unbroken chain ever since. Life does not begin at conception; life continues through conception. Sperm are living organisms; eggs are living cells. Babies do not come from inert or dead materials, they receive life from the living materials from which they are made.

Is human life sacred?
Human life is no more sacred than goldfish life. All life is life. All life is God’s creation. Human beings are part of God’s natural creation.

So we are nothing special?
On the contrary, we are unique because, unlike any other material creature, we are each given an immortal soul by God. That is the part of us that, once created, lives forever. It goes to heaven or hell for all eternity. The only other creatures with immortal souls have no physical dimension. They are angels. It is our souls that make us unique in the world, not the fact that we are alive.

So what?
Because it our souls that are sacred, not our bodies, it is the destruction of a human embryo to whom God has given an immortal soul that is a sin of murder. Ending the life of an embryo before God has given it a soul is an ethical decision; it may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Killing any living thing may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances.

Since God gives the embryo a human soul at the moment of conception, doesn’t all this theory come down to the same thing?
It would if that is when God gives the embryo an eternal, human soul. The fact is, we don’t know from science (which can say nothing on the matter) or explicitly from the Bible when God creates a human soul.

Gen 2:7 offers a starting point: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Some teachers have pointed out that God formed the body before the soul, not at the same time. Others have suggested that the soul is infused when the fetus develops recognizable features such a nose – this school prefers the “quickening,” the time, usually late in the second trimester when the baby begins to move. Many have interpreted the creation of Adam with emphasis on the breath of life and fixed the point at which the baby breathes on its own as the sacred moment. The theory that the soul is infused when the sperm enters the egg is a recent, minority view and one that doesn't fit well with Genesis.

The first breath has been enshrined in the legal codes of many Christian countries for centuries. Christians do not customarily baptize or administer the last rites to a stillborn child, much less to a spontaneously aborted fetus. We do not hold a funeral for the menstrual emission of a woman who has had intercourse during the previous 28 days, although we know that a significant percentage of fertilized ova do not attach to the wall of the uterus.

It may be that the soul is infused at the moment of conception despite traditional belief or the common sense difficulties that this theory gives rise to. Everyone agrees that the soul is formed by the time the baby is born and breathing. No one can say when the miracle of the creation of a living soul occurs. Perhaps that is for the best.

 

[007]

So what's your point?

 

[Shattered]

So what's your point?

I believe she just accused you of being as worthless as a goldfish..

 

[007]

I believe she just accused you of being as worthless as a golfish..

A "golfish"?

 

[Shattered]

There.. I fixed my little old typo just for you.

(And I only said she called you as worthless as a goldfish, because you were the first/only person to respond to her)

 

[007]

There.. I fixed my little old typo just for you.

(And I only said she called you as worthless as a goldfish, because you were the first/only person to respond to her)

Yeah but... I'd RATHER be golfish than a goldfish...

 

[Shattered]

Yeah but... I'd RATHER be golfish than a goldfish...

I just can't see you in golfish pants and shoes.. so... no. You'll have to deal with goldfish status.

 

[mrsx]

Every trip around the goldfish bowl is a whole new life to some people...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

When does life begin?
Human life began when God created Adam and it has continued in an unbroken chain ever since. Life does not begin at conception; life continues through conception. Sperm are living organisms; eggs are living cells. Babies do not come from inert or dead materials, they receive life from the living materials from which they are made.

Is human life sacred?
Human life is no more sacred than goldfish life. All life is life. All life is God’s creation. Human beings are part of God’s natural creation.

So we are nothing special?
On the contrary, we are unique because, unlike any other material creature, we are each given an immortal soul by God. That is the part of us that, once created, lives forever. It goes to heaven or hell for all eternity. The only other creatures with immortal souls have no physical dimension. They are angels. It is our souls that make us unique in the world, not the fact that we are alive.

