Life at Conception

[AClark]

Hello all,
I am a Catholic, and I would like to know if you guys have any strong arguments that life begins at conception. I have heard many against, but none for, so, a s a pro-lifer myself, I would very much appreciate anything you guys have to offer!

Many Thanks and Best Wishes!

 

[edwest2]

It is a scientific fact. The moment the sperm unites with the egg, you have a unique genetic combination. You have you and everybody else reading this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AClark]

I’d first off like to thank you for your help Ed. However there are those who have unusual genetic make-ups. For instance, Downs syndrome sufferers are still very much people, despite having an extra chromosome. So it seems that human-hood is separate from any biological constraint.

 

[zentik]

I’d first off like to thank you for your help Ed. However there are those who have unusual genetic make-ups. For instance, Downs syndrome sufferers are still very much people, despite having an extra chromosome. So it seems that human-hood is separate from any biological constraint.

But even if it’s an “unusual” genetic makeup, it’s unique to that one person. Also, that new being will ONLY develop into a human. There is no way it will become an elephant or a cornstalk.
Another way of looking at it: if the sperm and egg never meet, a human will never develop. The fact that those 2 cells meet and something new is created is, for me, more than enough proof that life has begun. It’s precisely that life that triggers the cells to divide. Otherwise the cells each go on their merry way and die off.
Sure, the early embryo doesn’t resemble a human outside the womb yet. But look at pictures of someone throughout their life. They don’t look the same all the time!

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Anything that has it’s own unique, human DNA, is either a portion of a cell (can’t remember what it’s called), a cell mutation (such as cancer) or it’s now someone’s cell, and thus it’s own human being. Since it’s not a portion of a cell, or a mutation such as cancer, and it’s got human DNA, it must be human and not someone’s cell.

 

[Eucharisted]

The Immaculate Conception.

 

[WillieWonka]

There is no disute anywhere. Everyone agrees the egg, sperm, and fertilized egg are alive in all mammals.

 

[JimG]

Every individual of the human species has a beginning. It is not a biological mystery. A new individual of the human species, distinct from both mother and father, has its beginning at conception, when the sperm and egg are united to form a genetically distinct individual, who then proceeds with development.

 

[edwest2]

I’d first off like to thank you for your help Ed. However there are those who have unusual genetic make-ups. For instance, Downs syndrome sufferers are still very much people, despite having an extra chromosome. So it seems that human-hood is separate from any biological constraint.

Incorrect, a human embryo is always a human embryo. Any Embryologist will tell you this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[djeter]

And the arguments you have heard “against” this are some sort of personhood or ensoulment jive. All argue from a moral relativism which deeply unsettled a young G. K. Chesterton when he first confronted it:

More of that with a commentary by Gary Wills here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/15/the-diabolists-among-us/

An explanation of the science and “zygotes,” a word we should all learn, comes from Prof.Robert George in “The Clash of Orthodoxies,” also quoted

In Christ,

dj

 

[StAnastasia]

A new individual of the human species, distinct from both mother and father, has its beginning at conception, when the sperm and egg are united to form a genetically distinct individual, who then proceeds with development.

Perhaps half of them do, the half that are not miscarried. The rest enter immediately into eternal life.

 

[Terry_from_Ypsi]

When does a human being “begin” ?

What physically is a human being ?

Psychiatrists deal with patients who have a hard time "breaking the “apron strings” of their mother. Where does this "dependency come from ?

It is nomal for a human being to be “dependent” on its “mother.” This begins in the womb. At “birth” the human being emerges into the “physical world.” Up to that point
the person is alive in a unique envirnment called “the womb” where the person’s very existence is physically dependent on the Mother.

From birth to death, a person’s life can be targeted as moving farther and farther from the individual’s mother.

So when does an individual’s existence begin: at conception because the DNA makeup of the individual is defined and all growth proceeds primarily from that “genetic code” which never changes.

A definition of death is a point at which a person “stops growing.” When does a person start growing, conception. Abortion destroys a “growing person” as much as a “bullett”
may destroy a “growing person” at 25 years after coming into the physical world.

If this is not true, then children are delivered by the stork.

Regards

 

[edwest2]

And the arguments you have heard “against” this are some sort of personhood or ensoulment jive. All argue from a moral relativism which deeply unsettled a young G. K. Chesterton when he first confronted it:

More of that with a commentary by Gary Wills here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/15/the-diabolists-among-us/

An explanation of the science and “zygotes,” a word we should all learn, comes from Prof.Robert George in “The Clash of Orthodoxies,” also quoted

In Christ,

dj

Excellent. Thank you. When life becomes limited to the self and the here and now becomes all there is, a great separation occurs. God resists the proud, the Bible tells us. I don’t want to resist Him.

