Abortion

SPF · Jan 23, 2020

NxNW said:
Suppose a woman has an abortion after fertilization, but before an identical twin forms even though it would have formed. How many humans were aborted?

One. Suppose a woman died in a car accident the day before she became pregnant. How many humans were killed?

NxNW said:
The fact that you can't conceive (heh) of an alternative reality does not mean the alternative does not exist.

The fact that you didn't answer the question and dodged it is telling.

NxNW said:
If this was 1975 and you were using the same biblical reference materials, you'd be claiming the exact opposite. If this was 1850, you'd be claiming the Bible justifies slavery. If this was 1950, you'd be claiming the Bible forbids interracial marriage.

You present yourself as intelligent, I'll let you guess as to the name of this fallacy that you continually utilize as if it somehow nullifies the content of what I'm saying.

NxNW said:
You are incorrect. The vast majority of abortions are performed before there is s fetus.

Vast is misleading. It would be more accurate to say half. "The Centers for Disease Control and other abortion data collecting agencies... generally show that 50% of abortions occur before 8 weeks of gestation"

And whether an abortion occurs before or after we call the unborn child a fetus or not has no bearing upon the fact that it's the intentional and purposeful killing of an unborn human being.

NxNW said:
The question is when it becomes a human being. We've already agreed it is not necessarily conception. Therefore it's up for debate.

Actually, it's fairly settled science at this point.

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

NxNW · Jan 23, 2020

coffee4u said:
I'm not confusing anything. God sees our yet unformed body in the womb.

Conception occurs in the fallopian tube, not in the womb. You keep ignoring that fact.

The Bible says life is precious. As far as other people are concerned, I don't control them. The Bible is against abortion.

Except the Bible isn't against abortion, and Christianity has not been against abortion for most of history.

Jeremiah 1:5

Click to expand...

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

It doesn't matter if the new life is in the fallopian tube or in the womb. God sees out yet unformed body and considers us a person.

If humans form in the womb, that means they form after conception, not at conception.

Mountainmanbob · Jan 23, 2020

NxNW said:
Except the Bible isn't against abortion, and Christianity has not been against abortion for most of history.

If humans form in the womb, that means they form after conception, not at conception.

We should not skip over the part regarding
tho shall not murder.

Watching a little baby moving around and touching their little faces while in the womb --
should guide us in the right direction.

I have attended Christian Abortion Recovery Classes. So many there carry a deep regret and wish that they would have never discarded their baby or babies. Maybe everyone should attend of of these?

M-Bob

NxNW · Jan 23, 2020

SPF said:
And whether an abortion occurs before or after we call the unborn child a fetus or not has no bearing upon the fact that it's the intentional and purposeful killing of an unborn human being.

You've presented false information and misused terminology, and you've yet to present an argument as to why a handful of cells is a human being.

Actually, it's fairly settled science at this point.

Then you should be able to present some science to support your claim. Let's see:

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

That doesn't support it.

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

That doesn't support it.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Click to expand...

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Nor that.

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

Nope.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

Nope.

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

Nope.

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

Not a single source claims a full-fledged human being exists at conception. Not science (which is using terms like "life", which is not the same thing, nor the Bible, which mentions humans forming in the womb, which is not where conception occurs. The Bible also has passages promoting abortion. Plus you have long-established biblical authorities over many decades and centuries contradicting your claim that the Bible is anti-abortion.

StephenDoxey · Jan 23, 2020

Im an Anti-Abortion as Christian cause its a great sins to kill young and innocent life.

Tinker Grey · Jan 23, 2020

StephenDoxey said:
Im an Anti-Abortion as Christian cause its a great sins to kill young and innocent life.

How about old innocent life?
Skin cells are human and are alive and as innocent as can be. Is it a sin to scratch an itch and thus detach that innocent life and kill it?

You might read the thread. It's been covered.

BTW, welcome to the boards.

SPF · Jan 23, 2020

NxNW said:
You've presented false information and misused terminology, and you've yet to present an argument as to why a handful of cells is a human being.