So what?
Because it our souls that are sacred, not our bodies, it is the destruction of a human embryo to whom God has given an immortal soul that is a sin of murder. Ending the life of an embryo before God has given it a soul is an ethical decision; it may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Killing any living thing may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances.

Since God gives the embryo a human soul at the moment of conception, doesn’t all this theory come down to the same thing?
It would if that is when God gives the embryo an eternal, human soul. The fact is, we don’t know from science (which can say nothing on the matter) or explicitly from the Bible when God creates a human soul.

Gen 2:7 offers a starting point: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Some teachers have pointed out that God formed the body before the soul, not at the same time. Others have suggested that the soul is infused when the fetus develops recognizable features such a nose – this school prefers the “quickening,” the time, usually late in the second trimester when the baby begins to move. Many have interpreted the creation of Adam with emphasis on the breath of life and fixed the point at which the baby breathes on its own as the sacred moment. The theory that the soul is infused when the sperm enters the egg is a recent, minority view and one that doesn't fit well with Genesis.

The first breath has been enshrined in the legal codes of many Christian countries for centuries. Christians do not customarily baptize or administer the last rites to a stillborn child, much less to a spontaneously aborted fetus. We do not hold a funeral for the menstrual emission of a woman who has had intercourse during the previous 28 days, although we know that a significant percentage of fertilized ova do not attach to the wall of the uterus.

It may be that the soul is infused at the moment of conception despite traditional belief or the common sense difficulties that this theory gives rise to. Everyone agrees that the soul is formed by the time the baby is born and breathing. No one can say when the miracle of the creation of a living soul occurs. Perhaps that is for the best.

You're full of crap. YOU relying on the SOUL to justify murder. What a liar you are.

I know you thought you came up with the argument of all arguments to finally convince the fundies to accept the lies of murder justification, but you failed again, and revealed yourself as the deceptress you are.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I wonder how peta would feel about using monkey stem cells from viable embryos? THAT would probably upset them.

 

[mrsx]

I wonder how peta would feel about using monkey stem cells from viable embryos? THAT would probably upset them.

I am glad to see that you have understood my point that "life" is not the determining issue in the stem cell debate. It is unfortunate that you have no ideas to contribute to the discussion and to be expected that you would attempt to substitute infantile invective. Thanks for reading my post. I hope you learned something.

 

[dilloduck]

At the present time no one can distinguish life form soul or prove that they are two distinct entities. Continuing to treat them as one may be a wise idea until someone can prove different.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am glad to see that you have understood my point that "life" is not the determining issue in the stem cell debate. It is unfortunate that you have no ideas to contribute to the discussion and to be expected that you would attempt to substitute infantile invective. Thanks for reading my post. I hope you learned something.

Yes it is. WHo decided SOUL was the determining factor? Who decided plants don't have it? Your post is just a bunch of unproven assertions bent into the silliest of sillyjisms. A sad effort altogether, though well written. I give credit where it's due. Your presentation is nice; it's your arguments that are weak.

 

[007]

Yes it is. WHo decided SOUL was the determining factor? Who decided plants don't have it? Your post is just a bunch of unproven assertions bent into the silliest of sillyjisms. A sad effort altogether, though well written. I give credit where it's due. Your presentation is nice; it's your arguments that are weak.

I'd have to agree here. No one knows for certain, or has any proof for that matter, when we get our soul, when our soul leaves the body, or if for certain we even have a soul. So until that can be substantiated as fact, to use it an arguement as a determining factor to make a point is futile.

 

[krisy]

When does life begin?
Human life began when God created Adam and it has continued in an unbroken chain ever since. Life does not begin at conception; life continues through conception. Sperm are living organisms; eggs are living cells. Babies do not come from inert or dead materials, they receive life from the living materials from which they are made.

Is human life sacred?
Human life is no more sacred than goldfish life. All life is life. All life is God’s creation. Human beings are part of God’s natural creation.

