You know the basics of the birds and bees, right? So there’s this fertilized egg that developed into me… and just a few minutes before… it was an unfertilized egg. Same egg, developed into me. The unfertilized egg obviously did develop into me, and thus obviously had that potential from the beginning. If it didn’t have that potential, I wouldn’t be here now.
LOL Wow!
Wouldn’t the “cell” have the same DNA as the zygote? Maybe this is where the Church gets its stance against embryonic stem cell research? I know nothing about stem cell research, but have read somewhere that by using one cell a duplicate of the person having that cell can be created. Cloning? Any idea how this is done?
There is no argument from reason alone that can lead one to that conclusion – it is a revealed truth. In reality, the egg develops into the human – therefore, any argument from human potential alone should apply to it.
I can assure you that I came from an unfertilized ovum, so this statement is prima facie false.
Without the union of the ovum to a sperm cell, you would not exist. The Church does not consider unfertilized ova as human persons, only potential persons and only if fertilized. Same with sperm cells. That is why the notion of menstration-as-murder as a theological argument is a non-argument.
“Meant” by whom? I have no problem with you holding these beliefs due to revealed truths. I do take issue with the rhetoric of calling anyone who has not been revealed these truths “evil” and “murderers.”
Hmmmmm. So “evil” is a concept that is a universal truth, eh? Your athiest armor is showing some cracks.You would agree, though, that killing an innocent embryo is killing, no?
Not without fertilization it doesn’t. You seem to be ignoring this simple fact. Why are you not affording the sperm cells “equal protection” under your premise?
And not without implantation, it doesn’t either. Or a placenta. Why isn’t implantation the measure of when humanity starts? Or when the heart begins to beat? Or when the neural tube forms? Or any host of biological necessities that need to take place for a human baby to develop and live?
No reason, aside from wanting to avoid association with the mocking song “every sperm is sacred,” since it takes away from my point.
The egg alone, cannot and will not develop into a human.
No, I mean the potential to become started. It only has potential, IF, another action is taken.(a key is inserted)
That depends on if you know it will start or not. You can assume or presume that it will, but most buyers will want to see it started. If you do not prove that, then you may as well treat it as scrap metal.
Because without fertilization, there is zero chance that any of the above will happen. Only after fertilization takes place, can the actions that you mentioned above, happen.
Of course we can. Reason tells us that when a sperm and egg join, and will conceivably result with the birth of a human being. Or for that matter, it will eventually result in the death of a human being at a later time. Fact tells us that uncombined, neither an egg or a sperm will result in a human being. Fact also tells us that without two other living organisms, that life is not reproducable. Fact also tells us that all living creatures, were once an embyo, and that we cannot have one, without the other. The term embryo, is just a description of a stage of life. For example, I am an adult. I was once a teenager . I was also once a child. I was once a baby. I was once an embyo. And I was once a zygote. Since I am in existance here and now, prior to being a zygote, I didn’t exist.
Why? Someone no doubt was murdered in Chicago last night, how did that effect me? It didn’t.
C’mon, please at least try a little. Without the ovum, there is zero chance that any of the above will happen either.
Fact tells us also that without implantation, or sufficient nutrition, or red blood cells, or a heart, a zygote will not result in a human being either. Unless you (as the Catholic church teaches) dogmatically state that zygote = human being. That’s not a rational justification; that’s a theological justification.
C’mon, man, let’s try to keep the context alive. You said that you came from an unfetilized ovum. The fact is, is that you did not.
Where did I bring up theology?
And not without implantation, it doesn’t either. Or a placenta. Why isn’t implantation the measure of when humanity starts? Or when the heart begins to beat? Or when the neural tube forms? Or any host of biological necessities that need to take place for a human baby to develop and live?
The reason: divine revelation.
A unique, new human life starts at conception. Outside of theological reasoning, isn’t this a good marker of when to call it human life? It sure isn’t any other kind of life.
No reason, aside from wanting to avoid association with the mocking song “every sperm is sacred,” since it takes away from my point.
Thanks. I’m guilty of seeing some humor in that song.
Which is that the notion that an embryo deserves the same protection as a human being is not self-evident from the natural moral law alone. Without recourse to divine revelation, you have no grounds to criticize someone who believes that a human life doesn’t start until the fetus starts to make its own red blood cells, and you have no grounds to criticize someone who believes that trillions die every day inside testicles.
Well, it seems we disagree on what and what is not self evident.
This stands in contrast to murder, and other crimes that offend the natural moral law, and can justify calling someone who unrepentantly does them “evil.”
What is the difference in terminating a three-month old embryo and a month old baby, in your view?
Except, of course, in the case of identical twins, wherein the human life is not unique by the standard you are implying. The twins don’t form until days after fertilization occurs.
I don’t see why. The gametes were a form of human life too, as are the other assorted cells within a human body.
Of course, by admitting the disagreement, you acknowledge that the answer is not in fact self-evident.
The second is murder and the first is not.
