[_saleri_]

(Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
yawn is a member of TSR who has posted in this thread. If you actually look on page 1 of this thread, you would see that.

the world makes so much sense now

but nonetheless you have "yawnd" it off as it were, what say you to the second side of my paragraph?

[SophiaKeuning]

I don't know. This is something that always bothers me.

[littleone271]

(Original post by michaelhaych)
Have you ever had a medium-rare steak? Plenty of blood in that. I wouldn't say that it's alive.

My thoughts exactly.

[littleone271]

I personally believe that life begins at the point when the foetus would be capable of living outside the mothers body so if anything happened to the mother and the child had to be removed prematurely to save it then I think whenever that is possible that's when life actually begins.

Personally if I got pregnant I wouldn't hesitate to have an abortion but I'd make the appointment on the day I found out because we don't really know when the baby starts actually feeling and everything so I think it's better to do it sooner rather than later. I'm on the pill though and I always use condoms so it's very unlikely that I would get pregnant.

I personally don't think people who aren't ready to have children who don't agree with abortion should have sex. Even if they use contraception because it can go wrong.

[Okashira]

(Original post by yawn)
When does life begin?
Human life begins at conception; an irrefutable biological fact.
Any further debate is fruitless because not only has it been done to death, but also because it's circuitous and tends to bring in all other irrelavancies.

Hey guys. Man, this topic really heated up since I last post in it. I thought it was dead in the water soon after my last post, but I have come to find some very interesting revelation concerning it.



I have clear cut evidence that life does not in fact begin at conception! Because if it did, you will have to say Lydia Fairchild is two people living in one body. Lydia was born with two sets of DNA. These two sets of DNA came about when two fertilized egg cells fused together. So ultimately what ended up happening with this newly fused cell is that one set of DNA formed her hair, while the other set formed her teeth.




This clearly shows us that all the fertilized cell is, is nothing but information on how to form the body. Once the information is had (when the sperm penetrates the egg), it immediately goes to work. It's nothing more, nothing less.



Life comes in (I'm speaking to my brethren with this one), when God plays His part in the pregancy. Once God puts the spirit into the fetus, then it is officially alive. It's like when God breathe the breath of life in Adam, he than became a living soul. Before hand, Adam's body was there, and it wasn't decaying, however Adam wasn't officially alive until God did His thing. (Which I believe is ultimately God putting the soul and spirit into Adam)



We are taught from the Bible that life is in the blood. So once the fetus has blood (and we don't know exactly when it happens, but the fetus' heart is formed and beating by three weeks into the pregancy), surely God put the soul and spirit into him/her. So this is some research I've been doing. Again if you believe life begins at conception, everyone with two sets of DNA are actually two people living in one body.

[yawn]

(Original post by Okashira)


I have clear cut evidence that life does not in fact begin at conception! Because if it did, you will have to say Lydia Fairchild is two people living in one body. Lydia was born with two sets of DNA. These two sets of DNA came about when two fertilized egg cells fused together. So ultimately what ended up happening with this newly fused cell is that one set of DNA formed her hair, while the other set formed her teeth.

I shouldn't think that one anecdotal case that represents an anomaly (I've not heard of Lydia Fairchild...does she live in the USA, in which case most of us on TSR would not know either?) would revise the expert opinion of scientists as sourced on this thread.

You might want to have a look at some of those sources and see what happens at the moment of conception which produces human life at that point.

Life comes in (I'm speaking to my brethren with this one), when God plays His part in the pregancy. Once God puts the spirit into the fetus, then it is officially alive. It's like when God breathe the breath of life in Adam, he than became a living soul. Before hand, Adam's body was there, and it wasn't decaying, however Adam wasn't officially alive until God did His thing. (Which I believe is ultimately God putting the soul and spirit into Adam)

Well there - you are speaking from your own denomination's view only. Judaism believes that ensoulment takes place when 'quickening' occurs...normally around 16 weeks gestation. The ancient Greeks (Aristotle) believed it occurred, in the case of males, 40 days after conception and for femals, 90 days after conception. Islam claims it is between 40 and 90 days after conception (following Aristole's beliefs it seems.) Apart from your own denominations views based on their own personal interpretation of scripture, other main stream Christian denominations believe that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception, ie at the same moment as when human life begins,

[quote]“from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care.” [...] With regard to the embryo in the mother's womb, science itself highlights its autonomy, its capacity for interaction with the mother, the coordination of biological processes, the continuity of development, the growing complexity of the organism.

It is not an accumulation of biological material but rather of a new living being, dynamic and marvellously ordered, a new individual of the human species. This is what Jesus was in Mary’s womb; this is what we all were in our mother’s womb. We may say with Tertullian, an ancient Christian writer: “the one who will be a man is one already” (Apologeticum IX, 8), there is no reason not to consider him a person from conception.^"[quote]

It's irrevelant really though since science has already determined that human life begins at the moment of conception, regardless of when ensoulment occurs.

