Does life begins at conception?

[sinnerdexter]

I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things.

For example, let’s say that my wife and I go into a closed room together and after a lot of activity, sweating and moaning, we emerge with a recipe for a cake. All of the information necessary to create that cake is contained in the recipe. But my wife is still going to add ingredients, in some particular order, passing various milestones, and then leave the properly assembled items in her oven at a certain termperature for a set period of time.

Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes out of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it still a recipe on a piece of paper?

 

[baltobetsy]

When the egg and sperm meet, it makes a zygote, not a recipe. “All the information” is not a collection of ideas, but a collection of genes - actual physical things. When you and your wife go into the dark room and sweat and moan and make up a cake recipe, you exchange ideas. When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?

Betsy

 

[CharlesDarwin]

When the egg and sperm meet, it makes a zygote, not a recipe. “All the information” is not a collection of ideas, but a collection of genes - actual physical things. When you and your wife go into the dark room and sweat and moan and make up a cake recipe, you exchange ideas. When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?

Betsy

the real question should not be phrased “is it the beginning of life” but rather is it the beginning of a person.

no one intelligent would claim it was not the beginning of a life. but we kill life all the time, i kill trillions and trillions of bacteria as a daily habit when i shower and brush my teeth.

but killing a PERSON now thats where we agree on it being something bad.

So when does LIFE become PERSON

personally I find the best sign of person-hood is an ability to have conscious thought. So in my opinion, PERSON-hood begins when beta waves(brain waves that are present only during conscious thought) are first detected in the fetal brain.

 

[Adam1986]

I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things.

For example, let’s say that my wife and I go into a closed room together and after a lot of activity, sweating and moaning, we emerge with a recipe for a cake. All of the information necessary to create that cake is contained in the recipe. But my wife is still going to add ingredients, in some particular order, passing various milestones, and then leave the properly assembled items in her oven at a certain termperature for a set period of time.

Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes out of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it still a recipe on a piece of paper?

Yes of course life begins at conception. The real question is, when does ensoulment take place?

 

[CharlesDarwin]

Yes of course life begins at conception. The real question is, when does ensoulment take place?

another way to state my point…I am pro-person saving…but i am not pro life…im all for killing lots of living things…like the AIDS virus the small pox virus, streptococcus etc

 

[po18guy]

the real question should not be phrased “is it the beginning of life” but rather is it the beginning of a person.

no one intelligent would claim it was not the beginning of a life. but we kill life all the time, i kill trillions and trillions of bacteria as a daily habit when i shower and brush my teeth.

but killing a PERSON now thats where we agree on it being something bad.

So when does LIFE become PERSON

personally I find the best sign of person-hood is an ability to have conscious thought. So in my opinion, PERSON-hood begins when beta waves(brain waves that are present only during conscious thought) are first detected in the fetal brain.

Your DNA was forever set in stone at conception. Should your parents have thrown you in the snow, because you were only a life and not a “PERSON” yet? Is that idea silly? Not to Professor Peter singer at Princeton. The capabilities of any given human life has nothing to do with their personhood. Those in extended comas, for example, may regain consciousness, if not full function. Once you separate person from life, you can gas the Jews. Already happened. You can enslave them. Already happened to 4/5 of a person under US law.

Human life IS a person. Diverge from that and open Pandora’s box.

 

[Ghosty]

I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things.

For example, let’s say that my wife and I go into a closed room together and after a lot of activity, sweating and moaning, we emerge with a recipe for a cake. All of the information necessary to create that cake is contained in the recipe. But my wife is still going to add ingredients, in some particular order, passing various milestones, and then leave the properly assembled items in her oven at a certain termperature for a set period of time.

Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes out of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it still a recipe on a piece of paper?

You’re analogy fails because you’re comparing two very different things. The zygote is not a “recipe”, it is a self-existing thing that grows and changes according to a “recipe” called the genetic code. The genetic code itself is a recipe of sorts, and the more apt analogy would be the genetic code it a computer database.

Once the genetic code is enacted as living cells a living being is created by definition. The “baking” is not the being growing in-utero, but rather the sperm and egg coming together and combining their genetic profiles into one new, unique being.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
Short ansver:yes.(It is in the cathechism,aswell in what the Church teaches)

 

[sinnerdexter]

I said nothing about the beginning of life. I talked about the starting point for human existence.

But here is another moment that could possibly be the starting point for human existence. When we reach the point through cloning or some other method to start human organisms without two real, physical cells coming together to begin an actual human being.

