Life at Conception

[banjo]

Catholics believe in life at concpetion. I do too, but mainly because I am Catholic. I don’t really get why we believe this nor could I find any good reason on the internet anywhere. In biology we have been disgussing genetic engineering and embryotic stem cell research. I would like to express my opinions, but if I don’t have any support besides “that’s what my church teaches” I don’t think my classmates will listen very long. So, why does the church teach that life begins at conception? I would appreciate some biblical references since that’s what the Protestants will want. Thanks.

Morgo,
You might ask any who disagree to point out what else happens after conception that “starts life” or makes this new person a human being. If you are given an answer, ask the responder for proof.

 

[mlchance]

The sperm and ovum that constitute this beginning human life are already alive and are already human.

You seem to be equivocating. Yes, a woman’s ovum is human, but only if “human” is used as an adjective. The ovum is not human if "human is used as a noun.

IOW, a sperm and an ovum are of a human, but neither are* a human*.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[banhgialon]

Crow,

Thistle, in a few words, points out what is fallacious in your above post. You seem to be equivocating the term “human”.

You wrote that “[t]he sperm and ovum that constitute this beginning human life are already alive and are already human.” And then you conclude that “t is therefore clearly fallacious to claim that human life begins at conception because . . .human life is already present.”

But that which is “human” is not necessarily a “human life”. It is true that an ovum is “alive” and from a human, but it is not therefore “human life”.

Your equivocation of the term would also mean that you must hold that when a motorcycle accident victim dies on the operating room table that his “human life” has not ceased. . . . because his corneas have been transplanted, alive, into another person.

VC

Errr… but what if I want to interpret the Jeremiah quote literally??

Before you formed in your womb, I knew you. Jer 1;15??

If you agree, that is the greatest and most unequivocal support for life at/before conception from the bible?? Maybe you know of better ones??

I don’t know how you interpret that but to me it’s pretty clear that life occurs BEFORE conception. And barring any metaphysical explanation, the reagents for conception are egg and sperm, so therefore they must be agents of life KNOWN by God.

So are we considering life as any entity, haploid or diploid, human or human parts, that is ACKNOWLEDGED by God as life? Also, aren’t germ lines - sperm and egg - in humans marked by the seal of God, maybe that differentiates them from your cornea cells.

Or are we saying life occurs at conception because of Godly intervention during the moment of fertilization where life and soul is instilled into what was merely biological??

 

[crowonsnow]

Crow,

Thistle, in a few words, points out what is fallacious in your above post. You seem to be equivocating the term “human”.

You wrote that “[t]he sperm and ovum that constitute this beginning human life are already alive and are already human.” And then you conclude that “t is therefore clearly fallacious to claim that human life begins at conception because . . .human life is already present.”

But that which is “human” is not necessarily a “human life”. It is true that an ovum is “alive” and from a human, but it is not therefore “human life”.

Your equivocation of the term would also mean that you must hold that when a motorcycle accident victim dies on the operating room table that his “human life” has not ceased. . . . because his corneas have been transplanted, alive, into another person.Clearly I’m playing a wee bit of devil’s advocate. But I’m certainly not equivocating about being human or being alive. The sperm, ovum, donors and new combination are all human and all alive. If they’re not, then what?

Human life clearly continues at conception, same as it continues at other stages in the life of a human organism. But I do not see how anyone can justify the statement that human life begins at conception.

Maybe advocates of life beginning at conception can give their thoughts about asexual reproduction such as in bacteria. Maybe they can tell us when life begins asexually and perhaps in the process clarify their position.

 

[cpayne]

Human life clearly continues at conception, same as it continues at other stages in the life of a human organism. But I do not see how anyone can justify the statement that human life begins at conception.

Well, again this seems to be equivocating. “Human life begins at conception”–no, using the terms as you are using them, that’s not right. The parents are alive too, and they’re human. Okay, we agree on that. What we are saying is that “a” human life begins at conception, in the sense of a new, individuated human life that was not in existence before in any way (at least, not in existence in any way we know of, despite the Scriptural questions above from banhgialon). The combination of DNA from the parents results in a completely new and unique phenomenon—a new human life with its own unique DNA.

 

[crowonsnow]

Well, again this seems to be equivocating. “Human life begins at conception”–no, using the terms as you are using them, that’s not right. The parents are alive too, and they’re human. Okay, we agree on that. What we are saying is that “a” human life begins at conception, in the sense of a new, individuated human life that was not in existence before in any way (at least, not in existence in any way we know of, despite the Scriptural questions above from banhgialon). The combination of DNA from the parents results in a completely new and unique phenomenon—a new human life with its own unique DNA.

That’s not really a big difference. The new DNA is fabulously identical to its parents. Even in asexual reproduction the offspring are not identical. With human life we could just as easily claim that but for minor changes brought about by the natural process of reproduction, “a” life continues at conception.

Or we might opine that death begins at conception, for the parents.

 

[cpayne]

That’s not really a big difference. The new DNA is fabulously identical to its parents. Even in asexual reproduction the offspring are not identical. With human life we could just as easily claim that but for minor changes brought about by the natural process of reproduction, “a” life continues at conception.