Simply stating that I've presented false information without actually providing the information that you believe is false is a rather empty claim. I have presented cited material from scientific sources that should have helped you understand that the current medical understanding is that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. There isn't much to disagree with at this point on that subject.

Most people who are more educated in this debate acknowledge that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization as the science demonstrates, but then try to create a distinction between a human being and a human person. They then try to argue that only human person's have moral worth and value. I'm surprised you haven't tried this yet.

NxNW said:
Not a single source claims a full-fledged human being exists at conception. Not science (which is using terms like "life", which is not the same thing, nor the Bible, which mentions humans forming in the womb, which is not where conception occurs.

The sources I provided, and I'll provide some more for you, are clear that scientifically we know at this point when a new human being comes into existence.

NxNW said:
The Bible also has passages promoting abortion. Plus you have long-established biblical authorities over many decades and centuries contradicting your claim that the Bible is anti-abortion.

Well, I don't particularly want to get into a theological debate with an atheist that disregards the Bible, but I disagree with your belief that there are passages promoting abortion, there are not. And again, you're falling victim to some pretty basic fallacies by attempting to negate my argument by saying there are other people in the past that have believed abortion is acceptable. You're doing yourself a disservice by continuing that fallacious line of reasoning.

Here is some more scientific education for you. Again, the developmental period of a human being begins at fertilization (or shortly thereafter for a twin), and continues for about 25 years. Yet at no point during our development are we not a human being. What else would we be if not a human being? You're wrong to discriminate against a human based upon their age, level of development, or place of residence.

Oh, and taking a credible scientific textbook, and saying "nope" to what they say doesn't actually make it true. What credentials do you bring to the conversation that makes what you have to say more authoritative than the actual doctors and scientists that have spoken on this? Why should I do anything but chuckle at your deep and meaningful response of "nope" to a credible citation? I'm glad you think that highly of yourself, but you'll need to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life…. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He said: “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

coffee4u · Jan 23, 2020

NxNW said:
Conception occurs in the fallopian tube, not in the womb. You keep ignoring that fact.

Semantics. It doesn't matter whether the fertilized egg is travelling down the fallopian tube or has reached the womb or has implanted. This is the unformed body.

Except the Bible isn't against abortion, and Christianity has not been against abortion for most of history.

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
The Bible says that the baby is made in the image of God.

Psalm 139:13-16
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
God has seen the body before it had a recognizable form.

Jeremiah 1:5
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
God acknowledges the personhood of the unborn.

Psalm 22:1010 From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Luke 1:41
And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
Even before birth, the unborn can have a relationship with God.

Scripture condemns murder
Exodus 20:13
13 “You shall not murder

1 John 3:11-1211 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.

Condemns the killing of the innocents/children
2 Kings
16 They forsook all the commands of the Lord their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sought omens and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.

Condemns sins against children
Matthew 18:6
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

If humans form in the womb, that means they form after conception, not at conception.

They form from the moment of conception. At this stage, they have a yet unformed body.

NxNW · Jan 23, 2020

coffee4u said:
Semantics. It doesn't matter whether the fertilized egg is travelling down the fallopian tube or has reached the womb or has implanted. This is the unformed body.

If human beings form in the womb, they can't form at conception; because conception does not occur in the womb. You'll have to pick one or the other.

Jeremiah 1:5
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
God acknowledges the personhood of the unborn.

This passage disputes your claim that human beings form in the womb.

They form from the moment of conception. At this stage, they have a yet unformed body.

Again, you keep contradicting the Bible as well as science.

NxNW · Jan 23, 2020

SPF said:
Simply stating that I've presented false information without actually providing the information that you believe is false is a rather empty claim.

Answered previously.

I have presented cited material from scientific sources that should have helped you understand that the current medical understanding is that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. There isn't much to disagree with at this point on that subject.

I'm waiting for you to produce such a source. Everything you've quoted uses terms other than 'human being' which has a unique meaning, or it makes a false claim.

Most people who are more educated in this debate acknowledge that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization

Surely you could produce something to back up this claim.