And if we can create humans using parthenogenesis then we can say that is the starting point for human existence. Or since there was no sperm involved, maybe the starting point for human existence was when the egg was created, not when it started dividing. So I guess I’m not sure what the starting point is. That’s why I’m unsure. I find it easy to say that once the baby is born it is human. And I’m pretty sure that sometime before that it is human, but exactly when is not so clear to me. I dont’ see how it can it be so clear to you.

 

[thistle]

Yes of course life begins at conception. The real question is, when does ensoulment take place?

At conception!

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

 

[CharlesDarwin]

Your DNA was forever set in stone at conception. Should your parents have thrown you in the snow, because you were only a life and not a “PERSON” yet? Is that idea silly? Not to Professor Peter singer at Princeton. The capabilities of any given human life has nothing to do with their personhood. Those in extended comas, for example, may regain consciousness, if not full function. Once you separate person from life, you can gas the Jews. Already happened. You can enslave them. Already happened to 4/5 of a person under US law.

Human life IS a person. Diverge from that and open Pandora’s box.

my human cheek cells i kill everyday have the same genetic code as that first original cell…but i kill thousands of cheek cells when i brush my teeth with out batting an eye

and wow thanks for proving godwin’s law so quickly lol

either way, a cell is not a person it is incapable of being person…did you know when a body is buried almost 3/4s of the cells in the body are still alive? so does that mean the PERSON is still alive? no…a PERSON is the consciousness contained in the body not the body itself

 

[Newbie2]

When the egg and sperm meet, it makes a zygote, not a recipe. “All the information” is not a collection of ideas, but a collection of genes - actual physical things. When you and your wife go into the dark room and sweat and moan and make up a cake recipe, you exchange ideas. When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?

Betsy

Betsy, as always,

the real question should not be phrased “is it the beginning of life” but rather is it the beginning of a person.

no one intelligent would claim it was not the beginning of a life. but we kill life all the time, i kill trillions and trillions of bacteria as a daily habit when i shower and brush my teeth.

but killing a PERSON now thats where we agree on it being something bad.

So when does LIFE become PERSON

personally I find the best sign of person-hood is an ability to have conscious thought. So in my opinion, PERSON-hood begins when beta waves(brain waves that are present only during conscious thought) are first detected in the fetal brain.

Do you think that a person then loses personhood when those brain waves go away i.e. with an accident victim on life support?

I said nothing about the beginning of life. I talked about the starting point for human existence.

But here is another moment that could possibly be the starting point for human existence. When we reach the point through cloning or some other method to start human organisms without two real, physical cells coming together to begin an actual human being.

And if we can create humans using parthenogenesis then we can say that is the starting point for human existence. Or since there was no sperm involved, maybe the starting point for human existence was when the egg was created, not when it started dividing. So I guess I’m not sure what the starting point is. That’s why I’m unsure. I find it easy to say that once the baby is born it is human. And I’m pretty sure that sometime before that it is human, but exactly when is not so clear to me. I dont’ see how it can it be so clear to you.

It’s crystal clear to me:

Take the concept of regression. A “born” baby is human, right? Everyone can agree on that. One hour earlier, is that baby human? How about an hour before that? And so on and so on. It is clear that you can go back second by second all the way back to when Mr Sperm and Miss Egg meet, and the moment before then, and only at that moment and previously can we definitively say that there a unique individual has not been yet been created.

Go forward a moment…we have a new life.

Eggs by themselves will never form a new life. However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life. The moment that new life starts is the moment it becomes human.

 

[Ghosty]

I said nothing about the beginning of life. I talked about the starting point for human existence.

But here is another moment that could possibly be the starting point for human existence. When we reach the point through cloning or some other method to start human organisms without two real, physical cells coming together to begin an actual human being.

And if we can create humans using parthenogenesis then we can say that is the starting point for human existence. Or since there was no sperm involved, maybe the starting point for human existence was when the egg was created, not when it started dividing. So I guess I’m not sure what the starting point is. That’s why I’m unsure. I find it easy to say that once the baby is born it is human. And I’m pretty sure that sometime before that it is human, but exactly when is not so clear to me. I dont’ see how it can it be so clear to you.

Once you have a self-existing living entity with a human genome you have human existence by definition. There is no other “cut-off” point that can be reasonably established.

As for parthenogenesis, the same rule applies. If you have an egg that is currently inert and not re-combining chromosomes then you don’t have a new life. Once the process of division and re-combination begins, you have a new life by definition. So even in the far-fetch parthenogenesis speculation the same rule applies; the egg prior to parthenogenesis is not in any way the same as the zygote after the process begins, so we can’t say that the entity came into being with the creation of the egg.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Adam1986]

At conception!

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

See I can see that but I have a hard time believing it. I’m not saying I believe ensoulment takes place when the baby is being born or at 6 months or 3 months, etc. I don’t know when it happens.

