When does life start?

[interestedman]

So the Catholic view is that life starts at conception. Other people have different views on when its actually a human as opposed to a bunch of cells or whatever you want to call it. But if you don’t actually have sex then no life can be created at all, right? So how different is not having sex and having an abortion? The end result is the same, right?

 

[markeverett49]

So the Catholic view is that life starts at conception. Other people have different views on when its actually a human as opposed to a bunch of cells or whatever you want to call it. But if you don’t actually have sex then no life can be created at all, right? So how different is not having sex and having an abortion? The end result is the same, right?

You may seek in embryology texts and restrict yourselves to those written by secular professors who teach in secular universities and you will find that say that life begins at conception.

This link is to a handy bunch of cittations, though I urge you to find the latest, best embryology textbooks available–perhaps through inter-library loan–and satisfy yourself on this point. The reason so many bioethicists now argue that ‘one may be a human being without being a person’ is because they totally lost the argument that ‘a fetus is not a human being.’ It is, from the beginning. (That is, it was never anything other than a human being.)

Then difference in not having sex and an abortion is as follows. If you do not engage in conjugal relations, you can not become party to a pregnancy. If you have an abortion, you have ended the life of an innocent human being.

 

[JaKael02]

IF there is doubt as to when life begins, the benefit of the doubt should reside on the side of life.

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

“The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of human life.” This is a zygote. Biologically, a zygote is a human person.

 

[manualman]

Are you seriously that unable to reason?

This isn’t really even a theology question. Conception is the ONLY moment in time where there is a scientifically detectable and quantifiable change in the very essence of the organisms in question. All other moments or events merely denote a new developmental stage. But thanks to the modern comprehension of DNA compostion, conception is readily identifiable as the moment in which sperm and egg cease to be components of the respective parent bodies and become something utterly different.

Think about it. A zygote is utterly dependent on the mother for food, protection, oxygen and waste disposal, but it has its own distinct DNA from hers. Basic biology proves that it is no longer merely a part of her body.

So if this living organism is not merely a grouping of the mother’s cells, what kind of organism IS it? Chimpanzee? Dolphin? Human? DNA these days demonstrably maps the difference. It’s human. So it’s NOT part of the mother, but a separate organism and more precisely, science proves it is a separate HUMAN organism. The only argument left is “is this human organism a human PERSON?” In order to deny this human organism ‘personhood’ status, one must demonstrate an objective criteria in which the alleged ‘pre-person’ achieves personhood status. No such coherent standard has ever been proposed that stands up to scrutiny.

Lacking such a quantifiable standard, science and logic demand that we define human existence as beginning at conception. Arguments to the contrary all lack any basis in science or reason, but instead rely merely on emotional appeal based on the hardship of the mother. While an effective tactic, it’s not a rational one. Nobody agrees that a woman in dire straights with a 3 year old can kill the child to improve her lot in life, right? So why do we allow this distraction from the actual issue in the case of abortion? The basic issue at hand in abortion is what IS the fetus? Science and reason overwhelmingly provide the answer: a human being in a very early stage of development. Do we allow killing of human beings for convenience or don’t we? That’s what abortion controversies are about.

 

[JimG]

So the Catholic view is that life starts at conception. Other people have different views on when its actually a human as opposed to a bunch of cells or whatever you want to call it. But if you don’t actually have sex then no life can be created at all, right? So how different is not having sex and having an abortion? The end result is the same, right?

So will this be a defense of murder? “Your honor, if this person’s parents had not had sex, she would not be here today anyway. What’s the difference if I killed her? It’s her parents’ fault for having sex in the first place.”

 

[markeverett49]

IF there is doubt as to when life begins, the benefit of the doubt should reside on the side of life.

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

“The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of human life.” This is a zygote. Biologically, a zygote is a human person.

I agree. Robert Spitzer, SJ makes this point in his book “Ten Universal Principles” when discussing the poor reasoning of the majority opinion in the Roe v Wade decision. Justice Blackmun thought that, when in doubt, one can deny humanity to the fetus, though this the opposite of the way we normally reason in cases. When in doubt, you check it out! If you didn’t know whether a fetus were a person but agreed that it might be, you would be prudent to treat the fetus as a person because it is better to mistake a non-person for a person than to treat a person like a non-person. Even by the normal moral reasoning, Roe is a bad decision. And of course, since then, there is universal agreement (-among embryologists, anyway) that a fetus is a human being.

 

[JaKael02]

I agree. Robert Spitzer, SJ makes this point in his book “Ten Universal Principles” when discussing the poor reasoning of the majority opinion in the Roe v Wade decision. Justice Blackmun thought that, when in doubt, one can deny humanity to the fetus, though this the opposite of the way we normally reason in cases. When in doubt, you check it out! If you didn’t know whether a fetus were a person but agreed that it might be, you would be prudent to treat the fetus as a person because it is better to mistake a non-person for a person than to treat a person like a non-person. Even by the normal moral reasoning, Roe is a bad decision. And of course, since then, there is universal agreement (-among embryologists, anyway) that a fetus is a human being.

