How do you convince those who do not believe life begins at conception?

[system]

I believe life begins at conception. This is what I was always taught, and I believe it. When seeing the quote from the president today, about “no God that condones the taking of innocent life” it struck me that you could only say such a thing, if you did NOT believe life started at conception.

So, telling a person who does not believe what we believe, that there have been 50 million murders, doesn’t really hit home if that person just believes there was 50 million “medical procedures.” (right?)

So how do you convince people that life begins at conception? Seems to me if you do that - all arguments are over, and the laws of the land would change virtually overnight.

Sorry, I have no link. If this belongs elsewhere, please move.
Thanks.

 

[Jennifer123]

I believe life begins at conception. This is what I was always taught, and I believe it. When seeing the quote from the president today, about “no God that condones the taking of innocent life” it struck me that you could only say such a thing, if you did NOT believe life started at conception.

So, telling a person who does not believe what we believe, that there have been 50 million murders, doesn’t really hit home if that person just believes there was 50 million “medical procedures.” (right?)

So how do you convince people that life begins at conception? Seems to me if you do that - all arguments are over, and the laws of the land would change virtually overnight.

Sorry, I have no link. If this belongs elsewhere, please move.
Thanks.

Appeal to science - embryology…which so far hasn’t been co-opted by the culture of death.

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

usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml

The science of when life begins is clear. The problem is that the discussion then goes into philosophical arguments about when “personhood” begins, ensoulment, whatever…

 

[pasancharan]

I’m reading a Peter Kreeft book right now called Three Appraoches to Abortion. It presents a pretty involved logical dissertation refuting the moral relativism concerning abortion. He spends quite a bit of time on the particular question of when a human being becomes a human being. It’s very short and simply presented. Also, part of it’s presented as a dialogue between a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer. Highly recommend!

 

[thereseozi]

I’m glad to know about the above named resources (the links and the book). Thanks for posting!

 

[RachelsAlumni]

… how do you convince people that life begins at conception?

I like to read Fr. Tad’s “Making Sense out of Bioethics” articles.

There are quite a few and they are all excellent. One that I find myself quoting a lot is: September 1, 2005 - “Imposing Our Beliefs” on Others

Another I quote often is “Debating the embryo’s fate”

 

[kalt]

The first question I ask is, Should all humans have equal rights? of course they will answer, yes.

Next, I ask if the embryo is alive or dead. At first they try to argue that it’s not alive, but then they have to admit that it’s not dead, because dead embryos almost always result in spontaneous abortions, and besides the embryo is growing–obviously alive.

Then I ask what species the embryo belongs to. They’ll look at you blankly at first. You’ll have to prompt them a little, telling them that it has to be an embryonic something. Is it a fish? A pig? A frog? They’ll finally have to admit, but not willingly, that it’s a human embryo.

Then I ask if the embryo has DNA. They say that it must.

The last question is, Whose DNA is it? There’s usually no answer to that question.

They agree that the embryo is alive not dead. They agree that it is a human embryo with DNA. They’re stuck when they have to admit that the embryo’s DNA isn’t the woman’s.

I ask, Who, then, does that DNA belong to?

Then we get to the pound of flesh-like situation. Since the embryo has unique human DNA, it is not an extension of the mother’s body. People who support abortion, claim that it’s the woman’s right to get rid of any tissue that belongs to her. Well, the DNA proves that it is human tissue and that it is not her tissue.

Can the woman abort the tissue of another human ( The person already agree that it is a human embryo with DNA) when destroying that tissue results in the death of the other? (The person agree that the embryo is alive.)

They’ll fall back on the abortion laws that say that a human embryo hasn’t attained legal personhood.

I ask them the first question again.

“Should all humans have equal rights?”

 

[Nepenthe]

First of all, good luck with the Jews and various members of other religions.

And as for the person who mentioned embryology - heh, I doubt you know any embryologists who could give a professional leap at a rolling donut about the Catholic point of view as to the 'ensoulment) of human life, or any other life form. Of course they know live begins when cells are fertilized and begin the process of division. Who better? But they certainly do not, professionally, conjecture on the religious and supernatural implications of those things.

They may have their own convictions on the matter, but if they are professionals at their job, they know how to keep that separate from their scientific work.

 

[Jennifer123]

First of all, good luck with the Jews and various members of other religions.

And as for the person who mentioned embryology - heh, I doubt you know any embryologists who could give a professional leap at a rolling donut about the Catholic point of view as to the 'ensoulment) of human life, or any other life form. Of course they know live begins when cells are fertilized and begin the process of division. Who better? But they certainly do not, professionally, conjecture on the religious and supernatural implications of those things.

