Poll: do you believe life begins at conception?

[quotidianum]

Anyone with a basic understanding of biology would know life begins at conception, “beleif” has nothign to do with it.

You can only be one of two things, alive or dead. Dead things don’t grow… The zygote grows. To say life doesn’t begin at conception is to say the zygote is not alive, which is to say it is dead.

Basically, they’re saying we start life as some kind of zombie zygote, which of course is a level of stupidity on par with some kind of sea slug.

Actually, to say that “life” does not begin at conception is correct. “Life” does not begin at conception, as both ovum and sperm are invariably alive at the moment, and each have been for some time. If either were dead, conception could not occur. What happens at the moment of (human) conception is that a unique human being is formed, a creature that is 100% human, and therefore 100% a person, and a being with a soul infused by God to his or her human nature.

We don’t know when “life” begins, because everything living on this planet, including all humans, animals, plants, bacteria, have come from cells that were already alive. There are no cases in all the labouratories of the world where something that was not alive has been made “alive,” or in other words, “where life has begun.” The best scientists can do is suspend the life functions of an already living creature and prompt out of suspension, but this does not in any way mean they are “creating life.” Wood frogs that can actually freeze, and go into a state with no electrical activity, no respiration, no circulation, no signs of life at all for extended periods of time (a winter season or longer), but can then “thaw” out and start jumping around again. Did they “create life?” No: in this case, the pre-existing life functions have been suspended, and so we certainly don’t say that the frogs “came back to life.”

God started and sustains all life, no doubt. He is the auctor vitae. And God wrote the natural law, under which we and our reproductive activities fall. The obvious and huge exception to this was our Lady’s virginal conception of our Lord, wherein God placed a unique human (and divine) life within our Lady’s wound without the contribution of another person’s genetic material. Also, when Jesus resurrected other people (like Lazarus) from the dead, and when He Himself resurrected, these events truly were miraculous and beyond and regardless the natural law because in resurrecting, He reconnected the soul with the body.

The Catholic definition for “death” is that moment when the soul leaves the body. We do not know exactly when this occurs, which is why traditionally Extreme Unction has been allowed up to 3 hours after death, and today I believe it is 1 hour after death. Because of modern science and technology, we have seen surprising cases where people have been resuscitated from apparent death after ten or even twenty minutes or more without circulation and respiration, and in each of those cases where the person has been successful revived, the soul is there with the person, so we know that the soul does not (at least in every case) instantly leave the body when a person stops breathing. Though for some (saints?) it might. Our souls are very mysterious is so many ways, but when you think about it, it makes perfect sense, as there is *no time *with God, and so what is the difference between an hour and a year to Him? He’s eternal!

Please remember, then, that PERSONHOOD begins at conception, not life. The “life begins at conception” tag-line has actually hampered us in the pro-life movement, because pro-abortion people will then say such silly things such as, “Ah, well, then, by your logical, a man masturbating is the same as abortion, because those sperm are going to die!” (Of course, we Catholics know that masturbation is very wrong for other reasons that have nothing to do with abortion, which is murder) These pro-abortion people will say (correctly), that sperm are alive, so they will say (incorrectly) that it is illogical and unscientific to be pro-life because then we have to say that sperm are “human.” Obviously, they are the ones who are illogical and unscientific, because as gamete cells, sperm contain only half of the genetic material of the parent, and are not distinct creatures by any means, so it is illogical to call something that contains only half of the necessary biological material needed to create a human being a “human being” itself: its like calling a “2” a “4”. Yet there is absolutely nothing logically or scientifically distinct about an fertilized egg that would somehow qualify it as “non-human.” On the contrary, a fertilized egg is certain the product of 2 and 2, or, in other words, is a 4. A fertilized egg is 100% human, and only human—there is nothing else there but HUMAN. They try to call it “tissue,” and this argument is so easily scientifically defeated because “tissue” is somatic, and contains no unique genetic material distinct from the parent somatic cells that could possibility characterize it as an autonomous being, even when it is (like in cancer) mutative, unless these pro-abortion people are going to now claim that people reproduce asexually like single-celled bacteria, or some other nonsense like that (incidentally, even if they did claim that human somatic mutation represents asexual reproduction, they would still be totally wrong, though I wouldn’t put it past them, as “wrong” doesn’t seem like a concept in which they are very interested anyway).