Oh, and taking a credible scientific textbook, and saying "nope" to what they say doesn't actually make it true. What credentials do you bring to the conversation that makes what you have to say more authoritative than the actual doctors and scientists that have spoken on this?

None of the doctors you're quoting actually say what you say they say.

Why should I do anything but chuckle at your deep and meaningful response of "nope" to a credible citation? I'm glad you think that highly of yourself, but you'll need to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

The 'nope' merely points out that your quoted passage says nothing about a human being coming into existence at conception (anymore than the Bible does).

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

And I've proven that this is a false statement by the simple counterexample of the identical twin or triplet, which come into existence after conception. Why should I have any confidence in a 51-year-old source which makes false claims? You yourself have agreed with me on this.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…

Human life has a totally different meaning from human being. A single skin cell is human life. And so on for the rest of your examples.

coffee4u · Jan 24, 2020

NxNW said:
If human beings form in the womb, they can't form at conception; because conception does not occur in the womb. You'll have to pick one or the other.

This is compleat nonsense. You know very well the egg is developing as it travels down the fallopian tube. Development happens in both the fallopian tubes and the womb
Stages of Development of the Fetus - Women's Health Issues - MSD Manual Consumer Version
Tiny hairlike cilia lining the fallopian tube propel the fertilized egg (zygote) through the tube toward the uterus. The cells of the zygote divide repeatedly as the zygote moves down the fallopian tube to the uterus. The zygote enters the uterus in 3 to 5 days.
In the uterus, the cells continue to divide, becoming a hollow ball of cells called a blastocyst. The blastocyst implants in the wall of the uterus about 6 days after fertilization.

This passage disputes your claim that human beings form in the womb.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
The passage is about God knowing us before we are formed in the womb.

[quotee]Again, you keep contradicting the Bible as well as science.[/QUOTE]
Why, because you said so? Where are your bible verses that show any contradiction?
Science may change, God's word does not.

coffee4u · Jan 24, 2020

NxNW said:
A single skin cell is human life. .

No it's not.

How does the outer layer of skin cells on my finger detect when I am touching an object?
The outer layer of your skin contains cells that are dead. In fact, the outermost 25 to 30 cell layers of your skin consist of dead cells that do nothing beyond providing a physical barrier that keeps water in and chemicals out.

stevevw · Jan 24, 2020

ToddNotTodd said:
I have no desire to murder, steal, rape, etc. So those "creatures" would be a lot like me. Better ever.

Not really as if a creature does not know evil to be able to murder, rape and steal then they also cannot know good to be kind, loving and generous as these are the opposite and give the evil deeds context. So therefore you would be devoid of feelings and understanding of right and wrong.

Your situation wouldn't come up in a world where no one had the desire to harm me or my family.

Neither would being good to people. Everyone would just exist like robots.

Anger without action is benign. I'm fine if someone is angry with me. I'm not fine is someone is angry at me, and then tries to murder me.

The point is emotions like anger, jealousy, revenge, greed are what cause people to kill and steal. Without them we would not have those feelings and probably would not have the capacity to over react. But we would be pretty numb and not be able to feel anything.

A person does not just decide to kill one day for no reason (motivation). Uncontrolled anger or jealousy is a symptom of a persons inability to regulate their emotions. An inability to regulate emotions usually stems from developmental problems associated with a child's upbringing such as insecure attachment to caregiver. Even anger has a negative effect on the person with the anger such as stress that can lead to health issues.

I lust but don't rape. Get angry but don't hurt people. I want what others have but don't steal. I'm not some kind of moral superhero either. I'm just a regular person. An omnipotent and omniscient god could have created nothing but people like me (and countless people like me), who have the ability to choose to do evil acts but no desire to do so.

I think our emotions are associated with many aspects of our lives. Love is a powerful emotion but there can be a fine line between love and hate which can turn to anger and murder. Jealous and angry partners/friends is the number one reason for most murders. I think if God started to put limits of our feelings we would not be free agents and the unique beings we are with many capabilities that can overcome impossible odds.

Because emotions are connected to all aspects of our sense and lives there would be big implications for us if they were limited. What you are talking about is limiting humans and almost programming them like a robot.

