Does life begins at conception?

[Seeker2010]

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.

Is disposing of an apple seed immoral? After all, it is the functional equivalent of a human zygote. If it is planted in the right environment, and given what it needs, it will become an apple tree.

But do you think it’s a tree when it’s just a seed?

 

[edwest2]

Yes, it does.

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[Newbie2]

Is disposing of an apple seed immoral? After all, it is the functional equivalent of a human zygote. If it is planted in the right environment, and given what it needs, it will become an apple tree.

Not an equivalent in the least. Apple seeds can naturally last outside the apple for a very long time and still develop into apple trees; they are designed to do so. Human embryos cannot.
and are not.

 

[Seeker2010]

Not an equivalent in the least. Apple seeds can naturally last outside the apple for a very long time and still develop into apple trees; they are designed to do so. Human embryos cannot.
and are not.

I understand that.

But in my (few, as I avoid the topic like the plague) debates re: abortion with pro-life folks, I have been told in no uncertain terms that a zygote fertilized within the past 5 minutes is a human being. I’m wondering if those who say that also think the apple seed is really an apple tree, for it truly is the biological equivalent of a fertilized egg, just for a different species. It needs but the right environment and it will, indeed, become an apple tree, but it ain’t one yet.

Just as the right environment will cause the human zygote to become a human being, but it ain’t one yet.

 

[Newbie2]

I understand that.

But in my (few, as I avoid the topic like the plague) debates re: abortion with pro-life folks, I have been told in no uncertain terms that a zygote fertilized within the past 5 minutes is a human being. I’m wondering if those who say that also think the apple seed is really an apple tree, for it truly is the biological equivalent of a fertilized egg, just for a different species. It needs but the right environment and it will, indeed, become an apple tree, but it ain’t one yet.

Just as the right environment will cause the human zygote to become a human being, but it ain’t one yet.

Um…that’s a non sequitur.

It is certainly not the biological equivalent. You cannot seriously expect to biologically equate a mammal and a plant! A human embryo, until ready for birth, cannot exist outside mom. An apple seed can exist and develop outside the apple.

Do you not see the biological difference?

BTW, when do you think a human embryo becomes a human being?

 

[Seeker2010]

BTW, when do you think a human embryo becomes a human being?

Haven’t given it much thought, as I can’t get anyone prolife to agree that a mere 5 minutes after conception it’s not yet human. That said, I’d probably go with when the heart starts, or when there is detectable brain activity, though I’m fairly open to discussion and debate about it, and not married to either of those choices.

You see, I believe the brain is not the SOURCE of our intellect, rather it’s a physical ‘antenna’ to which our actual intellect attaches. No brain, no possibility of ensoulment.

 

[Ghosty]

I understand that.

But in my (few, as I avoid the topic like the plague) debates re: abortion with pro-life folks, I have been told in no uncertain terms that a zygote fertilized within the past 5 minutes is a human being. I’m wondering if those who say that also think the apple seed is really an apple tree, for it truly is the biological equivalent of a fertilized egg, just for a different species. It needs but the right environment and it will, indeed, become an apple tree, but it ain’t one yet.

Just as the right environment will cause the human zygote to become a human being, but it ain’t one yet.

Even if we do take the apple seed to be an apple tree, it doesn’t affect the morality of abortion. We can morally cut down apple trees, so it doesn’t matter if we do it when it’s a seed, a sapling, or a fruiting tree.

As for comparing a tree to an embryo, you’re talking about age versus nature. An apple seed and an apple tree have the same nature, but are at a different age and therefore have different descriptive terms applied to them. Likewise with an embryo and an adult, or a sapling and an fruiting tree. Saying that the seed isn’t a tree is simply the same as saying that a toddler isn’t an elderly person; it says nothing about the nature of the being you’re referring to.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Seeker2010]

Even if we do take the apple seed to be an apple tree, it doesn’t affect the morality of abortion. We can morally cut down apple trees, so it doesn’t matter if we do it when it’s a seed, a sapling, or a fruiting tree.