They may have their own convictions on the matter, but if they are professionals at their job, they know how to keep that separate from their scientific work.

Ensoulment is a philosophical and theological discussion, as you state, as is a discussion of “personhood”. But the science of embryology is clear, human life begins at conception.

It is embryology that clearly shows this to be true. In other scientific disciplines, there is pressure to state human life begins at implentation, or other such nonsense, in order to placate the culture of death.

 

[Newbie2]

Ensoulment is a philosophical and theological discussion, as you state, as is a discussion of “personhood”. But the science of embryology is clear, human life begins at conception.

It is embryology that clearly shows this to be true.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true; science clearly differentiates between what is live and what is dead, but when “human-ness” starts is precisely behind this whole debate.

I personally start such a defense of “our side” of the discussion by defining “life” and “living”, as per the OP’s post. Once you can clearly agree that there is such a difference between a live embryo and dead embryo, the answer is clear that life begins at conception.

Then the question becomes “when does this life become human” or “when does this life develop a soul”, which is a bit more difficult to sell to a non-believer. The embryo is a human embryo at that point, not an ape embryo, dog or cat, etc. It methods were developed to create a successfully functioning artificial uterus and such an embryo were implanted, it would grow into a human being. It is therefor an human embryo.

When does it develop a soul? That is a theological question. We believe it to be the moment it becomes a unique human being, that moment of conception.

 

[DelicateMelody]

When does it develop a soul? That is a theological question. We believe it to be the moment it becomes a unique human being, that moment of conception.

Slightly off topic-

In a debate, a fairly recent study concerning the large unknown number of miscarriages a women has unbeknowst to her was brought up. According to the study, 20% of pregnancies are miscarriages, but the number may be higher because women may not know they’ve experienced one.
I was asked then asked whether or not all those miscarriages ( including the mutatated ones, etc) all had a soul and went to heaven. I reply that they did.
Am I correct is replying so?

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Great arguements on live embryo! That helps me.

For the humanness or ensoulment or whatever term, that does not matter. From conception it takes an invasion of the womb or killing someone to stop that person from being a great young man or women or a mom or dad or grandparent. I don’t know how much clearer it can be. It would be like saying until they can talk we could kill them or until they have had first communion. There is nothing different in the fetas than a 7 year old taking their first communion or than a few years.

We cannot allow or create culling processes of unique life. Do we think it is bad for the Chinese to abort when they know their baby is a girl?

Conception is the key. If we can prove life begins there people will change.

 

[Jennifer123]

I’m not sure that’s entirely true; science clearly differentiates between what is live and what is dead, but when “human-ness” starts is precisely behind this whole debate.

I personally start such a defense of “our side” of the discussion by defining “life” and “living”, as per the OP’s post. Once you can clearly agree that there is such a difference between a live embryo and dead embryo, the answer is clear that life begins at conception.

Then the question becomes “when does this life become human” or “when does this life develop a soul”, which is a bit more difficult to sell to a non-believer. The embryo is a human embryo at that point, not an ape embryo, dog or cat, etc. It methods were developed to create a successfully functioning artificial uterus and such an embryo were implanted, it would grow into a human being. It is therefor an human embryo.

When does it develop a soul? That is a theological question. We believe it to be the moment it becomes a unique human being, that moment of conception.

I understand what you are saying but the “personhood” argument is always a loser on the prolife end. It is irrelevant. Have you met a person who wasn’t a human? Human beings have an inherent right to life from the moment of conception. If a life can not be protected from the time the unique human individual is created, then its life is dependant on arbitrary laws and social mores.

It wasn’t too long ago that many people believed Jews and African slaves weren’t fully human and they were essentially property of the collective state.

 

[Abbadon]

Life began a few billion years ago.

It’s all one cycle. Even the sperm and the egg are life. So if you think about it most women are serial killers.

I think what you want to do is convince people that person hood begins at conception.

I think another poster also suggested this.

 

[Abbadon]

Well you could try and convince me. For me a collection of cells is not a human. I work with cells here and then and the only way I can tell the difference between a plant cell and an animal cell is from a chloroplast.

And saying that it contains the potential for human life really doesn’t do any good, considering every single cell from your body has the potential to be human life, now with advanced techniques in cell biology. “Every time you scratch your nose you commit genocide” I’ve heard that now and then.