A lot times a woman gets pregnant but never knows it because the embryo doesn’t attach and she just has a normal period.

I just find it really sad that those souls never really get any time on earth. REALLY SAD.

That’s just my opinion though.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

I have always thought yes and and more. By this I mean that, Life does began at conception and before.

God knew you before you were even conceived and loved you before.

[BIBLEDRB]Jeremiah 1:5[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Michael6]

RECIPE; To take or receive.

your anology is confusing.

When the “Recipe” is being put together, GOD has to be doing it or guiding you.

You better believe it begins at conception! Dec 25th conceived. Sept.29th St. Michael

 

[teachccd]

For those here that have no conclusive stance on when “personhood” takes place, I would have to submit this question. If “personhood” is distinct from life then at exactly what point does this “personhood” take place? Pretty much all agree that life begins at the moment of conception. This is no longer a “religious” debate since science has clearly proven that there is life at the moment of conception. So then, at what nano second in time does this “non- person” become a “person”? Someone suggested that it is when a brain wave can be detected in the fetus. Really? So then, at what point would an abortion be killing a life that is not a person; eg. bacteria and then maybe taking a life that is a person?

If we were to carry this post uterine then couldn’t one say that a person in a vegetative state “lost” their personhood? While a brainwave may be detected surely the characteristics of a person are not detected. What, exactly, distinguishes a human life from a human person?

Once conception takes place there is a life and the life is that which contains all of the DNA and characteristics of that person. If left undisturbed then nine months later this child can leave the womb and continue into further development. That zygote is the very person who exists nine months later or one hundered years later. One cannot detach the earliest stage of human development and conclude that there is a definitive point in which that life becomes a person. To do so is not only ridiculous but counter scientific since the debate is whether or not “life” begins at the moment of conception and it is agreed by most that it does… teachccd

 

[sinnerdexter]

First Betsy said:

When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?

Now you say:

However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life. The moment that new life starts is the moment it becomes human.

So which is it? Has to be an egg and a sperm coming together or not? It’s not crystal clear to me, and based on what you are saying it doesn’t even seem to be crystal clear to you. Will you be able to envision another moment that could possibly be the beginning of life if we can come up with a different technology to create a human organism?

And I know you didn’t like my cake analogy, but let’s apply the concept of regression to that. It’s a cake when it comes out of the oven. I can go back second by second to when the Miss egg met Mr. flour (and sugar and butter and…). But I still don’t think I’d call that mass of goo a cake.

 

[sinnerdexter]

It’s crystal clear to me:

Take the concept of regression. A “born” baby is human, right? Everyone can agree on that. One hour earlier, is that baby human? How about an hour before that? And so on and so on. It is clear that you can go back second by second all the way back to when Mr Sperm and Miss Egg meet, and the moment before then, and only at that moment and previously can we definitively say that there a unique individual has not been yet been created.

You can keep going back a few thousand years, it’s still human, and always alive. My hair is human but not alive. My kidneys are human and alive. Again you are equating different things; life, human, and person each mean different things.

Go forward a moment…we have a new life.

Try “making life” with a dead egg. You might be able to do it with a dead sperm, but I’m not sure.

Eggs by themselves will never form a new life. However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life. The moment that new life starts is the moment it becomes human.

Sure they do, just not in our species. In ants an unfertilized egg becomes a male. Note that this is closer to my suggestion of gametogenesis as being more significant than fertilization, which as I pointed out was where the greatest reduction in possible outcomes happens (for genetics at least).

For humans, an unfertilized egg would be fatally missing half its genes.

Please comment.

 

[Newbie2]

So which is it? Has to be an egg and a sperm coming together or not? It’s not crystal clear to me, and based on what you are saying it doesn’t even seem to be crystal clear to you. Will you be able to envision another moment that could possibly be the beginning of life if we can come up with a different technology to create a human organism?

And I know you didn’t like my cake analogy, but let’s apply the concept of regression to that. It’s a cake when it comes out of the oven. I can go back second by second to when the Miss egg met Mr. flour (and sugar and butter and…). But I still don’t think I’d call that mass of goo a cake.

Yeah, it’s clear to me.

Betsy’s talking about what goes on in the joining of egg and sperm to make a new life. I agree. Where is this unclear?

Parthenogenesis is not possible (yet), and may never be. But let’s say it was possible. When the two combined cells come together (asexually) and start forming an embryo, it’s a new life. Where is THAT unclear?

I don’t know what the future holds. When such technologies are developed or are in development, perhaps we’ll have to examine the morality of such technologies.

Your cake anaology is flawed because it deals with an inanimate object. Apples and oranges.