Well, I agree that it’s not immoral to cut down an apple tree, well so long as you own it or have the owners permission.

Just curious if you guys will go on the record saying an apple seed is really an apple tree.

 

[Newbie2]

Just curious if you guys will go on the record saying an apple seed is really an apple tree.

Why would it matter? So you can proceed with your non sequitur argument?

I’ll go out on a limb (pun intended) and say an apple seed has an apple nature from the time it forms in the apple fruit, as does the apple fruit and the apple tree, even though the apple seed is not a fully developed apple tree.

An human embryo, btw, will develop into a human adult unless something interferes with its development. Same cannot be said of an apple seed.

Seriously, did you think that none of here have any background in philosophy and cannot successfully refute your non sequitur?

 

[sinnerdexter]

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.

Sorry for repeating myself, but you said (all bolding is mine):

“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?”

I took this to mean that you believed that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life.

Betsy then said (and you agreed):

“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.”

Since ‘parthenogenesis’ means: “a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization” encyclopedia.com/topic/parthenogenesis.aspx, I took this to mean that you believed that it was NOT necessary that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life.

Since it appeared to me that you were making two contradictory statements, I said that it doesn’t seem to be clear to YOU when life begins. And looking at it again I still do not understand where you stand on this issue. Is it necessary that life begins with an egg and a sperm, or is it not? I accept that I may have misunderstood what you were saying so I’d be happy to be corrected.

Regardless, it is still unclear to ME when life (or from my perspective, human existence) begins. Your explaining why you believe it starts at a certain time did not clear up anything for me. I still am not comfortable picking some milestone, such as conception, cell division, brain development, self awareness, birth, or any other. And the possibility that I may have to change my definition of when it begins based on current technology makes it even worse. If there is a God, I hope He isn’t changing His definition of when life begins just because of changing human technology.

I drop my cake analogy (even though I thought it was kind of amusing). I’ll come up with one involving animate objects.

As an aside, do Christians belive in human parthenogenesis, given the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?

 

[po18guy]

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

I must point out that you began life as a cell. A rather cheeky one, if I might say so. And, it was not a differentiated cell. Human life is a process that has a beginning and an end. Man’s ego then complicates this process until it is unrecognizable.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

Those are at least created by God, and called home by God. Be sad for the 3,000 babies who were NOT called home by God yet died in their mother’s womb by the hand of an abortionist.

One thing to ponder - why would God have any reason to go back to that same baby and place its soul in it? Seems rather capricious and random of Him, the moment of creation seems like a much more logical time to ensoul the new human. That’s the way I think of it anyway. Is there some other stage of development where the intervention of God would be obvious? Not that I’ve heard of, but I’m sure I don’t know everything.

 

[Newbie2]

Sorry for repeating myself, but you said (all bolding is mine):

“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?”

I took this to mean that you believed that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life.

Betsy then said (and you agreed):

“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.”

Since ‘parthenogenesis’ means: “a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization” encyclopedia.com/topic/parthenogenesis.aspx, I took this to mean that you believed that it was NOT necessary that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life.

Since it appeared to me that you were making two contradictory statements, I said that it doesn’t seem to be clear to YOU when life begins. And looking at it again I still do not understand where you stand on this issue. Is it necessary that life begins with an egg and a sperm, or is it not? I accept that I may have misunderstood what you were saying so I’d be happy to be corrected.

Regardless, it is still unclear to ME when life (or from my perspective, human existence) begins. Your explaining why you believe it starts at a certain time did not clear up anything for me. I still am not comfortable picking some milestone, such as conception, cell division, brain development, self awareness, birth, or any other. And the possibility that I may have to change my definition of when it begins based on current technology makes it even worse. If there is a God, I hope He isn’t changing His definition of when life begins just because of changing human technology.

I drop my cake analogy (even though I thought it was kind of amusing). I’ll come up with one involving animate objects.

As an aside, do Christians belive in human parthenogenesis, given the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?

Actually, you got our quotes vice-versa, but no foul.

