Life at Conception

[rwillenborg]

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.)

The problem with your question however, is that it does not happen. It has never happened and is not possible in nature. Two giraffes have never produced a tiger. Two humans will never produce a cat.
I do, however, understand (I think) what you are trying to get at.
This might be of some assistance.
To say something is an embryo is not to say what the thing is, but is to say the stage of development that thing is in. There are horse embryos, and dog embryos and human embryos and chicken embryos. An embryo is not something different from a human. It is a particular stage of development of a human.
When people say ‘it’s not a human’ what they really MEAN is that it’s not a person. In other words, it is not yet deserving of the rights and dignities afforded the rest of us.
Human beings, in reproduction, produce only human beings. Sometimes the human being survives until birth. Sometimes it does not. That the thing is alive or dead does not change what it’s nature is or was, which is to say that it was a human being.
Have you ever seen someone hold a fertilized chicken egg up to a light? You can see this thing inside squirming and sometimes you are kind of even able to tell that it is a chicken. That, AClark, is an embryo. But it is also most certainly a chicken.
There was a confernce of abortionists in the 1960s actually who produced a document which even said as much (that a developing human in utero was most certainly a human). can’t find the link right now, though, I’ll see what I can dig up.
Also, think of it this way - you and I most certainly are human beings, and have personhood, right? Well, what has changed about you since conception?
Nothing, except that you grew.
You have been given food, water and air, and you grew, but nothing was added or subtracted from you since your conception. Does that make sense?
Now some will say ‘Then you should protect a woman’s egg when she ovulates’
What rubbish.
An egg, if allowed to live its life until its natural end, will live a few days, and then be expelled by the body. An egg, without a sperm, becomes…nothing. A sperm, without an egg, becomes, nothing. A sperm and an egg, if left to its own devices, will become a human (a living or a dead one to be sure, but most certainly a human).
here are some links with people are smarter than me:
bmei.org/jbem/volume4/num1/kreeft_human_personhood_begins_at_conception.pdf
There’s also an essay, Does Life Begin At Implantation? – by Francis J. Beckwith, that I can’t find a link to that’s also really good.
Hope this helps.
As an aside, I was pro-choice for years and years and years. It was only during my pregnancy that the hypocrisy of such a stand kicked me in the a–. Or, should I say, kicked me in the stomach. I mean honestly, here I am, saying ‘It’s not a person, it’s a clump of cells’ and I’m getting KICKED FROM THE INSIDE. So, of course, this begged the question ‘If it’s not a person, then what’s kicking me?’
I had no answer.
And there are plenty of pregnant women who STILL don’t see the nonsense of a pro-choice stand. My point is, people can shut their eyes very, very tightly.

 

[sdtouchton]

According to the Word of God, abortion is one of the worst murders a human being can commit. About abortion, the Scripture says, “In the secret place doth he murder the innocent” (Psalms 10:8). The “secret place” is the womb of a mother. Definitely, the baby is an “innocent.” No person who is fully aware of another’s total innocence normally kills that other human being. Even wild beasts such as bears will fight to the death to defend their young. But, today, man has made himself even lower than brute beasts by slaying innocent unborn babies.

God has different laws regarding different sorts of death. But He continually opposes and speaks against murder, especially murder of the innocent.

Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land and atonement cannot be made for the land on which the blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. Do not defile the land where you live. Numbers 35:33-34

If God allows a child to be conceived, then God obviously has a plan for that child. Mary’s parents didn’t know that she’d give birth to the Savior of the world, but she did. God has a plan for unborn children (Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:13-17; Gen. 4:25; Jud. 13:3-5), so to abort an unborn child is to stop a plan of God.

Proverbs 6:16-17 says that God HATES those who shed innocent blood! Deuteronomy 27:25 says, “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.”

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

“What then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him? Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:14-15)

“For You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well.” (Psalm 139:13-14)

1 Corinthians 6:12-13 – “You may say ‘I am allowed to do anything.’ But I reply, ‘Not everything is good for you.’ And even though ‘I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything…But our bodies were not made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies

But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles…" (Gal. 1: 15-16).

Isaiah 49:15: “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.”

Categories: Abortions
sdtouchton.webs.com/apps/blog/show/1752230-say-no-to-abortion-

 

[AClark]

To say something is an embryo is not to say what the thing is, but is to say the stage of development that thing is in. There are horse embryos, and dog embryos and human embryos and chicken embryos. An embryo is not something different from a human. It is a particular stage of development of a human.
When people say ‘it’s not a human’ what they really MEAN is that it’s not a person. In other words, it is not yet deserving of the rights and dignities afforded the rest of us.
Human beings, in reproduction, produce only human beings. Sometimes the human being survives until birth. Sometimes it does not. That the thing is alive or dead does not change what it’s nature is or was, which is to say that it was a human being.

So, to clarify, an embryo which results from human reproduction is a person regardless of exact genetic parameters? (This makes sense to me).

 

[StAnastasia]

If God allows a child to be conceived, then God obviously has a plan for that child.

Right. And for possibly 50% of conceptions, that plan is death through spontaneous abortion before birth. God’s ways are inscrutable.