So once again, if there is an omnipotent and omniscient god, that god desires that we rape and murder each other more than not.

I've never heard an argument against this position that rebuts it in any convincing way.

The argument is quite simple. You cannot come up with any argument with supporting evidence that God is not all good and that he has created us as we are out of necessity. So though no one can support an argument against the position you present you cannot come up with an argument that proves your position either.

In fact if someone bothered I think they could do some research to find what the implications would be if a person lost their ability to feel strong emotions and know the difference between good and bad emotions and actions. For example there are people who do not experience emotion and they are said to have a mental disorder that diminishes their ability to be a fully functioning human being.

SPF · Jan 24, 2020

NxNW said:
Answered previously.

I'm waiting for you to produce such a source. Everything you've quoted uses terms other than 'human being' which has a unique meaning, or it makes a false claim.

Surely you could produce something to back up this claim.

None of the doctors you're quoting actually say what you say they say.

The 'nope' merely points out that your quoted passage says nothing about a human being coming into existence at conception (anymore than the Bible does).

And I've proven that this is a false statement by the simple counterexample of the identical twin or triplet, which come into existence after conception. Why should I have any confidence in a 51-year-old source which makes false claims? You yourself have agreed with me on this.

Human life has a totally different meaning from human being. A single skin cell is human life. And so on for the rest of your examples.

The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

NxNW · Jan 24, 2020

coffee4u said:
NxNW:
If human beings form in the womb, they can't form at conception; because conception does not occur in the womb. You'll have to pick one or the other.
------------
This is compleat nonsense.

If you're claiming they form in the fallopian tube, and then form again in the womb, I agree. Complete nonsense. But that appears to be your argument, not mine. I'm merely pointing out the the Bible disagrees with your claim that conception occurs in the womb.

NxNW · Jan 24, 2020

SPF said:
The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested

Human life is not the same as a human being. And I've already pointed out the obvious exception of identical twins and triplets, who clearly don't come into existence at conception.

SPF · Jan 24, 2020

NxNW said:
Human life is not the same as a human being.

You're correct, it's not. I'm glad you are are able to recognize that. The next step is for you to recognize that a zygote is a human being.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

NxNW said:

And I've already pointed out the obvious exception of identical twins and triplets, who clearly don't come into existence at conception.

Click to expand...

And I've already acknowledged this distinction. For the vast majority of human beings, they begin their existence at fertilization. For a few (identical twins), the younger twin comes into existence shortly after fertilization. But the important thing to understand is that once it comes into existence, it is just as much a human being as its twin.

NxNW · Jan 26, 2020

SPF said:
. The next step is for you to recognize that a zygote is a human being.

I do not accept that. An acorn is not an oak tree.

For the vast majority of human beings, they begin their existence at fertilization. For a few (identical twins), the younger twin comes into existence shortly after fertilization. But the important thing to understand is that once it comes into existence, it is just as much a human being as its twin.

It is just as much a human being as its twin, which is to say, not at all. There is a big difference between potential and actual.

SPF · Jan 26, 2020

NxNW said:
I do not accept that. An acorn is not an oak tree.

It is just as much a human being as its twin, which is to say, not at all. There is a big difference between potential and actual.

Well, since you continue to deny and say that all the educated and credible scientists and medical professionals and textbooks are wrong, would you care to share your authoritative and educated opinion on when a human being comes into existence?

I would love to see an objective argument for your belief that will no doubt be unsupported outside your apparent authority on this subject.

So please, enlighten me.

NxNW · Jan 26, 2020

SPF said:
Well, since you continue to deny and say that all the educated and credible scientists and medical professionals and textbooks are wrong, would you care to share your authoritative and educated opinion on when a human being comes into existence?

I never claimed they are wrong; merely that you're misrepresenting what they are saying. I've already answered your question, of course. It's when uniquely-human brainwaves come into existence, which is around five months into the pregnancy. I think Carl Sagan explained it best.

Abortion

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Goat Whisperer

Well-Known Member

Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads