If it's not life, what is it?

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

A rudimentary Google search didn’t help me much; basically, what I want to know is, if some proponents assert that life does not begin at conception, then when does it begin?

If a fetus is not life, what is it?

 

[redhen]

I honestly don’t know, but if asked I would have to say spiritual life does not begin at conception. Monozygotic twins (identical twins) do not separate into two embryos until a few days after conception. If you believed spiritual life starts at conception then you would necessarily have to conclude that identical twins shared one soul.

 

[redhen]

In the Ask an Apologist forum I found this:

The Church teaches that the soul is the principle of human life. At conception it is the soul that gives the zygote life. When the soul leaves the body, the body dies.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

So now I’m at a loss as to how monozygotic twins are accounted for.
Certainly these two twins don’t share one soul?

 

[jfallaw]

A rudimentary Google search didn’t help me much; basically, what I want to know is, if some proponents assert that life does not begin at conception, then when does it begin?

If a fetus is not life, what is it?

I do not know. I think it is safest to consider life to have begun at conception. But I also know from high school Biology that sometimes a woman’s body naturally aborts a fertilized egg within a few days after conception, usually due to genetic abnormalities. So I will just have to trust, as always, that God knows best and that the Church teaches His will.

 

[jfallaw]

In the Ask an Apologist forum I found this:

So now I’m at a loss as to how monozygotic twins are accounted for.
Certainly these two twins don’t share one soul?

Well, it is a fact that they often share the same thoughts and feelings, even when separated by many miles.

 

[joseph_virgen]

as i read this thread two thoughts came to me. One, we protect eggs of endangered species, to the point of sending to jail those who destroy them.

Two, if what is in a woman’s womb is ever found somewhere in deep space, it will indeed be called life.

Where is this wondefull thing called common sense? Where did it go?

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

Thanks for the replies, but I am in essence looking for the arguments that might be used against life beginning at conception (or even a little beyond), as these are the ones I want to be prepared for.

The blurred line of when the soul ‘attaches’ to the physical body is an obvious point of contention, but it, as well as the matter of twins, is really a fringe issue when many do not even seem to consider the embryo, the fetus, or the ‘previable’ baby several weeks in development as ‘life’. That is where and when abortions primarily occur anyway, when there is already a detectable, identifiable growth.

This is mind-boggling in the extreme for me, because there must be some kind of rational approach to denying its nature as life, otherwise no one would claim it, but for the life of me, I cannot come up with it myself.

As I understand it, either it is life, or it isn’t; if it is life, you don’t destroy it, rights are irrelevant. If you don’t know, then you’d better not do anything, because so many DO know, and have reasons to say that it is life. If it is not life, then why??

(name removed by moderator)ut from anyone who’s encountered this line of argument would be greatly appreciated. If they deny that it is life, what do they postulate in substitute? A tumor? Abstract fetal matter? A parasite??? I am greatly confused.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks for the replies, but I am in essence looking for the arguments that might be used against life beginning at conception (or even a little beyond), as these are the ones I want to be prepared for.

The blurred line of when the soul ‘attaches’ to the physical body is an obvious point of contention, but it, as well as the matter of twins, is really a fringe issue when many do not even seem to consider the embryo, the fetus, or the ‘previable’ baby several weeks in development as ‘life’. That is where and when abortions primarily occur anyway, when there is already a detectable, identifiable growth.

This is mind-boggling in the extreme for me, because there must be some kind of rational approach to denying its nature as life, otherwise no one would claim it, but for the life of me, I cannot come up with it myself.

As I understand it, either it is life, or it isn’t; if it is life, you don’t destroy it, rights are irrelevant. If you don’t know, then you’d better not do anything, because so many DO know, and have reasons to say that it is life. If it is not life, then why??

(name removed by moderator)ut from anyone who’s encountered this line of argument would be greatly appreciated. If they deny that it is life, what do they postulate in substitute? A tumor? Abstract fetal matter? A parasite??? I am greatly confused.

Well, ensoulment doesn’t have to be at conception for a fertilised egg to be life, no? Animals never do have souls in the sense that we think of the term, they are definitely alive.

That egg is definitely a human being, even if not one that yet possesses an immortal soul, even if it may shortly become TWO or more human beings, and the killing of ANY human being once alive is murder on a basic definition.

To answer your question, though, I don’t think most pro-abortion people deny that a fertilised egg is alive, or is human, they simply don’t think any rights such as right to life attach to it if it is not developed to a certain stage - at some relatively unspecified point during pregnancy, usually.

They don’t hold the right to life as being absolute - not surprising, since we don’t either, in cases such as legitimate self-defence (we’re permitted to kill people in self-defence) or defence of country.