StAnastasia

 

[Ender]

So, to clarify, an embryo which results from human reproduction is a person regardless of exact genetic parameters? (This makes sense to me).

There are really two issues here and it is good to keep them separate. That life begins at conception is no more a scientific question than whether the moon is made of green cheese. There is simply no dispute on that point.

The counter to this biological fact is that yes, a human organism begins at conception but that organism is not yet a human being - as if the term “human being” had some particular meaning. This is where the debate has ended up, given that it is no longer possible to contend that a fetus is nothing more than a blob of tissue. This is also a thoroughly disingenuous claim given that the term “human being” is an entirely meaningless construct … with a very bad history. Jews, blacks, Indians, and all sorts of other groups of people have in the past been defined as not fully human and therefore not protected by law. That didn’t work out for them any better than it is working now for the unborn who are also artificially defined as not yet human beings.

Ender

 

[Terry_from_Ypsi]

As I understand it, human beings are different from other species in that no two human beings have the same DNA, except I believe in the case of “identical twins.”

What defines a human being from conception to the end of its existence is the DNA that person has which originates at Conception. SO, how can a fetus be anything but a “growing human being” ?

24 days after conception, the fetus’ heart starts beating. The presence of a heart beat identifies a person as being alive. SO, how can aborting a “alive human being” be considered a permissible thing to do. Abortion directly physically involves 2 people, the mother and the growing human being, called a fetus, in the womb.

In Oregon, there was a law that the destruction of the egg of a bald eagle was the same as if the bald eagle had been destroyed because the potential of a bald eagle was destroyed. How can such thinking apply to birds but not to children in the womb ?

Regards,

 

[WillieWonka]

As I understand it, human beings are different from other species in that no two human beings have the same DNA, except I believe in the case of “identical twins.”

What defines a human being from conception to the end of its existence is the DNA that person has which originates at Conception. SO, how can a fetus be anything but a “growing human being” ?

24 days after conception, the fetus’ heart starts beating. The presence of a heart beat identifies a person as being alive. SO, how can aborting a “alive human being” be considered a permissible thing to do. Abortion directly physically involves 2 people, the mother and the growing human being, called a fetus, in the womb.

In Oregon, there was a law that the destruction of the egg of a bald eagle was the same as if the bald eagle had been destroyed because the potential of a bald eagle was destroyed. How can such thinking apply to birds but not to children in the womb ?

Regards,

All mammals have the characteristic of having a unique set of DNA for each individual. There is nothing special about humans. (yeah, twins…)

 

[AClark]

In Oregon, there was a law that the destruction of the egg of a bald eagle was the same as if the bald eagle had been destroyed because the potential of a bald eagle was destroyed. How can such thinking apply to birds but not to children in the womb ?

Regards,

I believe that the pro choicers agree that the embryo is a potential human life. The problem is that as it is a potential human life, not a true human life, it can be killed. I don’t think we are arguing that a baby in the womb is a potential human life, but rather the true human life it is.

 

[Magnus1981]

The only difference between us and a newly fertilized egg, is age. We all started out the same way.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.”

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “The human being must be respected-as a person-from the very first instant of his existence.”

Quotes are from Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Vitae, I. 1.

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Well, from a scientific standpoint. A fertilized egg doesn’t always require the DNA of a women. Its been experimented, by using the egg of a frog, (DNA that is in the egg is removed), and a cell (not sperm) of a adult frog. And what do you get a while later, baby frog. If DNA makes a person, then every single cell we have is a person… We need a better definition. (ps, spelling/grammer has always been bad, i study biology not writting.) Oh, and to add every single cell in the human body has the whole sequence of DNA, the only difference, is that of which genes are on, or off.

The crime of destroying the eagle egg, is the same like killing a eagle.
There is no difference a murderer kill a person who is pregnant, it counts as double murder. The whole difference is that Accourding to the law, it WAS GONNA BE A PERSON BECUASE IT WAS GOING TO BE BORN while, a abortion it wasn’t going to be a person do to the mothers choice of not letting it be born, No planned birth (the mother wants the baby to be born) = not a person. (eyes of the law not me)

Don’t use different DNA arguments, becuase well, that will create a whole quagmire, that no one wants to deal with. (Reason, if a cell in a body has even a slight mutation, then it’s considered a person with the previous arguments)

What makes a cell, a person, that should be the question.

 

[joeflow]

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!

The best argument I’ve heard is that the fertilized egg is simply the earliest STAGE of the life of a human being. Just because a newborn baby is an earlier stage in a human’s life, it doesn’t mean its less of a “human being” than an adult. So why should it be different for an embryo or zygote?

Humans go through several stages—>Zygote to Embryo to Fetus to Newborn to Infant to Toddler to Child to Teenager to Adult to “Senior Citizen”…

You could call a newborn baby a “potential teenager” if you want, but they are obviously both human. It’s no different with a fertilized egg. If the development of that egg continues on unabated, that egg is a “potential toddler” or “potential adult”, but it is ALWAYS a human being.

The same cannot be said of a sperm cell or an unfertilized egg cell. They will NEVER develop into a separate human being without meeting each other, thus forming a new human life.