Question about when life beings at conception?

[catholictiger]

let me first say i believe that it does no question about it.

Also I’ve been taught when having conversations with pro choice people that you try to get them to explain when they believe life beings. You use a method called SLED (Size, Level of Development, Enviorment, Degree of dependence) Pretty much you take what they say and compare it to someone you know isn’t human or you know is human, and you make the non human human, or the human non human, to show them how their posotion is illogical.

So lets say the unborn is to small therefore its not human. So you would say an infnant is less then a human being then an adult.

or they might say the baby is in the womb so its not human. So you would say when I change rooms my humanity changes.

and so on and so forth.

So pretty much you get them to explain what makes a human being a person, and you take their view and show how it doesn’t make sense or doesn’t work out logically.

But I think its important to have your definition of when life beings in your back pocket cause they may come back and through it on you.

so here is my question

How would you explain further then life begins at conception. Or I guess another way to ask it what characteristics do all human beings have from conception to natural death.

So far I got
Living
Comes from two human parents

Also you could bring up
living in any environment
receives nutrition (only problem with this is that IDK if a 3 day old fertlized egg if you want to call it that, recieves nuturiton. I don’t think it gets it till 6 days or so. so someone with good scientific background could tear us apart on this one claim)
You could bring up that it is replicating cells, but that would be the same as living just more indepth and IDK if old people replicate cells.

So my question again is what characteristics do all human beings have from conception till natural death?

This will be my explanation if a pro choice person asked me when I believe life began.

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The DNA of the mother is not the DNA of the zygote and vice versa.

 

[catholictiger]

The DNA of the mother is not the DNA of the zygote and vice versa.

that goes with the 2 parent thing.

 

[manualman]

I do it like this:

All parts of a human’s body have the same genetic pattern. (basic science)
The egg and sperm have half of the genetic pattern or the person and thus, remain a product of that person. They are not self replicating and are not a separate species.
A newly fertilized zygote has a unique DNA separate from that of its parents. It is demonstrably NOT a part of either parent’s body any longer.

It IS demonstrably a living organism. Thus, is is a matter of science to determine what species the organism is. Is it a monkey? An ape? Some other species? Nope, homo sapien. Human being.

So far, we’ve proven scientifically that the zygote is NOT merely a part of either parent’s body, it IS alive and it is of the species homo sapien (human).

So is it a PERSON? History is blood soaked with attempts to separate human dignity with personhood. Almost every time in history that attempts have been made to argue that a particular type of human being is lesser than another, it had been for the purpose (utlimately) of killing that class or at least oppressing them. From slavery to eugenics right up to today’s abortion phenomenon. In each of those eras, people were dazzled by the apparent non-humanity of the victim class and embraced what was later seen as horrific barbarism. Abortion is no different than what came before.

Humans are humans and possess innate dignity by right of being created in God’s image and likeness. Human dignity is NOT contingent upon usefulness, self awareness or capability. That kind of thinking is pagan at best.