We are living through an era of constant repackaging and constant redefining. At work, Personnel suddenly becomes Human Resources. In government, the disabled become the differently abled. In the military, vague and even pleasant sounding words are used to describe killing. That is why Pro Killing and even Pro Abortion had to turn into Pro Choice.

Life does begin at conception but some of those who are given minds to solve problems decide that death or separation is the answer. Euthenasia, abortion, divorce… As difficult as life can be, without a firm foundation, some may think death and separation are worthwhile answers. But what are Catholics taught?

Self control regarding sex – 100% guaranteed, no STDs or unwanted babies.

The dignity of sex and marriage – Getting to really know the person you are about to marry and building a relationship based on mutual trust and mutual interests and mutual beliefs will get you far to being ready to marry that person. Today, hop in the sack first and ask questions later, if at all.

Today, rules are already in place to give a person pain relief and even time to die if they experience a crisis while in the hospital. Assisted death is not the answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

Perhaps half of them do, the half that are not miscarried. The rest enter immediately into eternal life.

And how is this known? Is there someone out there checking the results of each and every conception? I’ve not seen any data on the percent of early miscarriage, but if it’s out there, I would like to know the methodology

 

[StAnastasia]

And how is this known? Is there someone out there checking the results of each and every conception? I’ve not seen any data on the percent of early miscarriage, but if it’s out there, I would like to know the methodology

“Fifty percent of human conceptions result in miscarriage because the zygotes or embryos have a chromosomal abnormality incompatible with life, or because they are otherwise so genetically compromised that they cannot develop to mature gestation and a normal birth.”

“One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.”[3] ^ Edmonds DK, Lindsay KS, Miller JF, Williamson E, Wood PJ (1982). “Early embryonic mortality in women,” Fertility and Sterility 38 (4): 447–53. PMID 7117572.

 

[JimG]

“Fifty percent of human conceptions result in miscarriage because the zygotes or embryos have a chromosomal abnormality incompatible with life, or because they are otherwise so genetically compromised that they cannot develop to mature gestation and a normal birth.”

“One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.”[3] ^ Edmonds DK, Lindsay KS, Miller JF, Williamson E, Wood PJ (1982). “Early embryonic mortality in women,” Fertility and Sterility 38 (4): 447–53. PMID 7117572.

And one 1982 study using hormones is extrapolated to apply to the general population, who are not participants in a study or taking the same hormones?

 

[AClark]

But even if it’s an “unusual” genetic makeup, it’s unique to that one person. Also, that new being will ONLY develop into a human. There is no way it will become an elephant or a cornstalk.

If the two gametes’ genomes were sufficiently mutated to where the fertilization process yielded a person who had the genome of a cat (for the sake of argument please assume that this is possible), wouldn’t the embryo still be a person? (I am seriously asking.)

 

[StAnastasia]

And one 1982 study using hormones is extrapolated to apply to the general population, who are not participants in a study or taking the same hormones?

search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090803a6.html

More than 40 percent of women who have gone through pregnancy have experienced miscarriages, a research group said Sunday.

“We have found that miscarriages happen more frequently than people assume,” said Mayumi Sugiura, a professor at Nagoya City University who was involved in the research.
Sugiura also said that women who have repeatedly experienced miscarriages or stillbirths can still have children if they undergo the appropriate treatment and urged them to be examined to determine the cause of the problem.

The group conducted its study on women aged 35 to 79 who underwent health checkups in Okazaki, Aichi Prefecture, during a one-year period from February 2007. Of the 503 women in the study, 458 had experienced pregnancy, of whom 190, or 41.5 percent, had suffered miscarriages, according to the group.

Most miscarriages are caused by chromosomal abnormality in the fetus, a natural phenomenon that occurs at a uniform rate, so it is likely that a woman could have a baby with her next pregnancy, according to Sugiura.

 

[StAnastasia]

And one 1982 study using hormones is extrapolated to apply to the general population, who are not participants in a study or taking the same hormones?

The participants were not taking hormones. Read more carefully.

 

[StAnastasia]

If the two gametes’ genomes were sufficiently mutated to where the fertilization process yielded a person who had the genome of a cat (for the sake of argument please assume that this is possible), wouldn’t the embryo still be a person? (I am seriously asking.)

Upon what is “personhood” based? Upon the mere possession of a human genome? Then a tumor is a person. Or is it upon some more complex understanding of how that genome comes to phenotypic expression?