Yeah buddy!

It doesn’t seem as if their are many Pro-Abortion people on this forum. I don’t see that debate raging very often. Just my observation. But that is a good thing.

 

[fix]

So the Catholic view is that life starts at conception. Other people have different views on when its actually a human as opposed to a bunch of cells or whatever you want to call it. But if you don’t actually have sex then no life can be created at all, right? So how different is not having sex and having an abortion? The end result is the same, right?

How does any of this make sense?

 

[JaKael02]

How does any of this make sense?

Yeah no kidding, but it’s still fun to try to respond to what we think he wanted to say.

 

[johnnyjones]

A sperm is living, an egg is living. I guess people just want to make stuff up when the two meet.

 

[JaKael02]

A sperm is living, an egg is living. I guess people just want to make stuff up when the two meet.

The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body, unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity. The conceptus has a life of it’s own, on it’s own rapid pace of self-directed development.

 

[Alindawyl]

So the Catholic view is that life starts at conception. Other people have different views on when its actually a human as opposed to a bunch of cells or whatever you want to call it. But if you don’t actually have sex then no life can be created at all, right? So how different is not having sex and having an abortion? The end result is the same, right?

Wow. Just… wow. I’ve seen this line of reasoning many times before from those who attempt to justify contraception, but this is the first time I’ve seen it used in an attempt to justify abortion. It’s understandable where the misconception comes from when periodic abstinence is compared to barrier or chemical contraception, because so much emphasis is placed on the common end being sought that the means themselves are never examined on their own merits.

Not creating a life in the first place, however, doesn’t even remotely have the same “end result” as forcibly ending a life which already exists. The claim that abstinence and abortion share the same end is completely incomprehensible.

 

[johnnyjones]

The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body, unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity. The conceptus has a life of it’s own, on it’s own rapid pace of self-directed development.

They are living, no?

 

[JaKael02]

They are living, no?

Correct, I did not disagree. I should have stated I was adding an extention to your comment. Living as in active cells but not two individual humans coming together to form 1 human as a zygote.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

When the sperm breaks the egg!!!

So, I was reading earlier (I think on this site, but can’t find it again) that the mad scientists are trying to create sperm from skin. So, this prompts my mind to inquire where sperm come from (no pun intended ) I know the simple answer is from the testicals … But if we look deeper we get more questions. I know the count grows until spilled (orgasm) but what creates them??? It’s far different than a woman who is born with all her eggs. Just a curious mind throwing out endless questions and standing in awe of His Glory of life

 

[johnnyjones]

Correct, I did not disagree. I should have stated I was adding an extention to your comment. Living as in active cells but not two individual humans coming together to form 1 human as a zygote.

Two individual humans no. My point was that if two human living cells join for no other purpose but to produce a human life, how could abortion ever be justified?

 

[Don_Jackson]

When does life start?

Life starts when God gives a soul and a guardian angel to a being.

If you are looking for a concrete “when”, only God can answer that.

What many more of us should be pondering is, when does life END?

I would say (but, of course I will defer to God when it is explained), that once God grants a soul, that life never ends. After our biological demise, life will continue in blissful happiness forever, as participants in the never ending Heavenly Liturgy, or in the eternal but dark seperation from God.

Peace and all good!

 

[SonCatcher]

So the Catholic view is that life starts at conception. Other people have different views on when its actually a human as opposed to a bunch of cells or whatever you want to call it. But if you don’t actually have sex then no life can be created at all, right? So how different is not having sex and having an abortion? The end result is the same, right?

There is no end result if there is no purported chance for a beginning.

 

[Chris_Etzel]

But if you don’t actually have sex then no life can be created at all, right?
Right.

So how different is not having sex and having an abortion? The end result is the same, right?
No.
The end result of abstinence is that no life is created.
The end result of abortion is that a life is terminated.

The end desire in both of these is different also. In Abstinence, it’s “I desire to not conceive a child”. In Abortion it’s “I desire to terminate this child.”

 

[markeverett49]

The science on this is settled. Not even serious pro-choice advocates deny that a fetus is a human being. All the relevant science runs the other way. This is why so much debate now centers on the distinction between “human being” and a “person,” the claim being that only persons have rights. Ironically, the majority opinion in Roe is clear that, at least in terms of US law, a human being is a person. (Pro-choice advocates conveniently forget this, or else they never read Roe in the first place.)

It’s funny that pro-choice advocates want nominees to the Supreme Court to acknowledge the power of “stare decisis” (-precedent.) Ironically, the biggest nightmare for pro-choice advocates would be for the Supreme Court to re-visit Roe and follow Blackmun’s argument: that would force them to outlaw ALL abortions on the ground that ALL fetusus are human beings and that human beings are persons. This is why the argument is framed in terms of “women’s issues” or “women’s health”. Pay no attention to that human being (in bloody pieces) in the wastecan! Sad, sad, sad.