For some more hardline advocates, it goes much further than denying right to life to the unborn though. There’s a legal concept (makes me ashamed to be an almost-lawyer that my kind came up with such a thing) of ‘wrongful life’, where doctors have been sued for failing to diagnose health problems in fetuses and have to pay compensation for the resulting care of the child.

The premise, of course, being firstly that the child would as a matter of course be aborted if the condition were known eek, the second that there can be a right to NOT live if your quality of life is less than perfect, as well as a right not to let someone ELSE live if their life is burdensome to you.

 

[tee]

Not sure if this would be a good argument or not but first to the point of how monozygotic twins get their souls. Lets think out of the box, as we can not see soul there is nothing to be sure about but when we are unsure we should err on the side of life. Putting that aside, why must one body has only one soul? can’t it be possible that 2 souls share a body? So why wouldn’t it be possible to have 2 souls share the same monozygotic cell (or whatever it is) as a temporary until it separates. After all, a person can be possessed, but one doesn’t die even though another being has taken over.

Secondly, life is scientifically can be thought of something that is growing. So for example, a tree has life, a cat has life, a fish has life because they all grow. Now, why does a seed grow to be a tree? and why does a puppy grow to be a dog? or why is a fish egg grow to be a fish? Well, because the growing cell carry the DNA of a fish mother and father, or a tree, or a dog. Thus, an embryo or a fertilized egg also carries the DNA of both the mother and the father and therefore it will grow into a human and thus it is a life of a human.

Hope that help.

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

Thanks again for the answers, particularly the comparisons between human and animal embryos; the double standard we seem to use when describing human conception and the rest of the animal world is another key weapon I plan to use to argue in favor of life.

They don’t hold the right to life as being absolute

That’s what I was afraid of. While it is true that we can temporarily suspend the right to life of another when the matter of self-defense is involved, these are exceptional cases, and increasingly rare and harder to defend nowadays anyway, particularly on matters of the just war concept, or even state self-defense by death penalty.

How the self-defense argument applies to an unborn child is a great mystery to me. It is untenable; none of the conditions that have to be met to justify self-defense obligations can apply to a human being in its most innocent possible state.

I don’t know what to say to these people. I will handle their individual arguments as I encounter them, or ask a different question later.

For now though, what really interests me are what counter-arguments exist to deny fetal life, because, assuming the right to life is absolute, no one can argue choice until they provide a strong argument in favor of fetal Non-Life, and a strong argument for this I should think presupposes an alternative, and it is this alternative I am seeking.

If it is not life, what is it?

 

[Ruthie]

Trying to remember back to when I was pro-abortion…

I used the “self-defense” argument. If I am allowed to kill someone who threatens my life, then I can kill an embryo who threatens my life.

Of course, I wasn’t making the connection that someone has to threaten my *actual *life, not my “quality of life.” If the second was true, it would be legal to kill a boss who fired me!

And, of course, an embryo will not threaten my life in any deliberate way. In fact, it is dependent on *me *for its own life.

I also defined “life” as when a baby begins to breathe, based on Gen 2:7. That’s much harder to counter. “Before I knit you together in the womb, I knew you” was too vague for me, back then.

What finally convicted me that abortion was murder - a decision it took me a long time and a lot of thought and argument to reach - was learning about DNA. When sperm meets egg, a unique human genome is formed. That makes it a new human being, beginning the process of expressing its genome.

It became obvious to me that it is contradictory to say we can kill that human before it is born, but not after.

And we can see the other side of that argument developing in the culture of death, leading to legal euthanasia, and forcing suicide on the indigent. It won’t be all that long until we’ll be able to commit infanticide, or see state-sponsored killing of those unable to care for themselves… unless we can turn it around! Vote pro-life!

As for the twins thing, two thoughts. First, if God gave two souls to that zygote, then it *had *to split.

Second, identical twins have the *same *DNA. They can’t be told apart in the laboratory. But they do have different fingerprints, so they’re still unique humans!

God bless us all, and end the anti-life thinking,

Ruthie

 

[edwest2]

Life begins the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg:

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

To believe otherwise simply goes against the clear, observable scientific evidence.

On the spiritual side. God knows our hearts. He knows our intentions. A miscarriage through no fault of our own at any stage is not our fault.

I still don’t get how pro-abort folks are aware of the Early Pregnancy Test and still don’t seem to connect that with actually being pregnant with a human being.

God bless,
Ed

 

[FloridaJoan]

as i read this thread two thoughts came to me. One, we protect eggs of endangered species, to the point of sending to jail those who destroy them.

Two, if what is in a woman’s womb is ever found somewhere in deep space, it will indeed be called life.

Where is this wondefull thing called common sense? Where did it go?

It doesn’t make any sense … we can go to jail for disturbing incubating turtle eggs … but can abort full term babies ? Madness ? … Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners … now and at the hour of our death. Amen