Does life begins at conception?

[sinnerdexter]

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.

Could you perhaps mean “that would involve confronting a reality that contradicts doctrine”?

I opened the topic and I am committed to it.

 

[sinnerdexter]

life begins at conception

Then the debate rages on whether that life is “human” or a “person”.
I believe it is, Some believe it isn’t.

No, the consensus view is that life begins at conception. That is, the functioning of the cellular machinery of a genetic individual.
There is no debate on that point because there is no disagreement.

The disagreement arises when pro-life advocates misrepresent “life” as being the condition of person-hood, the unlawful killing of which is prohibited by law. As I have repeatedly stated, they are not synonymous conditions and no argument has EVER shown that they should be considered as such.

Scientists apply conditions that would also make people in comas worthless.

More misrepresentation. The difference between a zygote and a person in a coma is that the zygote is a cell, whereas the coma patient is a person (in the developed, information-rich sense of the entity) who is academically, financially, emotionally, and culturally invested in his society, and likewise invested in by his society. He has a contract with his medical insurer and the hospital have ethical and legal obligations toward him and his estate. The inter-relationship of these obligations and contracts are complex however even if we ignored them entirely, there is a big difference between intervening in the possible development of a cell and considering “**** it, let him die” as a viable course of medical treatment.

Some secularists apply principles that would make people with mental defects or physical ailments not really “living”.

Again, you conflate “living” with the condition of being a person. You fail.

 

[Seeker2010]

A better question for Catholics is: “When does a fetus have a soul”?

Well, I am not Catholic, but I am spiritual, insofar as I believe there is a God and that we puny humans do have souls. That said, I’ve come to believe that our souls ‘attach’ to our bodies via our brains, therefore in my world view, a fetus cannot possibly be ‘ensouled’ until such time as a brain exists and is functional. Now, I’ll concede that I don’t know if that’s in week 3 or week 30, but that’s the line in the sand that I draw.

In case you care what I think.

 

[po18guy]

Well for what purpose is not really relevant. What we’re saying is we would consider clones people too, and it is good to see you acknowledge that fact. But clones are not made via fertilization of an egg, so then fertilization is not equivalent to person.

Dude, no one’s cloning. Call back when they do.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Dude, no one’s cloning. Call back when they do.

Dude, your speculation on the purpose of human cloning isn’t really relevant to the discussion. With regard to the birth rate, I don’t think anyone in here really proposes that human cloning will or should become a means of ‘padding out’ future generations - it was brought up merely because you stated that life can only come from the fusion of gametes. The fact that cloning is possible is sufficient to rebut that assertion; cloning doesn’t need to actually happen.

Re-read your interjection:

To interject here, the only way to produce a person, in any of his or her forms or at any stage of personhood, is to begin via the contact between egg and sperm. No contact, no human life, no person. The artificial separation of life from personhood lead to the enslavement of millions of Africans. I would not dare argue the morality of that. But, in that case, man also artificially separated morality from legality. Trouble ensues when man arbitrarily separates that which is inseparable by its nature.

 

[sinnerdexter]

This is worthy of some refinement:

1. This question is intimately involved with the issue of differentiating Consciousness per se, and awareness and its distinct stages as outlined in #85 above. Regarding that, and knowing that “irritation” in its biological science meaning, is a property of any life form, how significant is it that there is physiomotor activity? is that a reaction or a response?

Selecting a particular trait that can evoke an emotional response from the audience (oh look, the child is trying to get away from the threat!) is not sufficient as you are arguing by cosmetic similarity.

I can transplant your argument directly and state that because the leaves of the plant Mimosa pudica curl in response to touch stimuli, the plant should therefore be considered a person and protected from being unlawfully killed. Or at least, that we should feel so emotionally blackmailed by such a notion that we ought at least to consider it, preferably while we happen to be in congress or the supreme court.

1. Factors that might bear on this might be intent and responsibility. Those can happen at three levels: the woman, her immediate circumstances, and society in general. So what is the woman;s intent? Is she wanting, willing, able and competent to be a parent? These days we seem to broadly assume that biological ability already includes parental competence.Does it? should it? If not, what constitutes competence? Ability? Knowing someone who is in child development, without thinking aobut it much it is pretty clear to me that I was, ans most people are, woefully ignorant of pre-natal, post partum, infant, and early childfood development factors from chemistry of bonding to developmental factors including diet and environment, not to mention psychoemotional state of parent(s).

You realise of course that all of the above are usually considerations and concerns of the abortion process as a whole.

1. And the idea of “honorary personhood” is fascinating. Good one! But legally, might it not come down to a matter of rights, concerns, or endangerment by virtue of physical symbiosis, or less likely, appurtenant property?

It is a fascinating idea and I think one that we ought to pursue vigorously in another thread.