So we are nothing special?
On the contrary, we are unique because, unlike any other material creature, we are each given an immortal soul by God. That is the part of us that, once created, lives forever. It goes to heaven or hell for all eternity. The only other creatures with immortal souls have no physical dimension. They are angels. It is our souls that make us unique in the world, not the fact that we are alive.

So what?
Because it our souls that are sacred, not our bodies, it is the destruction of a human embryo to whom God has given an immortal soul that is a sin of murder. Ending the life of an embryo before God has given it a soul is an ethical decision; it may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Killing any living thing may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances.

Since God gives the embryo a human soul at the moment of conception, doesn’t all this theory come down to the same thing?
It would if that is when God gives the embryo an eternal, human soul. The fact is, we don’t know from science (which can say nothing on the matter) or explicitly from the Bible when God creates a human soul.

Gen 2:7 offers a starting point: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Some teachers have pointed out that God formed the body before the soul, not at the same time. Others have suggested that the soul is infused when the fetus develops recognizable features such a nose – this school prefers the “quickening,” the time, usually late in the second trimester when the baby begins to move. Many have interpreted the creation of Adam with emphasis on the breath of life and fixed the point at which the baby breathes on its own as the sacred moment. The theory that the soul is infused when the sperm enters the egg is a recent, minority view and one that doesn't fit well with Genesis.

The first breath has been enshrined in the legal codes of many Christian countries for centuries. Christians do not customarily baptize or administer the last rites to a stillborn child, much less to a spontaneously aborted fetus. We do not hold a funeral for the menstrual emission of a woman who has had intercourse during the previous 28 days, although we know that a significant percentage of fertilized ova do not attach to the wall of the uterus.

It may be that the soul is infused at the moment of conception despite traditional belief or the common sense difficulties that this theory gives rise to. Everyone agrees that the soul is formed by the time the baby is born and breathing. No one can say when the miracle of the creation of a living soul occurs. Perhaps that is for the best.

I don't believe that it is right ,or that it was God's intention that it is right to kill any living thing merely because one doesn't want that living thing around. We kill animals and plants for food. God knew this would happen,that is what they are here for. I don't believe we should question God as to whether or not an embryo has a living soul. This is where God decided life would begin..period. It has to start somewhere. Just because some people believe it is insignifigant,does not mean that it is.

The argument your giving about last rights and when Christians give it is weak. I don't think any woman ,while having an abortion is going to call for last rights. That is silly. A lot of woman having an abortion don't even want the father to know there is a child,let alone a priest!!! Also,it would be kind of impossible to hold a funeral for a fertilized ova that didn't attach to a uterine wall considering there is no way for a woman to know when this happens don't ya think?

Bottom line for me is,life is life,and WE should not play God with it.

 

[mrsx]

I don't believe that it is right ,or that it was God's intention that it is right to kill any living thing merely because one doesn't want that living thing around. We kill animals and plants for food. God knew this would happen,that is what they are here for. I don't believe we should question God as to whether or not an embryo has a living soul. This is where God decided life would begin..period. It has to start somewhere. Just because some people don't believe it is insignifigant,does not mean that it is.

The argument your giving about last rights and when Christians give it is weak. I don't think any woman ,while having an abortion is going to call for last rights. That is silly. A lot of woman having an abortion don't even want the father to know there is a child,let alone a priest!!! Also,it would be kind of impossible to hold a funeral for a fertilized ova that didn't attach to a uterine wall considering there is no way for a woman to know when this happens don't ya think?
Bottom line for me is,life is life,and WE should not play God with it.

Exactly! That is the common sense argument for recognizing that living tissue does not necessarily have a soul. The idea that "life begins" is illogical as life existed before in both sperm and egg. Life is transfered, like an electrical current, perhaps but it doesn't begin. It is the immortal soul, miraculously created by God, that is sacred. I agree with you completely about killing things for right or wrong reasons. Things don't have immortal souls.

Aren't we "playing God" with life when we execute people? Judge not, lest ye be judged."

