Poll: do you believe life begins at conception?

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

my own answers???

I already know perfectly well what i believe… no, KNOW about this topic. I know that life begins at conception & no man has a right to destroy human life which created in God’s image.

i belive in cap punishment because that is instituted to protect the law-abiding from murderers.

i wanted to see if ppl on these forums were radically different from others i have met elsewhere who argue that life begins… at some arbitrary point in existence… or whatever…

In that case I am pleased.

 

[century153]

The more important question, methinks, is does “human-ness” begin at conception. That is where the disagreement with Catholic theology lies.

Humaness???// As opposed to what? Animalness? Algaeness?

 

[Junebug999]

Noted.
In fact, I noticed the definition change shortly before ‘new’ contraceptive pills came out that supposedly were pro-life as they ‘prevented conception’ rather then killed an embryo.

Yes, and as a teen, I fell in this trap hook line and sinker, and the results have been pretty awful…except for the grace of God in my life. God have mercy on us and on our nation.

 

[century153]

my own answers???

I already know perfectly well what i believe… no, KNOW about this topic. I know that life begins at conception & no man has a right to destroy human life which created in God’s image.

i belive in cap punishment because that is instituted to protect the law-abiding from murderers.

i wanted to see if ppl on these forums were radically different from others i have met elsewhere who argue that life begins… at some arbitrary point in existence… or whatever…

There ARE prisons…all life is sacred.

 

[distracted]

There ARE prisons…all life is sacred.

***does a prisoner’s life cease to be sacred after he is executed?? ***

 

[Jenny4Him]

This may seem like an odd question but i have heard many people lately claim that life begins… uh… they don’t say, but they insist it does not begin at conception.

True, most of these ppl are Atheists… but some are Christians…

just wondering

Since the very moment that one cell divides into another cell; this is Scientific proof of life. Therefore life begins even before the first cell divides to make more than one cell.

 

[vz71]

In the mid 50s when the IUD was developed the pharmeseutical companies launched a huge marketing campaign claiming life did not begin until implantation(which the IUD prevents) They were largely sucessful-you will even see many claim this toady.

The myth continues today.
I have found more then one doctor using that definition.

 

[estesbob]

The myth continues today.
I have found more then one doctor using that definition.

I’m out of town I don’t have my reference books available but they made no secret at the time that they’re going to need to change the definition of conception in order to get the device accept that. It was a pretty shifty definition-not trying to change the definition of when life begins but trying to change the definition of what constitutes conception. By claiming conception did not begin until implantation they got around many state laws forbidding contraception.

 

[teachccd]

I voted yes but here are some reasons I could have voted no.

Life begins prior to conception it is with conception that the unique new human is created. but this creation is the merger of three components which (at least two) were alive prior to conception (egg, sperm, soul). (worth a trinity analogy discussion)

It would only be two since the soul does not exist prior to conception. The Mormons would say that it does…

 

[GratefulFred]

SCIENCE of life: The fertilized egg, at the moment of conception, contains ALL the DNA and chromosomes of a SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.

Separate from the mother, separate from the father. Yes, this new life is alive and growing, the heart beats in about 6 weeks, and totally dependent on the mother for upward to 40 weeks. But, it is alive and it is growing, and it is human.

Also very important is that this new human life, and the mother who carries and nutures it, should also depend on the father who created it. Too little is ever said about the man’s responsibilities. Women should not be left alone in any pregnancy. Men, if they are true men, should protect and provide for their woman and children, womb to tomb.

Engaging in the “yes, but” argument is to ignore the essential fact: A pregnant woman is carrying new life.

“Yes, but” is an attempt to say that new life is not as important as something else. When one type of life is not important to a society, then it becomes much easier to assert that other types of life are also not important.

To fight abortion we need to teach that all life is a gift from God and thus important and worth defending, womb to tomb. That teaching should be backed up by also clearly teaching the science of life. When men and women understand both aspects, they will not want to opt for abortion.

 

[distracted]

SCIENCE of life: The fertilized egg, at the moment of conception, contains ALL the DNA and chromosomes of a SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.

Separate from the mother, separate from the father. Yes, this new life is alive and growing, the heart beats in about 6 weeks, and totally dependent on the mother for upward to 40 weeks. But, it is alive and it is growing, and it is human.

.

for some ppl, it should be necessary to say that the heart was THERE b4 it started beating… cuz the way you have said it… while accurate… implies that the being didn’t have a heart b4 the 6th wk…

just thought i would say this cuz pro-aborts like to point out such things…

 

[centurionguard]

This may seem like an odd question but i have heard many people lately claim that life begins… uh… they don’t say, but they insist it does not begin at conception.