 

[Newbie2]

Could you perhaps mean “that would involve confronting a reality that contradicts doctrine”?

.

You lost me…

 

[Ender]

No, the consensus view is that life begins at conception. That is, the functioning of the cellular machinery of a genetic individual.

Yes, this is a scientific fact. Human life begins at conception.

The disagreement arises when pro-life advocates misrepresent “life” as being the condition of person-hood, the unlawful killing of which is prohibited by law. As I have repeatedly stated, they are not synonymous conditions and no argument has EVER shown that they should be considered as such.

No argument can ever resolve this issue since “person-hood” has no specific meaning; it is an entirely artificial construct that means whatever someone wants it to mean. It is no more a misrepresentation to claim that life and person-hood are the same thing than to claim they aren’t since person-hood is quite literally a meaningless term.

Ender

 

[antroji]

Originally Posted by antroji
This is worthy of some refinement:

1. This question is intimately involved with the issue of differentiating Consciousness per se, and awareness and its distinct stages as outlined in #85 above. Regarding that, and knowing that “irritation” in its biological science meaning, is a property of any life form, how significant is it that there is physiomotor activity? is that a reaction or a response?

Selecting a particular trait that can evoke an emotional response from the audience (oh look, the child is trying to get away from the threat!)

is not sufficient as you are arguing by cosmetic similarity.

I can transplant your argument directly and state that because the leaves of the plant Mimosa pudica curl in response to touch stimuli, the plant should therefore be considered a person and protected from being unlawfully killed. Or at least, that we should feel so emotionally blackmailed by such a notion that we ought at least to consider it, preferably while we happen to be in congress or the supreme court.

I’m sorry, by my read I simply identified a factor, without arguing or evaluating.

You realise of course that all of the above are usually considerations and concerns of the abortion process as a whole.

Yes, but given the state of general ignorance we enjoy in our culture, our Country having gone from 1st to 29th amongst nations in terms of educational excellence these last 20 years, I think that that point bears repeating, along with some encouragement to change.

It is a fascinating idea and I think one that we ought to pursue vigorously in another thread.

Yes, that might be useful. I wonder how it might be phrased as a question?

 

[StAnastasia]

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.

Except that there is no definable moment of conception. We have to think in terms of a process that can take up to 36 hours.

 

[antroji]

I was pretty convinced from biology class that conception happened at the moment the egg changes electrical signature when penetrated by a sperm, thus blocking further penetrations. That happens pretty much in an instant. Are you saying then that it is within +/-36 hours that that might take place?

 

[sinnerdexter]

Yes, this is a scientific fact. Human life begins at conception.

What gives you that impression? Just for clarification, by “human life” are you including cancer cells as “human life”? Just because people use the words “human life” to mean people, doesn’t mean that “people” is equivalent to “alive” + “human”.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Dude, no one’s cloning. Call back when they do.

Isn’t that effectively an admission that your definition is faulty, but that you will stick with it because this particular instance of the fault is uncommon?

 

[phoenixrrt62]

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.

My take on it? When the fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb…but, that’s my thoughts. How legalistic that would be, I don’t know-and, mind, a preemie goes through some hellacious odds, the smaller the preemie is, the harder it’s going to have it, but it has a chance at survival all the same…

 

[Ender]

What gives you that impression?

I guess you can either believe the science in this area or you can make up your own explanations.

“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).” (Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)

*“The development of a human being begins with fertilization…” *(Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3)

• “The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” *(Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3)

Apparently the concept that life begins at conception is a fact so basic to the study of embryology that it is presented almost on the first page of these textbooks.

Just because people use the words “human life” to mean people, doesn’t mean that “people” is equivalent to “alive” + “human”.

Yes, I understand your position: a human life is not necessarily a human person. The former being a real entity, the latter a completely artificial construct with no real meaning whatever.

Ender

 

[StAnastasia]

I was pretty convinced from biology class that conception happened at the moment the egg changes electrical signature when penetrated by a sperm, thus blocking further penetrations. That happens pretty much in an instant. Are you saying then that it is within +/-36 hours that that might take place?

According to one of my physician colleagues, there is not an instantaneous moment of conception. Rather, it is a chemical process. that takes some time.

 

[alitaptap]

This is a wonderful analogy! Thanks.

I have been recommended a way to view this matter that is from a somewhat different footing. I don’t believe that many on here will agree with it, but I find it worthy of consideration, at least in terms of understanding a different world view. So, though it is in a pretty severely shortened form, here it is:

I see it as failing because a cake is chemically transformed from dough into a cake by the reactions that occur as a result of heating it. That transformation is analogous to the transformation that takes place at conception when the egg is transformed by conception.