 

[mrsx]

I'd have to agree here. No one knows for certain, or has any proof for that matter, when we get our soul, when our soul leaves the body, or if for certain we even have a soul. So until that can be substantiated as fact, to use it an arguement as a determining factor to make a point is futile.

If we don't have souls, what goes to Heaven when we die?

 

[krisy]

Exactly! That is the common sense argument for recognizing that living tissue does not necessarily have a soul. The idea that "life begins" is illogical as life existed before in both sperm and egg. Life is transfered, like an electrical current, perhaps but it doesn't begin. It is the immortal soul, miraculously created by God, that is sacred. I agree with you completely about killing things for right or wrong reasons. Things don't have immortal souls.

Aren't we "playing God" with life when we execute people? Judge not, lest ye be judged."

The point I am trying to make is,it is not for us to decide if the embryo has a living soul,I think we should assume it does until told otherwise :tng: I have heard so many arguments for abortion and have yet to hear one that convinces me. I just don't believe it is right,because I simply do not think God would approve of taking the very start of a precious gift that he has given us and throwing it in a garbage can.

As far as the death penalty goes,maybe we are playing God. I have always supported it. Then one day I heard a national talk show host,Glenn Beck,talking about it. His point was,that when he gets to Heaven,he doesn't want to stand in front of God and answer to him as to why he felt it was his decsion to take that life and not God's. Good point. At the same time,I just don't feel that someone that takes the life of another,has the right to have his. Child killers and so on. I just can't imagine letting them go on while they have taken life away from another,especailly a child.

 

[mrsx]

The point I am trying to make is,it is not for us to decide if the embryo has a living soul,I think we should assume it does until told otherwise :tng: I have heard so many arguments for abortion and have yet to hear one that convinces me. I just don't believe it is right,because I simply do not think God would approve of taking the very start of a precious gift that he has given us and throwing it in a garbage can.

As far as the death penalty goes,maybe we are playing God. I have always supported it. Then one day I heard a national talk show host,Glenn Beck,talking about it. His point was,that when he gets to Heaven,he doesn't want to stand in front of God and answer to him as to why he felt it was his decsion to take that life and not God's. Good point. At the same time,I just don't feel that someone that takes the life of another,has the right to have his. Child killers and so on. I just can't imagine letting them go on while they have taken life away from another,especailly a child.

I think your position about assuming that the embryo has a soul is a generally good idea. Because it has to be an assumption, we can't be sure that destroying an embryo is the moral equivalent of killing a child. We certainly don't want to destroy an embryo just for convenience etc. The problem comes in when the destruction of a handful of microscopic embryos already discarded by the mother and lying in a freezer somewhere may lead to life-saving cures for thousands of children and adults. If we knew for certain that these embryos were full human beings with souls, we'd just have to grit our teeth and forego the medical research. But we don't.

Life without the possibility of parole seems to be a sufficient disincentive for child killers - to the extent that these nut jobs make any rational analysis of their decisions. It also protects society from any further harm from them. There have been a number of cases in which the courts convicted the wrong guy and many more where rich guys with good lawyers get off with a reduced charge or scot free while the poor, and the mentally challenged don't. That is why I oppose the death penalty, not because the child killers don't deserve it. However, I don't think the death penalty is morally wrong if we do our best to apply it fairly - just bad policy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Exactly! That is the common sense argument for recognizing that living tissue does not necessarily have a soul. The idea that "life begins" is illogical as life existed before in both sperm and egg. Life is transfered, like an electrical current, perhaps but it doesn't begin. It is the immortal soul, miraculously created by God, that is sacred. I agree with you completely about killing things for right or wrong reasons. Things don't have immortal souls.

Aren't we "playing God" with life when we execute people? Judge not, lest ye be judged."

the debate is not about soulfulness; it's about living and not living, being alive and not being alive. Since only a fool would say living tissue is not living, I believe you already lost the ACTUAL argument.

Life is not a religious concept; it's a biological one. Even atheists believe in life.