Is it necessary that life begins with an egg and a sperm, or is it not? At this point in time, yes. If science figures out how to manipulate ova or DNA or whatever to create a new life, then we will have to reexamine how we define new life.

But just for discussion, let’s say that science can join the DNA of one egg into another, forming an embryo which grows into an adult human being. At some point, that organism becomes a unique individual, different from either one of it’s “parent” eggs. As Catholics, we would believe that when that happened, a new human life was formed, and as such at that moment it became a human person.

Since human parthenogenesis has not been demonstrated, we are free to believe whether or not it is possible. In reference to Christ, it is a matter of faith that he was incarnated by the action of the Holy Spirit, not by some parthenogenic event. We will never be able to explain this action scientifically, and accept it as a mystery of our faith.

BTW, since you do not have a particular milestone for when a human embryo becomes a human person, why not consider it to be the moment of conception? Philosophically speaking, it’s as valid a notion as any other time.

 

[sinnerdexter]

BTW, since you do not have a particular milestone for when a human embryo becomes a human person, why not consider it to be the moment of conception? Philosophically speaking, it’s as valid a notion as any other time.

I can’t just pick any moment and pretend I believe that. And if I did pick the moment of conception then I would have to consider all those who have abortions as murderers. That’s fine if I really believe it, but I don’t. I’m just not sure. So while I consider the fertilized egg to be a significant form of life, I find the needs of a conflicted and tortured young girl to be more significant. And I think the fertilized egg is more significant than my needs, if I was just too lazy to put on a condom and now find that having another kid is going to be financially challenging. And of course once the fertilized egg becomes a human person, then the needs of the conflicted and tortured young girl can no longer reign supreme.

 

[Newbie2]

I can’t just pick any moment and pretend I believe that. And if I did pick the moment of conception then I would have to consider all those who have abortions as murderers. That’s fine if I really believe it, but I don’t. I’m just not sure. So while I consider the fertilized egg to be a significant form of life, I find the needs of a conflicted and tortured young girl to be more significant. And I think the fertilized egg is more significant than my needs, if I was just too lazy to put on a condom and now find that having another kid is going to be financially challenging. And of course once the fertilized egg becomes a human person, then the needs of the conflicted and tortured young girl can no longer reign supreme.

I think you’re partway there.

Perhaps if you were to take some to consider this matter from a purely philosophical angle, that might be helpful.

We have to be careful not to become quasi-utilitarian as Catholic Christians, in terms of who’s “needs” are more important. That opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

[06convert]

God loved you and knew you before you were formed in the womb.

You were a life when God conceived of your existance. Not at the moment your mother became pregnant.

 

[Adam1986]

Those are at least created by God, and called home by God. Be sad for the 3,000 babies who were NOT called home by God yet died in their mother’s womb by the hand of an abortionist.
I am! It’s ALL really sad.

One thing to ponder - why would God have any reason to go back to that same baby and place its soul in it? Seems rather capricious and random of Him, the moment of creation seems like a much more logical time to ensoul the new human. That’s the way I think of it anyway. Is there some other stage of development where the intervention of God would be obvious? Not that I’ve heard of, but I’m sure I don’t know everything.

 

[teachccd]

It seems that all who can “decide” when life begins are alive and well. However, if that “pre-human” substance was aborted you wouldn’t be here now would you? How more righteous can one get than to think that just because you weren’t pulled out of your mother’s womb the moment after conception you can now decide that someone else can be. What a truly sad state of affairs. The ultimate in selfishness… teachccd

 

[mark_a]

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?

I think Poppy and Kramer settled this years ago on Seinfeld.

 

[CharlesDarwin]

I must point out that you began life as a cell. A rather cheeky one, if I might say so. And, it was not a differentiated cell. Human life is a process that has a beginning and an end. Man’s ego then complicates this process until it is unrecognizable.

whats your point had i been aborted as a clump of cells I wouldnt have ever developed the consciousness to even realize i ever alive let alone care that i was not allowed to develop