It’s not often I can get into a philosophical discussion in which I can claim that one’s arguments are simply empirically wrong–however, this is the case here. The DNA genotype of the offspring is completely unique and separate from that of the parents; moreover, the phenotype resulting from the DNA guided self-organization is also different (fingerprints, for example).

The important point is not that a life continues at conception (the parents’ lives, I assume?). The important point is that it is a new human life, a different human being.

I’m getting the impression that you don’t really think what you are saying you think. Am I getting strung along here?

 

[crowonsnow]

The DNA genotype of the offspring is completely unique and separate from that of the parents; moreover, the phenotype resulting from the DNA guided self-organization is also different (fingerprints, for example).

There certainly are differences, but even Neanderthals are 99.5% identical to modern humans in their DNA. Maybe you should quantify “completely unique.” You must be talking in a religious and cultural sense.

The important point is not that a life continues at conception (the parents’ lives, I assume?). The important point is that it is a new human life, a different human being.

Well, why isn’t the important point here that the offspring is 99.9 percent identical to its parents? The fact remains that this “new” and “unique” offspring isn’t very different at all. How can it be if it’s 99.9 percent the same?

I agree that given sufficient resolution, sameness is a myth. There is no doubt about that. Forget DNA. Every particle in the cosmos is unique in that sense.

The point, however, is that human life certainly doesn’t begin at conception. And neither is a completely new and unique human organism formed. This is just a silly claim if it is almost 100 percent the same as its parents. There are slight differences, however.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m certainly not equivocating about being human or being alive. The sperm, ovum, donors and new combination are all human and all alive. If they’re not, then what?

Crow,

With respect, it seems like you have answered my charge of equivocation simply by denying it and then restating the same equivocation. I think you need to show *how *you are not equivocating in order to answer my charge.

Yes, the sperm and ovum are human, but in the sense an eyeball is human. The donors and the “new combination” are humans.

Your equivocation is clearly present in this sentence: “The sperm, ovum, donors and new combination are all human and all alive.”

1. Sperm, ovum are human(1) and alive
2. Parents and child are human(2) and alive

Your first use of the term “human” is an adjective and means “of, or relating to humans”. Your second use of the term “human” is a noun and denotes the taxonomic species human.

Using the term “human” in two different senses in the same sentence, and drawing an argument therefrom, is precisely the definition of the fallacy of equivocation.

But I do not see how anyone can justify the statement that human life begins at conception.

Clearly another instance of equivocation. After equivocating “human” you go on to equivocate “human life”. In the first instance (implied) the sperm and ovum are “human life” because they are human(1) and alive. In the second instance the child is “human life” because he is human(2) and alive.

The second use of “human life”, could be alternatively rendered as “a living human”.

crowonsnow:

Human life clearly continues at conception, same as it continues at other stages in the life of a human organism. \quote]

This is exactly what I was referring to in my prior post. If you equate “human life” with the living human cells prior to conception with “human life” denoting the human being then you must also say that “human life” continues after the human being dies, since some of his human cells (i.e. his organs, transplanted) can continue alive after his death.

That, of course, only has meaning because you use “human” as an adjective in the first and third cases, and “human” as a noun in the middle case.

When Catholics say “life begins at conception” it is understood (by most) that that “living human” (noun) begins at conception.

VC

 

[cpayne]

There certainly are differences, but even Neanderthals are 99.5% identical to modern humans in their DNA. Maybe you should quantify “completely unique.” You must be talking in a religious and cultural sense.

Well, why isn’t the important point here that the offspring is 99.9 percent identical to its parents? The fact remains that this “new” and “unique” offspring isn’t very different at all. How can it be if it’s 99.9 percent the same?

I agree that given sufficient resolution, sameness is a myth. There is no doubt about that. Forget DNA. Every particle in the cosmos is unique in that sense.

The point, however, is that human life certainly doesn’t begin at conception. And neither is a completely new and unique human organism formed. This is just a silly claim if it is almost 100 percent the same as its parents. There are slight differences, however.

Okay, I’m finally understanding what you mean now. But now your argument has passed from equivocation into irrelevance. (I don’t mean that harshly, by the way; things in print always sound harsher than they’re meant to sound. Imagine me saying it with humor, charm, and kindness.) Yes, it’s true that Homo sapiens DNA is Homo sapiens DNA and in that sense is much like the DNA of other Homo sapiens. For that matter, it’s a lot like chimp DNA. For that matter, it’s about two-thirds like banana DNA. But humans aren’t chimps or bananas, and the zygote is not the mother or father. Its human, Homo sapiens, DNA is uniquely expressed; it begins to develop at conception as an individuated human. These aren’t Catholic opinions of conception; these are simply facts.

 

[Newbie2]

There certainly are differences, but even Neanderthals are 99.5% identical to modern humans in their DNA. Maybe you should quantify “completely unique.” You must be talking in a religious and cultural sense.

Well, why isn’t the important point here that the offspring is 99.9 percent identical to its parents? The fact remains that this “new” and “unique” offspring isn’t very different at all. How can it be if it’s 99.9 percent the same?