As I said from my first post on this thread, I am only contributing to confirm the experts view of when human life begins, nothing else, not even a referral to scriputral interpretation.

Thank you for quoting me as a tool to involving me further, but that's as far as I want to go because I've contributed to innumerable threads that evolve to discuss abortion and I don't want to go there again because it all comes down to semantics in the end.

[Okashira]

Lydia is not an isolated case. She is, what as known in genetic terms, a human chimera.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)



Some people are born with different eye colors for each eye, and some are born with both female and male organs (of course only one functions). These are some examples of people who were born from the result of two fertilized cells merging together. (Of course not every person who has two different sets of eye color are a human chimera)



Scientists say the zygote is life in the sense of the scientific term for life. Bacteria is alive in the scientific sense, but bacteria is not alive as we are. (They don't have blood, but they are an organism, doing what it's information is telling it to do) Trees are alive, but they are not alive in the sense we are. It's the same as the zygote. It's alive, but all it is doing is what it's information is telling it to do, which is forming the human body.


I also respect your wish not to continue this conversation.

(Original post by Apeiron)
.

(Original post by arbaaz)
.

(Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
!

(Original post by RK)
.

(Original post by boba)
.

(Original post by _saleri_)
.

(Original post by Hypocrism)
.

(Original post by SophiaKeuning)
.

(Original post by littleone271)
.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Okashira)
Lydia is not an isolated case. She is, what as known in genetic terms, a human chimera.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)



Some people are born with different eye colors for each eye, and some are born with both female and male organs (of course only one functions). These are some examples of people who were born from the result of two fertilized cells merging together. (Of course not every person who has two different sets of eye color are a human chimera)



Scientists say the zygote is life in the sense of the scientific term for life. Bacteria is alive in the scientific sense, but bacteria is not alive as we are. (They don't have blood, but they are an organism, doing what it's information is telling it to do) Trees are alive, but they are not alive in the sense we are. It's the same as the zygote. It's alive, but all it is doing is what it's information is telling it to do, which is forming the human body.


I also respect your wish not to continue this conversation.

I don't know why I was quoted, but the point about chimeras is interesting. My current module is the genetics in medicine and I wonder if we'll learn more about chimeras-they've only got a brief mention. Although we have two chimeric trees in my college.
There's a distinction between life and human life, I think - the kidney is alive, but we don't count it as something "alive" in the sense of human consciousness and function. Until a foetus has the ability to live on its own without embryonic assistance, then I don't consider it alive.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
I don't know why I was quoted, but the point about chimeras is interesting. My current module is the genetics in medicine and I wonder if we'll learn more about chimeras-they've only got a brief mention. Although we have two chimeric trees in my college.
There's a distinction between life and human life, I think - the kidney is alive, but we don't count it as something "alive" in the sense of human consciousness and function. Until a foetus has the ability to live on its own without embryonic assistance, then I don't consider it alive.

Yeah, I kind of quoted everybody. This topic was originally in the religion area, and mods I was wondering if it can go back there because I'm discussing these things from a faith point of view.


I wanted to update what I found in that most believers across the board say life begins at conception. If that is true, they would have to say people such as Lydia, is two persons in one body. (And no believer would make that argument)


Also, if we are to say science confirms the zygote is alive as we are alive, we would also have to say bacteria and trees are alive as we are. (In the sense from the faith perspective that we have souls and spirits. Believers would have to say bacteria and trees also have souls and spirits, because science only confirms the zygote to be a living organism)



I understand your views as well Hypocrism.

[rac1]

I haven't read the previous posts but i just want to say zygote onwards imo.

[Okashira]

(Original post by rac1)
I haven't read the previous posts but i just want to say zygote onwards imo.

You should read my latest three posts.

[yawn]

(Original post by Okashira)


Scientists say the zygote is life in the sense of the scientific term for life. Bacteria is alive in the scientific sense, but bacteria is not alive as we are. (They don't have blood, but they are an organism, doing what it's information is telling it to do) Trees are alive, but they are not alive in the sense we are. It's the same as the zygote. It's alive, but all it is doing is what it's information is telling it to do, which is forming the human body.

I've quoted what scientists say about life beginning at conception on post #12... in the spoiler

I also respect your wish not to continue this conversation.

Yes, I noticed that you didn't quote me to bring my attention to your response to me. It was only by noticing that there had been new posts on the thread that drew my attention to your post to me.

The command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).

So you see, for Christians, the instruction that you mention of God giving to Noah in Genesis 9:4 is only temporary in view of the New Covenant by way of the Divine Incarnation, ie Jesus Christ.