But pro-abortion people are not scientific, because if they were, they would hardly be pro-abortion. Remember, now, a PERSON begins at conception, not life: life is already there!

 

[quotidianum]

Given the object you are talking about is too small to be seen with the naked eye, I would think not.

However, every life is precious no matter how its end is met.

This is the most important part of your post: “However, every life is precious no matter how its end is met.” And I agree!

But just for your knowledge, human ova are some of the biggest cells in the human body, and you can, indeed, see them without the aid of a microscope! Though they certainly are very small. Practically, it would be nearly impossible to find one during, for example, menstruation, but if you’re curious, they are about 120 micrometers in diameter. For comparison, a thick piece of human hair, like from a man’s beard, is about 120 micrometers in diameter, so if you can see little stubbles in a 5 o’clock shadow, you’d be able to see a little ovum. They are actually just a little smaller than this period (.), for most people looking at this on a standard laptop screen with standard settings. Think about that: you started out (.) this small!

Look—twins : !!

As for a fertilized ovum, or zygote (unique human being), they are not much larger because the sperm is simply so tiny, and the sperm does not add much to the diameter of the egg after entry, though it increases the mass and absolutely contributes the necessary genetic material. The zygote starts the process of mitosis, or cell division, very soon after conception, during which time the new cells each have nuclei with the chromosomes inside, which are undergoing further mitosis for more cell division. Once the zygote has attached to the uterine wall of the mother, the nutrients from the mother allow the little human’s cells to multiple even more, and therefore to gain mass, and further develop and incorporate nutrients from the mother into his/her own little body.

When you think even cursorily about this fantastic process, you must admit that it is truly amazing----just absolutely amazing! Gloria in exclesis, Deo!

 

[Buntspecht]

Through out history people have used dehumnaizing terms to describe people they want to kill by deceiving others into supporting them.

I agree that dehumanizing terms should be avoided when referring to human beings. But what constitutes a human being?

Does conception (i.e. fertilization) directly result in a human being? If yes, what happens during the development of identical twins? We all know that human beings cannot reproduce asexually, but at the very beginning of human life it is apparently possible that the organism (or whatever you want to call it) splits and results in two separate human beings each with its own soul. How do you explain that?

Best regards,
Buntspecht

 

[quotidianum]

However, the question remains whether a fertilized egg can be put on the same level as a newborn child.

As you might know, many fertilized eggs do not even implant. Even if a fertilized egg implants, it often gets lost within the first weeks of pregnancy. Many of these early miscarriages are not even recognized as such.

Best regards,
Buntspecht

Your comment about anyone’s ability to distinguish between a dog zygote and a human zygote is so utterly irrelevant that I shouldn’t even respond to it, but I will. We don’t have to distinguish it: God distinguishes. And if you’re away of any case where a human female and a human male have come together to produce a dog zygote, I’d like to hear about that one. The inclusion of that line is a strawman at best, and in indication of your flawed logic at worse.

As for the miscarriages, I actually had this very conversation with a pro-abortion person once at my college, in the open air. It was one against eight, but I held my ground. My response was quite simple: what is it to you whether a person lives 90 seconds or 90 years? We know, empirically, that some people live for 90 years after birth, and some people live for just minutes after birth. Why it is so different to say that some people like for a few seconds, or a few weeks? I know not the mind of God: I know simply not to interfere with His Majestic and omnipotent will. I am no one to judge why this person lives for 90 years and this person lives for 90 seconds: they are person’s nonetheless, and I would have to illogical, unscientific, and self-contradictory to believe otherwise.

Of course miscarriages happen: so do heart attacks, cancer, and strokes, and any other number of deaths! Do we then say, “Ah, yes, see, well, strokes happen, so it must be okay to strangle people!” Of course not…that is just illogical. There is a qualitative difference between a person meeting death by stroke at the hands of nature, and a person being strangled to death by another! There is, likewise, a qualitative difference between a person, for whatever reason, suffering an accidental or genetic or whatever death in the womb at the hands of nature, and someone else coming in there and ripping the little human to death!