I agree that given sufficient resolution, sameness is a myth. There is no doubt about that. Forget DNA. Every particle in the cosmos is unique in that sense.

The point, however, is that human life certainly doesn’t begin at conception. And neither is a completely new and unique human organism formed. This is just a silly claim if it is almost 100 percent the same as its parents. There are slight differences, however.

A new, independant human life begins at conception. Neither the sperm nor the egg is capable of producing an embryo on their own.

“Slight differences”=unique. Even identical twins are unique in being different from each other.

Similar, or even very similar e.g. 99.99999999999999999999% identical, even in a strictly genetic sense, does not negate uniqueness.

Show me two humans that are identical in genetics, appearance, personality and thought. It cannot be done, everyone is unique.

 

[fhansen]

That’s not really a big difference. The new DNA is fabulously identical to its parents. Even in asexual reproduction the offspring are not identical. With human life we could just as easily claim that but for minor changes brought about by the natural process of reproduction, “a” life continues at conception.

Or we might opine that death begins at conception, for the parents.

So now we aren’t to distinguish between individual human beings just because they’re genetically similar?

What difference could any of this make to this discussion anyway unless you’re advocating human rights be given to human sperm and egg-or denied to all things human- whether sperm, egg, skin cells, and the human beings they’re part of?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Similar, or even very similar e.g. 99.99999999999999999999% identical, even in a strictly genetic sense, does not negate uniqueness.

Uniqueness would not be negated even if the genetic code was 100% the same, it wouldn’t matter for purposes of this discussion. There really is no need to consider “percentages” of similarity. I understand what you are trying to say Newbie, but it it might be best to not even engage on those terms.

crowonsnow:

And neither is a completely new and unique human organism formed. This is just a silly claim if it is almost 100 percent the same as its parents.

It would not be a silly claim **even if **the offspring was 100% the same as the parents. Your very words show there is unique human organism. If there was not, the phrase “if it is. . .the same as its parents” couldn’t be uttered.

The Principle (or Law) of Identity is a fundamental law of logic. It is manifestly true that the the child is the child, distinct from the parents. We can talk about one and the other. Or distinguish this child from *that *child. Or this being from that being. The only thing that a thing is identical with is itself.

Thank goodness that the law of identity exists! Otherwise everyone would have the same Social Security Number.

VC

 

[neophyte]

Catholics believe in life at concpetion. I do too, but mainly because I am Catholic. I don’t really get why we believe this nor could I find any good reason on the internet anywhere. In biology we have been disgussing genetic engineering and embryotic stem cell research…

Have you discussed the signs that an object is alive? They include respiration, ingestion, excretion, multiplication,…

A fertilized egg does all of those. By definition it’s alive.

 

[banjo]

Errr… but what if I want to interpret the Jeremiah quote literally??

Before you formed in your womb, I knew you. Jer 1;15??

If you agree, that is the greatest and most unequivocal support for life at/before conception from the bible?? Maybe you know of better ones??

I don’t know how you interpret that but to me it’s pretty clear that life occurs BEFORE conception. And barring any metaphysical explanation, the reagents for conception are egg and sperm, so therefore they must be agents of life KNOWN by God.

So are we considering life as any entity, haploid or diploid, human or human parts, that is ACKNOWLEDGED by God as life? Also, aren’t germ lines - sperm and egg - in humans marked by the seal of God, maybe that differentiates them from your cornea cells.

Or are we saying life occurs at conception because of Godly intervention during the moment of fertilization where life and soul is instilled into what was merely biological??

Even if you interpret Jer 1:5 literally, it doesn’t follow that it is a proof of the existence of life before conception. God is omniscient and as such “knows” all things even before they enter time; much as a potter knows, in his mind, the work of his hands before the object is made.

 

[crowonsnow]

Okay, I’m finally understanding what you mean now. But now your argument has passed from equivocation into irrelevance. (I don’t mean that harshly, by the way; things in print always sound harsher than they’re meant to sound. Imagine me saying it with humor, charm, and kindness.) Yes, it’s true that Homo sapiens DNA is Homo sapiens DNA and in that sense is much like the DNA of other Homo sapiens. For that matter, it’s a lot like chimp DNA. For that matter, it’s about two-thirds like banana DNA. But humans aren’t chimps or bananas, and the zygote is not the mother or father. Its human, Homo sapiens, DNA is uniquely expressed; it begins to develop at conception as an individuated human. These aren’t Catholic opinions of conception; these are simply facts.

I don’t disfavor nature’s arrangement. Using all the knowledge we possess about that arrangement, I’m merely attempting to demonstrate that conception is a continuation of human life, not a beginning. But it can obviously be both.

 

[cpayne]

I don’t disfavor nature’s arrangement. Using all the knowledge we possess about that arrangement, I’m merely attempting to demonstrate that conception is a continuation of human life, not a beginning. But it can obviously be both.

So conception is a continuation of human life in general (in the sense you mean), with a DNA code similar to all other humans; and conception is also the beginning of a new human life in particular (in the sense I mean), with a new and uniquely expressed DNA code. If that’s what you are saying, I agree.