Until that time, I can find no other determiner or assigner or rights to work with other than the human beings around us.
I’m reading a great deal of anger in your post which confuses me because surely you must be aware that some things must be taken on faith. Your anger at me seems hardly justified since I am a Catholic posting on a Catholic forum. Perhaps you are on the wrong site. It is perfectly acceptable to use God on a Catholic forum and I will continue to do so. Please don’t insult me by telling me I don’t have the decency to prove God exists. That is rude and un-called for.
Even many people who don’t believe in God believe in universal law. And universal law states that all human life is precious and deserves protection. If you’re American, you should also be aware that the signers of the Declaration of Independence believed that rights were bestowed on human beings by their Creator.
I’ve read your paper. You complain that current definitions of life are arbitrary. You then present your own arbitrary definition of life:
Take someone who says life begins at conception. However the cells that go into creating a human being are “alive” also. The contradiction is if life BEGINS at conception then if the cells that go into creating a human are alive what has BEGUN here? For something to BEGIN something has to either start that was not there before, or has to restart after being stopped. This is what BEGIN means. However this clearly hasn’t happened! What is new that wasn’t there before? Not life clearly as the cells before conception are alive. What has stopped here and then started again? Nothing, unless you want to pretend the two cells die at conception and then come alive again anew. So no dice here!
I’ve already discussed the “life” in the cell that forms a human being at conception. That “life” is certainly not the same as the “life” that is present in the rest of the cells in the parents. You state that nothing has begun at conception. And oh you are so wrong. Because at conception we don’t just end up with a fertilized ovum that sits there and then degrades. No, that is what happens to the spermatozoa who aren’t able to fertilize the cell. They degrade. But in the fertilized ovum remarkable physical changes are occurring. The most important to this discussion is that the DNA contributed by the father and by the mother is entwining to form a new double helix with DNA unique to that being in that it does not match the DNA of the mother or the father. How could it when germ cells contain only half the DNA present in the rest of the cells in the body?
What has been added at conception that was not there a SPLIT second before that. And a split second before that. It is an infinite regress which quite neatly explains the catholic churches position on contraception. When you are caught in this regress you are invariably forced back to admit that contraception is just as “evil” as abortion.
Regress? Ridiculous! What was not there a SPLIT second before conception is a fertilized ovum which is beginning this intertwining of DNA. Your “neat” description of the Catholic Church’s position isn’t nearly as neat as you think. How you managed to tangle your argument about when life occurs in human beings with the Church’s view on contraception is beyond me. I don’t want to take this thread off-topic and won’t, but your statement that contraception is just as “evil” as abortion is
completely false. Although both are grave actions, abortion is more evil. I get very irritated at non-Catholics who think they know so much about Church teaching, especially when they are smug about their perceived superior knowledge.
I have even heard people also say that life begins at the first division of the cell. Here, it is said, everything necessary for life is now present. Same problem here however! What is present in these two cells that was not present when it was one? Nothing! It has just made an identical copy of itself. Nothing here is something that wasn’t there before. There is just two of them now that’s all.
My goodness! You must have been shocked, although I wouldn’t know why. That is an arbitrary definition of life, just like yours.
Let me detail a further problem with both of these views. There is a little known to the general Joe but very common occurrence in the zygote that hammers a hole right into the “at conception” argument. Imagine the cell is a “new life” for a moment.
Often the cell splits into twins. More often than you think. What has happened here? Has a new life popped up AFTER conception? This kills the “all life is at conception” idea. Or has the life of the one become two halves? I would love to see you tell twins they are only half-alive!
Illogical. If the fertilized ovum splits into twins, the DNA present in both twins is still unique in that it does not match the DNA of either parent. Both are human beings, both are guided by the DNA in their cells and both should be protected.
I actually wrote a much longer response, but when I tried to preview it I received a message that stated I need to remove over 17,000 characters. So I have kept it, but don’t want to post ten posts right now. Please read this one. Or don’t. It’s up to you.
I would, however, like to point out that your definition of life is arbitrary and your decisions as to when abortion should be allowed are only your opinion (and a poorly formed one at that IMHO). There is no consensus on the beginning of life or when consciousness appears or even what consciousness is in the scientific or philosophic communities.
And I request that you treat the Catholic Church with respect. It’s a forum rule you agreed to abide by when you became a member of these forums.