Abortion is so unbelievably horrible. It is so unbelievably inhuman. And it is utterly illogical: you don’t even need to be compassionate or religious to see the ridiculousness of it. Though it is so much more than ridiculous, of course, because it is evil.

 

[neophyte]

Of course life begins at its beginning, only a fool would say otherwise.

That’s what “conception” means: the beginning.

 

[quotidianum]

I agree that dehumanizing terms should be avoided when referring to human beings. But what constitutes a human being?

Does conception (i.e. fertilization) directly result in a human being? If yes, what happens during the development of identical twins? We all know that human beings cannot reproduce asexually, but at the very beginning of human life it is apparently possible that the organism (or whatever you want to call it) splits and results in two separate human beings each with its own soul. How do you explain that?

Best regards,
Buntspecht

Yes, fertilization directly creates a unique human being. Identical, or monozygotic, twins occur when the zygote divides to form two embryos. Monozygotic twins usually share the same the same placenta, and usually have separate amniotic sacs, but sometimes they have separate placentas, and sometimes they share the same sac, and any of the possible paired permutations of these four variations are apparently possible. We don’t know why these things occur, but we know simply that they do. It does not change the characteristic of either life or soul, and I would postulate the following to explain why.

Assume that a single ovum is fertilized by a sperm cell and becomes a single zygote. In 99% of conceptions, this would continue to develop as a singleton. However, in this example, somewhere along the line, the zygote separates to form monozygotic twins. One of the current hypotheses to explain this event is that during mitosis, progenitor cells are somehow mechanically (physically) separated, but since they are progenitor cells, they each independently retain the ability to progenerate and thus simply continue where they left off, but now as they are both doing so, there are two identical individuals. Physically, there is especially no dispute that these are humans, and 100% humans, because it would be even more scientifically ludicrous to suggest that somehow the “second” zygote, which is 100% human, came from something that was somehow less than 100% or un-human. So, for sure, scientifically, identical twins actually present an even harder phenomenon to explain for pro-abortion people that single conception (which they cannot explain in their flawed ways, anyway, but even when using their illogical claims that “it is not a human,” it is impossible to explain, from their view, the existence of monozygotic twins).

As far as for the souls, we do not know how God does this, only that, as God Himself says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you…” (Jeremiah 1:5). God would surely know better than anyone else when an monozygotic division would occur. That goes without saying. As for the installation of the soul that you seem to be asking about: since the body and soul are linked, if another body was formed, as in the case of monozygotic division, then it seems perfectly logical that God would put another soul in that body, just as He did the first. We do not claim that before conception God has placed a soul in the sperm or the egg: only at conception, when that unique human is formed, is there is the MATTER (the human body) to carry the soul. Thus is the same with monozygotic division: once the progenitor cells are physically separated and producing two bodies, then there is the matter to carry another soul.

This is just my explanation, and I am not offering it as anything the Church has ever taught. I am not aware of any teaching that the Magisterium has offered on this specific matter (when a monozygotic twin receives a soul), and if I am in any way contradicting it, I will withdraw this explanation. As it is, I know St Augustine had much to write about the installation of the soul with the body, if you are curious to pursue his writings.

 

[vz71]

Maybe Pro-Choice can turn out to be a good thing – because there are some governments who force abortion – there is no choice. Who’s to say it couldn’t happen here. Leave the law on the books and fight it through the media.

How can one really be any different from the other?
So the state made the choice instead of the citizen.
In actuality, one is just as evil as the other.

Of course, state enforced is always more difficult to fight then state sanctioned.
So I can understand the view that would see one as better then the other.

But it still leaves a child dead.

 

[vz71]

Does conception (i.e. fertilization) directly result in a human being? If yes, what happens during the development of identical twins? We all know that human beings cannot reproduce asexually, but at the very beginning of human life it is apparently possible that the organism (or whatever you want to call it) splits and results in two separate human beings each with its own soul. How do you explain that?

A human being is the direct result of conception.
As to the twins argument…so what?

We cannot claim it is not human on the basis that something happened to it that most humans do not do.
I would wager 100% of what a human does inside the womb cannot be duplicated by a human outside the womb.

 

[century153]

How can one really be any different from the other?
So the state made the choice instead of the citizen.
In actuality, one is just as evil as the other.