I don't think that you can, in all conscience, use your original explanation as a defence against abortion, particularly since you ask 'when does life begin?'

Edit:"One body, one brain, one soul"

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by Okashira)
The argument with abortion is basically when does life begin?

Not true. The argument about abortion is basically what rights does the women have and what rights does the foetus have? Which rights are stronger? (I do not have a strong philosophical opinion on the matter - it's not a discussion that massively interests me)

Even if the foetus is a person with fully fledged rights, it doesn't follow that abortion is impermissable. Read this famous paper:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

[yawn]

(Original post by RawJoh1)

Even if the foetus is a person with fully fledged rights, it doesn't follow that abortion is impermissable. Read this famous paper:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

Seems this matter is 'flavour of the month.'

A group of Oxford medical ethicists say that abortion is the same as killing children (according to the Telegraph's headlines) and the latter should be as permissable as the former. Bear in mind that I'm only the messenger and am not going to get involved in the discussion of rights or wrongs of the following opinion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by yawn)
Seems this matter is 'flavour of the month.'

A group of Oxford medical ethicists say that abortion is the same as killing children (according to the Telegraph's headlines) and the latter should be as permissable as the former. Bear in mind that I'm only the messenger and am not going to get involved in the discussion of rights or wrongs of the following opinion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Yes, it's a interesting perspective. Not something I've ever studied though.

It's tangential to what I wrote though. Assuming the Telegraph is reporting the work accurately (this is a large assumption - reporting of philosophy by the popular press is rarely any better than the dismal reporting of science), the authors are arguing that the foetus (and the infant) do not have a right to life.

This is different to what Thomson argues in that paper I linked to. She argues that EVEN IF the foetus has a right to life, abortion is sometimes permissable. If she's right, the moral status of the foetus is not the only desiderata. This is significant, because lots of people (including the OP in this thread) think that the moral status of the foetus is all that matters.

[FrigidSymphony]

There's an important differentiation to be made between the physiological origin of life in the biological sense, and the relevant aspect of this definition for ethical purposes. Regarding abortion, we should not be asking "when does life start", we should be asking "when does humanity start". When is a human being a human being; at what threshold is he inherently able to be said to have "rights". The biological origin is irrelevant to this end, as anyone familiar with the naturalist fallacy can tell you. There is no inherent reason why biological life should imply ethical humanity.

[Okashira]

(Original post by yawn)


I've quoted what scientists say about life beginning at conception on post #12... in the spoiler



Yes, I noticed that you didn't quote me to bring my attention to your response to me. It was only by noticing that there had been new posts on the thread that drew my attention to your post to me.

The command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).

So you see, for Christians, the instruction that you mention of God giving to Noah in Genesis 9:4 is only temporary in view of the New Covenant by way of the Divine Incarnation, ie Jesus Christ.

I don't think that you can, in all conscience, use your original explanation as a defence against abortion, particularly since you ask 'when does life begin?'

Edit:"One body, one brain, one soul"

Let me ask you, what do you mean when you say life begins at conception? Scripture points out that Adam's life didn't start until God breathed the breath of life into him. (Which he then became a living soul) So Adam's body was there, his brain was there, but until God put Adam's true essense into the body, it was just that.


Similarly, there is a point where God put's our essense into our bodies, and there is reason to believe it happens later, not at conception. If it did, again you will have to say human chimeras are two people. And if you say science confirms the zygote is alive, then you will also have to say bacteria and trees are as much alive as we are. (This means there is a difference between the scientific term for life, and life of a living soul)




Also, we are no longer bound by the law within the OT, which Jesus fulfilled for us. Yet God's command to Noah was before the law. Life is still in the blood. I mean, I guess we could drink the blood within an animal, but why would we want to do that? And again, life being in the blood is not only true to the animal, but to us as well. It was Jesus' life blood that remits all of our sin.

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
There's an important differentiation to be made between the physiological origin of life in the biological sense, and the relevant aspect of this definition for ethical purposes. Regarding abortion, we should not be asking "when does life start", we should be asking "when does humanity start". When is a human being a human being; at what threshold is he inherently able to be said to have "rights". The biological origin is irrelevant to this end, as anyone familiar with the naturalist fallacy can tell you. There is no inherent reason why biological life should imply ethical humanity.

What does the naturalistic fallacy have to do with this?

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by RawJoh1)
What does the naturalistic fallacy have to do with this?

Is and ought, no? Just because we have a biological definition does not mean we can apply that standard to an ethical context, etc.

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Is and ought, no? Just because we have a biological definition does not mean we can apply that standard to an ethical context, etc.

That's not what the naturalistic fallacy is ...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mo...ralism/#NatFal