True, most of these ppl are Atheists… but some are Christians…

just wondering

Undoubtedly Yes. We walk by Faith not by sight nor by affirmations of human science.
Faith tells us Life begins at the very nanosecond of conception.

Any Catholic who relies solely on human science to ultimately prove that Human Life begins at Conception is much like Doubting Saint Thomas who said (" I shall not believe until I see and touch the nail holes of my Master’s hands, feet and side).

Blessed are they that believe but have not seen.
So shall it be in the majority of Gods mysteries in creation.

**Isaiah
Chapter 49: 15-16

15
Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget, I will never forget you.
16
7 See, upon the palms of my hands I have written your name; your walls are ever before me.**

 

[Viki63]

---

Anyway, what do you say to the person who says "That’s your religious belief. Don’t shove it off on me & force me to live by it??"***

We could say, we force each other to live by religious principles all the time: it’s wrong to steal, to injure someone’s reputation, to sleep with another person’s spouse. Some of these are illegal, some are legal (I believe adultery is not punishable by law) but we know they are wrong.
The same way, abortion is wrong and pregnant women should be provided all the information and support they need to carry their babies to term.

 

[vz71]

Undoubtedly Yes. We walk by Faith not by sight nor by affirmations of human science.
Faith tells us Life begins at the very nanosecond of conception.

Any Catholic who relies solely on human science to ultimately prove that Human Life begins at Conception is much like Doubting Saint Thomas who said (" I shall not believe until I see and touch the nail holes of my Master’s hands, feet and side).

Blessed are they that believe but have not seen.
So shall it be in the majority of Gods mysteries in creation.

The people we need to reach are doubting.
Prayer is indeed our best tool. For only God can change a heart.
But it is science that will provide the convincing evidence.

When confronted by the doubt of St Thomas, our Lord did not respond with an appeal toward faith; he responded with hard science.

 

[GratefulFred]

I would encourge readers to google “fetal development week by week.” There are a number of sites that explain the growth of life from conception.

For me, science is HOW God creates. As we come to understand Science better and realize that science does not conflict with God’s Teaching, we should then come to believe in God better.

Thinking of the adage, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,” I would think it better to fight abortion not with horrid pictures of aborted babies but with loving pictures of how a baby develops after conception.

 

[royal_archer]

Anyway, what do you say to the person who says "That’s your religious belief. Don’t shove it off on me & force me to live by it??"

Isn’t welfare the result of forcing a religious belief on others? If I can be forced to give large amounts of my money to someone whom I never met to help them get a new car, buy food or have better housing, then why can’t the same logic be applied to forcing a mother to contribute the minimum needed to keep her own baby alive?

 

[Buntspecht]

Undoubtedly Yes. We walk by Faith not by sight nor by affirmations of human science.
Faith tells us Life begins at the very nanosecond of conception.

But without science you would not even know what conception is.

Today’s concept of conception (unification of egg cell and sperm cell) is a result of scientific analysis.

The egg cell was discovered in 1792 by scientist Karl Ernst von Baer. Before that point of time, people thought that the male semen already contains a complete human seed, and the female body only acts as a kind of greenhouse.

So the concept of conception that today’s church refers to is actually a scientific concept.

Best regards,
Buntspecht

 

[vz71]

***does a prisoner’s life cease to be sacred after he is executed?? ***

A prisoner’s life ceases after execution.

 

[vz71]

what do you say to the person who says "That’s your religious belief. Don’t shove it off on me & force me to live by it??"

Isn’t welfare the result of forcing a religious belief on others?

I am not certain that would be the best approach.
Welfare has been around for several decades now and many are not at all convinced it based upon any religious belief. So this logic would not get any credibility there.
Among those that would be convinced of that connection, the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right.” comes to mind.

How about simply following the logic of the laws as written.
The law covers murder quite well.
The science proves the fertilized egg to be a human life.

We need to petition our law makers to insure this life is not overlooked by the laws currently on the books.

 

[centurionguard]

But without science you would not even know what conception is.

Today’s concept of conception (unification of egg cell and sperm cell) is a result of scientific analysis.

The egg cell was discovered in 1792 by scientist Karl Ernst von Baer. Before that point of time, people thought that the male semen already contains a complete human seed, and the female body only acts as a kind of greenhouse.

So the concept of conception that today’s church refers to is actually a scientific concept.

Best regards,
Buntspecht

But without science you would not even know what conception is.

With all due respect; No woman who becomes pregnant needs human science to know within herself and her physical time clock, that she has become a mother who has conceived with child. This is an inborn instinct not only amongst human females but amongst the animal world too.

Peace
Chris