Of course, state enforced is always more difficult to fight then state sanctioned.
So I can understand the view that would see one as better then the other.

But it still leaves a child dead.

Actually not – I saying that the choice would be for the individual carrying the child – not the government. So, if the government (as is the case in some countries) were able to pass a law such as one child per family and force abortion – this would leave no choice to the individual carrying the child. Therefore, the law on our books now would make a new law different from that one very very very difficult to be passed. If it is repealed, then the door may be open for it. Just an opinion. I am totally pro-life. I have actually been very close to someone who chose abortion and I just have a very hard time of it thinking I should have locked her up or something. Of course, I know that would not have been possible - since she has a free will and chose to do what she did.

 

[Buntspecht]

We cannot claim it is not human on the basis that something happened to it that most humans do not do.
I would wager 100% of what a human does inside the womb cannot be duplicated by a human outside the womb.

Self-replication is not just “something”. It raises unique questions directly related to the concept of the spiritual soul. Please consider the following:

Assumptions

A1. Identical twins are separate human beings that originate from the same zygote (fertilized egg).
A2. Each human being is a union of one human body and one spiritual soul.
A3. The spiritual soul of each human being is “immediately created” by God.

Implications

I1. As each identical twin is a separate human being, each identical twin has his own spiritual soul.
I2. If a zygote is a human being, it can only have one spiritual soul, because it only has one body.
I3. A human being cannot split or divide its spiritual soul, because the spiritual soul of each human being is “immediately created” by God.

Conclusion

At least one identical twin has received his spiritual soul after the zygote divided into two separate bodies. So there are basically two possibilities:

P1. Both identical twins received their spiritual soul after the zygote divided into two separate bodies.
P2. One twin received his spiritual at the time of conception, and the other one received his spiritual soul after the zygote divided.

Question

Which of the two possibilites is correct, and why?

Best regards,
Buntspecht

 

[mcteague]

I should note that when answering this poll I substitute “human life” for “life”. It might seem a semantic distinction, but it is not for me. Human life begins at birth. One can argue for the protection of the potentiality of human life. There is significant validity to that position. However, I must reject the proposition that fetuses are equal to actual persons who have been born.

 

[royal_archer]

I should note that when answering this poll I substitute “human life” for “life”. It might seem a semantic distinction, but it is not for me. Human life begins at birth. One can argue for the protection of the potentiality of human life. There is significant validity to that position. However, I must reject the proposition that fetuses are equal to actual persons who have been born.

Do you feel that other human beings in other phases of development are also unequal?

 

[mcteague]

Do you feel that other human beings in other phases of development are also unequal?

Well I would not phrase that question that way either. I do not consider pre-birth a stage of development. But to address the broader question you raise, people are not equal at each stage of their lives. We provide greater protections for children and the elderly. As we should. So accept the idea that we are not equal. But all humans who have been born have achieved some minimal equal standing.

By the way, I could hold this position regardless of my views on abortion. I might not support it, but could still believe that it is different than exposure of an infant or murder of an adult.

 

[vz71]

Self-replication is not just “something”. It raises unique questions directly related to the concept of the spiritual soul. Please consider the following:

Assumptions

A1. Identical twins are separate human beings that originate from the same zygote (fertilized egg).
A2. Each human being is a union of one human body and one spiritual soul.
A3. The spiritual soul of each human being is “immediately created” by God.

Implications

I1. As each identical twin is a separate human being, each identical twin has his own spiritual soul.
I2. If a zygote is a human being, it can only have one spiritual soul, because it only has one body.
I3. A human being cannot split or divide its spiritual soul, because the spiritual soul of each human being is “immediately created” by God.

Conclusion

At least one identical twin has received his spiritual soul after the zygote divided into two separate bodies. So there are basically two possibilities:

P1. Both identical twins received their spiritual soul after the zygote divided into two separate bodies.
P2. One twin received his spiritual at the time of conception, and the other one received his spiritual soul after the zygote divided.

Question

Which of the two possibilites is correct, and why?

In the arena of the morality of murdering the unborn, your question is of no relevence.
I would love to discuss this in a seperate thread.
But it is not germaine to the topic at hand here.

 

[vz71]

Well I would not phrase that question that way either. I do not consider pre-birth a stage of development.