The question is akin to asking about the nature of life in general. And it kind of goes with the question some people ask about there being life elsewhere in the galaxy. I’m not meaning to embark here on sci-fi, but that question is illustrative of what may be a crucial point in understanding. and here is what that point is: that the outcome of a question is very much framed in the structure of how it is asked. I offered the life on other planets one for that reason.

You see, if we ask “is there life on other planets?” we are intrinsically, or semantically, assuming that by “life” we mean “forms.” So the question in that form is kind of unanswerable, though it has been attempted both by speculation about statistics and by simple faith, as well as by a few more obscure ways we won’t go into.

But what if we understand life to be Life, as in either the creative power of God, or of, in the case of materialists, those principles that got us here from a chemical soup. We can then see that either of those are as far as we can tell omnipresent in and even as Universe. So as subtle as it might be, we can say that Life always is, as a Principle, neither beginning nor ending, but continuously acting as a pressure on matter to form kinds of vehicles for kinds and degrees of awareness.

There is always life but individual lives come and go…

One of those forms is the human form. As Christians we believe that the human form is animated by a factor called “soul.” As some of us see it, this soul factor is present from conception. But we know, I’m sorry, believe, from our teaching, is that this soul changes toward an ultimate disposition when the body is cast off. (This is where some interesting research in NDE’s and OBE’s might apply.)

But let’s accept that there is change in whatever it is that we essentially are. To be a little more universal, let us call it “awareness.” So in the beginning that awareness is completely part of the process of intrauterine development, or matrix (no, not the movie!) state as material and has no self awareness, which feature is necessary in making decisions which have the dimension of responsibility. In fact, that is the first of nine nameable stages of awareness, each successive one incorporating and yet transcending the previous. This is a necessary process, and proceeds byt the awareness or soul factor freeing itself from less comprehensive and inclusive states to greater ones.

conception should be the oven. The womb is an incubator and is commensurate with the cake cooling.

 

[alitaptap]

Say then that the womb (oven) is stage 0. The following could be 1) the sensoriphysical, where the newborn has not yet differentiated itself from the world, its awareness being fused both with what it is and what it senses. The sense of identity is physiocentric and its job, around 5-9 mths is to differentiate boundaries between itself and the world. 2) Succeeding in that, the awareness becomes capable by about 2yo of differentiating boundaries between its emotional self and the world. 3) From about 2-4 and 4-7, the awareness learns to use first symbols, then concepts. 4) around 6-7, up till about 11-14
the awareness of rules and roles form. And most importantly, this being by Church definitaion, that “age of reason,” the awarenes begins to include the ability to put one’self into another’s shoes! This stage forms the social scripts of an individual. At this stage the awareness has de-centeralized from matter to emotion and what is essential egocentrizm to sociocentrism. This is crucial, because the majorityof us stay pretty much at this level. It is why religions, reaces, cultures, poitical parties, and groups of nearly any discription don’t get along with one another. 5) This is where the sociocentric awareness can grow into a world centric viewpoint, where the self can identiy beyond ethnocentricity. 6) Thai si where actual and practical self reflexive awareness begins to mature. The individual can think aobut thinking, their own thinking, in an objective fashion. The body and mind become integrated and under conscious contorl. And this is where most orthodox catagorization stops. And here the awareness is on the brink of the transpersonal. At 7) the ego is no longer merely personal, and sees with greater depth and breadth than their own personal self. 8) and 9) I won’t go into here.

It all seems so arbitrary, nothing that a science intellectual would find too compelling. The people you are debating beleive they are intellectuals. They see themselves as being reasoned and logical and they hide their metaphysical opinions behind reasonand logic and hope nobody notices what it actually is. When you add your own metaphysics it allows them to dismiss you as unreasoned. I think you should simply show how his is a false analogy. But what do I know?

All that is to say that bing in or popping out of the oven isn’t the end of it, and neither is the recipe the biginning. It is much more thatn that. The implications, if one is capable of comprehending them, are monumental. Well, OK, they are to me. But take it or leave it. I’m just saying that mabe we limit ourselves by framing questions in limited ways.

Yeah, this angle did not seem very compelling to me. It is interesting though.

I think you should continue to point out that any other point other than conception is arbitrary. While a society may choose to define a point where a human life becomes a person and when it ceases to be a person, intrinsically we all know that the only definitive point is when life on earth begins and ends.

 

[Ender]

According to one of my physician colleagues, there is not an instantaneous moment of conception. Rather, it is a chemical process. that takes some time.

Whether the action of fertilization is instantaneous or takes an hour the point stands: life begins at conception.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.” (Human Embryology and Teratology, 1996, p 8)

Ender

 

[StAnastasia]

The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

(Human Embryology and Teratology, 1996, p 8)Ender

I haven’t seen the book Human Embryology and Teratology. I’ve always wondered whether human teratomas, particularly cancerous tumors, have souls.