 

[Abbadon]

Ensoulment is a philosophical and theological discussion, as you state, as is a discussion of “personhood”. But the science of embryology is clear, human life begins at conception.

It is embryology that clearly shows this to be true. In other scientific disciplines, there is pressure to state human life begins at implentation, or other such nonsense, in order to placate the culture of death.

I’m afraid your confusing me. What does human life mean? Define it. How is it different from the term life?

It is called a life cycle, because other than at abiogenesis it is a never ending cycle.

I’m sorry but there is no culture of death. We just use words to define things to help us understand concepts and relate concepts to one another.

 

[Abbadon]

Great arguements on live embryo! That helps me.

For the humanness or ensoulment or whatever term, that does not matter. From conception it takes an invasion of the womb or killing someone to stop that person from being a great young man or women or a mom or dad or grandparent. I don’t know how much clearer it can be. It would be like saying until they can talk we could kill them or until they have had first communion. There is nothing different in the fetas than a 7 year old taking their first communion or than a few years.

We cannot allow or create culling processes of unique life. Do we think it is bad for the Chinese to abort when they know their baby is a girl?

Conception is the key. If we can prove life begins there people will change.

What do you mean by life begins at conception? Do you mean the process that will have an end product of a human begins at conception?

What if that process is halted after 20 mitotic cell divisions? What is that thing then?

What if you insert genetic material artificially, i.e IVF, is that person then not human, because natural conception did not occur? I’m guessing you count all forms of conception.

Life is constant, it only began at abiogenesis. A sperm is alive, even a virus is sometimes alive. Kind of.

 

[Jennifer123]

Well you could try and convince me. For me a collection of cells is not a human. I work with cells here and then and the only way I can tell the difference between a plant cell and an animal cell is from a chloroplast.

And saying that it contains the potential for human life really doesn’t do any good, considering every single cell from your body has the potential to be human life, now with advanced techniques in cell biology. “Every time you scratch your nose you commit genocide” I’ve heard that now and then.

You are confusing parts for a whole.

An egg and sperm, individual parts that posess human life, cease to exist once a human zygote, a human living being, is created. A zygote is a completely different and unique being, distinct from the parts that had just been used to create it. It has 46 chromosomes (more or less) and every individual cell, every part, has this characteristic number of chromosomes.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

Then we get to the pound of flesh-like situation. Since the embryo has unique human DNA, it is not an extension of the mother’s body. People who support abortion, claim that it’s the woman’s right to get rid of any tissue that belongs to her. Well, the DNA proves that it is human tissue and that it is not her tissue.

Can the woman abort the tissue of another human ( The person already agree that it is a human embryo with DNA) when destroying that tissue results in the death of the other? (The person agree that the embryo is alive.)

They’ll fall back on the abortion laws that say that a human embryo hasn’t attained legal personhood.

I ask them the first question again.

“Should all humans have equal rights?”

I could also see them saying that, while the embryo is a distinct human being, it nonetheless is a part of the woman’s body and reliant upon that woman for survival; they could go on to say that if a woman truly doesn’t want that human inside her she can abort it, since denying them that “right” violates their “right” to control over their body.

Just for clarification: I’m pro-life. I’m just curious how to answer the above statement, though.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

So this is what a Pastafarian believes? When does life begin in your world? Please keep it simple for me, conception, birth, 2 years old? Have you seen the pictures of aborted cells? They look pretty human like to me, even next to a dime. (Google abortions for images) Simple drug store pregnancy test can tell their is life in a mommy within days.

Well you could try and convince me. For me a collection of cells is not a human. I work with cells here and then and the only way I can tell the difference between a plant cell and an animal cell is from a chloroplast.

And saying that it contains the potential for human life really doesn’t do any good, considering every single cell from your body has the potential to be human life, now with advanced techniques in cell biology. “Every time you scratch your nose you commit genocide” I’ve heard that now and then.

 

[Jennifer123]

I could also see them saying that, while the embryo is a distinct human being, it nonetheless is a part of the woman’s body and reliant upon that woman for survival; they could go on to say that if a woman truly doesn’t want that human inside her she can abort it, since denying them that “right” violates their “right” to control over their body.

Just for clarification: I’m pro-life. I’m just curious how to answer the above statement, though.

It is only reliant on the mother’s body as much as an infant is dependant on its mother after birth for food, clothing and shelter. Actually all of us are dependant on each other at many aspects in our lives. I know my 12 month old wouldn’t last long left alone to its own devices, as would my elderly grandmother, sick with dementia.