You are right. At that late stage in the game it is not a question of development.
It is a question of geographic area.
Is the child located inside or outside the mother.

But to address the broader question you raise, people are not equal at each stage of their lives. We provide greater protections for children and the elderly. As we should. So accept the idea that we are not equal. But all humans who have been born have achieved some minimal equal standing.

and apparently this extends to the basic right to life?
Have I misunderstood what you are saying?

By the way, I could hold this position regardless of my views on abortion. I might not support it, but could still believe that it is different than exposure of an infant or murder of an adult.

Total effect may be different simply because of the impact to those around the person.
But in the end, a human life is extinguished.

 

[mcteague]

You are right. At that late stage in the game it is not a question of development.
It is a question of geographic area.
Is the child located inside or outside the mother.

and apparently this extends to the basic right to life?
Have I misunderstood what you are saying?

Total effect may be different simply because of the impact to those around the person.
But in the end, a human life is extinguished.

When I refer to pre-birth I mean the entire period from conception to delivery.
If I think of some story in my head, I have conceived it. If I start to write it down, I am engaged in the process of creation. But I could not refer to the conception or partially completed work as a novel. It is a different thing.
That does not mean that those things do not have value. I would not say that a thing is valueless before it is born or complete. However it is distinguishable from what is born or complete. We provide birth certificates not conception certificates.

By the way, no one thinks abortion is a good thing. The way to reduce it is to provide improved availability to adoption services, contraception, and better sex education. And to teach and encourage an ethical and moral responsibility towards the potentiality of human life. Attempting to define pre-birth as indistinguishable from post birth is a political attempt to avoid the more difficult task.

 

[vz71]

When I refer to pre-birth I mean the entire period from conception to delivery.
If I think of some story in my head, I have conceived it. If I start to write it down, I am engaged in the process of creation. But I could not refer to the conception or partially completed work as a novel. It is a different thing.

Using this train of thought though a life is not really so until it has been lived.
And then the question arises of if the person truly lived or didn’t.
It seems to me you are basing your definition of life on the experiences a person may have.
Please correct me if I am mistaken here.
It seems highly illogical.

That does not mean that those things do not have value. I would not say that a thing is valueless before it is born or complete. However it is distinguishable from what is born or complete.

As is the teen from the adult.
And the elderly from the child.
And the toddler from the baby.
You are looking at physical characteristics of the same thing.
The thing (this human life) is what is of value. Not the characteristics.

By the way, no one thinks abortion is a good thing. The way to reduce it is to provide improved availability to adoption services, contraception, and better sex education. And to teach and encourage an ethical and moral responsibility towards the potentiality of human life. Attempting to define pre-birth as indistinguishable from post birth is a political attempt to avoid the more difficult task.

Well, I have met some people that believe abortion to be a good thing.
Fortunately they are the extreme minority.
But it really is not a question of good or bad, we know it to be bad.
It is a question of the evil we will put up with. Are we willing to sit idle while this evil spreads?

Human life is human life. Whether packaged in an 80 year old man or a 2 year old…or even when the package sits inside a mother’s womb.

 

[distracted]

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.

it seems the pro-aborts think that the end of the argument is that its a woman’s body & she should always have control over her own body… not the gov’t …

but uh… if she had control… she wouldn’t have a problem, would she??

i dont mean to sound unsympathetic to a woman’s concerns when she is pregnant & doesn’t want to be… but if abortion was made illegal again, women would (Helloooooooo, all you pro-aborts!!) find another way…

because we are talking about human life, socieyt MUST find another way…

or be called Barbarian…

(not to mention those who promote abortion are endangering their salvation if they don’t repent…)

 

[distracted]

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?

i totally agree… i hope you dont think that i myself hold this belief… I am VERY pro-life… jut wondered what pro-lifers had to say aabout some of the pro-abort arguments

If i were pregnant & the Dr told me i would die if i had the child, i would tell him that my life &/or death are in God’s hands… not my own

(Even so, i woldn’t necessarily approve a law that forbade women in this situation from making a choice… but most abortions are NOT this kind of life/death decision [uh… for the mother])

 

[distracted]

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

nevertheless, the Catholic Church has always opposed abortion at any age of gestation