A question on Abortion

[mreeed]

Ok, I think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from KomatiiteBIF. For you, life begins with the recipe itself, the instructions for creating, not the organism that the instructions are creating. God created life when he created the DNA code, the instructions for life. Perhaps our definition of life hasn't kept pace with technological advances like the 'synthetic biology' referred to in your articles.

I see what you're doing there in terms of maintaining a high view of God in the face of humans playing with DNA -- 'playing god' so to speak. But you're missing the forest for the trees here. Maybe SPF is too, though clearly they have a point there too that you are missing. Maybe the problem is we don't have enough separate words for the too-easy-to-conflate concepts we are trying to describe.

What gives life its value? What makes life worthy of protection? The one sperm and one egg are each representative of millions of others. As a group, they are worthy of protection, like when we discover the effects chemicals in our environments have on fertility, but individually it is well-nigh impossible, unless a small number are selected, such as in IVF, but that's a whole different topic. Or unless laws are passed restricting the creation or use of synthetic biology, manipulation of DNA instructions, but that is also a whole different area than the questions about abortion that we started from.

The point being that the sperm and the egg can't do much of anything on their own, but much growth and development naturally occurs when they come together. Even if we grant that the sperm and egg are life, even human life, they are incomplete life, incomplete human life, since they are missing half of the instructions they need in order to develop and mature. Kept apart, even if we could protect all sperms and eggs every day, what exactly would we accomplish? In the ridiculous extreme case, this would ultimately be the *destruction* of all life. But once sperm and egg come together, a complete human life begins, a life worthy of protection, and a life that can make use of its being protected in its natural habitat.

 

[mreeed]

Sorry SPF for miswriting your name, edited.

 

[Job 33:6]

Aside from twinning what if we look at reverse twinning? Or the formation of chimeras - A single organism made of cells from two or more genetically distinct individuals?

How could it be that conception already occurs in two twins in a single pregnant mother, but then those two individuals combine into one? Where does the other individual that isn't born, go?

 

[SPF]

The point being that the sperm and the egg can't do much of anything on their own, but much growth and development naturally occurs when they come together. Even if we grant that the sperm and egg are life, even human life, they are incomplete life, incomplete human life, since they are missing half of the instructions they need in order to develop and mature.

Its fine to refer to the sperm and egg as human life, they are alive. But what they are not is they are not a human being. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Our beginning as human beings came at conception.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, I think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from KomatiiteBIF. For you, life begins with the recipe itself, the instructions for creating, not the organism that the instructions are creating. God created life when he created the DNA code, the instructions for life. Perhaps our definition of life hasn't kept pace with technological advances like the 'synthetic biology' referred to in your articles.

I see what you're doing there in terms of maintaining a high view of God in the face of humans playing with DNA -- 'playing god' so to speak. But you're missing the forest for the trees here. Maybe SPF is too, though clearly they have a point there too that you are missing. Maybe the problem is we don't have enough separate words for the too-easy-to-conflate concepts we are trying to describe.

What gives life its value? What makes life worthy of protection? The one sperm and one egg are each representative of millions of others. As a group, they are worthy of protection, like when we discover the effects chemicals in our environments have on fertility, but individually it is well-nigh impossible, unless a small number are selected, such as in IVF, but that's a whole different topic. Or unless laws are passed restricting the creation or use of synthetic biology, manipulation of DNA instructions, but that is also a whole different area than the questions about abortion that we started from.

The point being that the sperm and the egg can't do much of anything on their own, but much growth and development naturally occurs when they come together. Even if we grant that the sperm and egg are life, even human life, they are incomplete life, incomplete human life, since they are missing half of the instructions they need in order to develop and mature. Kept apart, even if we could protect all sperms and eggs every day, what exactly would we accomplish? In the ridiculous extreme case, this would ultimately be the *destruction* of all life. But once sperm and egg come together, a complete human life begins, a life worthy of protection, and a life that can make use of its being protected in its natural habitat.

What we have in the above is the omission that life pre-exists conception. Which is to say that life doesn't begin at conception.

That's point I am trying to drive home here. It is a very significant point.

I agree that a baby deserves more protection than a fetus, which deserves more protection than an embryo, which deserves more protection than a sperm or egg.

But the point is that life doesn't begin to exist, human life even, doesn't begin to exist, at conception.

At least such a conclusion can't be made on any physical basis.

All we can really say is that the genetics from the mother and the father at conception are combined. But this doesn't say anything about creation of life. It is more about a rearrangement of physical matter.

 

[Job 33:6]

Its fine to refer to the sperm and egg as human life, they are alive. But what they are not is they are not a human being. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Our beginning as human beings came at conception.

And I would like to hear your response to the existence of chimeras.

Is it two people or one if it comes into existence after two independent instances of conception?

 

[SPF]

And I would like to hear your response to the existence of chimeras.

Is it two people or one if it comes into existence after two independent instances of conception?

Twinning and Chimera's are both easy to understand and explain once a basic, middle school level foundation of biology is laid and accepted. The problem is that you're still doubling down on dumb, ignoring 100% of every single cited biological textbook I've provided, instead opting for the tactic of "because I said so" as your alternative explanation.

So given your current level of contribution, I don't think you really even deserve a response at this point, but I'll humor you.

First, to summarize, here's what we know about the formation of human beings and how all human beings begin:

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“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)

“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

So again, we know scientifically that sperm and eggs are alive, and are things that the human body produces, they are not themselves human beings. It's at fertilization that a new organism, that did not exist prior to fertilization, now exists.

It is utterly irrefutable to say that before fertilization a zygote, which is its own unique organism, existed.

So, twinning and chimeras. Frankly, I'm shocked it took you this long to bring these two examples up.

Twinning. With fraternal twins it's easy, they each were their own fertilized egg. With identical twins, it's different (and neat). What you have in identical twinning is the "normal" fertilization process as described above. But what then happens is that at the very early stages of the zygote, it splits into two, and then each continue to develop and grow.

With twinning, you have the "normal" process that brings the first zygote into existence, and then you have a unique event occur and then the second zygote comes into existence and begins growing on its own, unique and different from the first.

With a chimera, you have two living, growing human beings and basically one of them dies. There's not much more to it than that. The one that dies is "absorbed" by the other, and its possible that through the death of the one human being that it affects in some way the growth of the other human being.

But again, this doesn't change the basic biological truths such as these, which we know you will continue to pretend don't exist:

“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)

 

[Job 33:6]

"With a chimera, you have two living, growing human beings and basically one of them dies. There's not much more to it than that. The one that dies is "absorbed" by the other, and its possible that through the death of the one human being that it affects in some way the growth of the other human being."


Dies and is absorbed? Haha. How can you say that one of these alleged human beings dies and is absorbed when their own genetic makeup is still present and developing in the fetus?

Which one died? The one that made up the left half of the adults body or the one that made up the right half?

If the genetics are what make the human being a unique individual, then if you have genetics of two individuals it just is what it is. Death involves unraveling of genetics and involves decay and destruction. This isn't death at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe I should ask this question,

How could God make one individual life out of two individual lives?

Lets say george and Sally are conceived. And both are individuals and are alive.

George dies, and Sally, Sally's "aliveness" or "life" absorbs George?

Where does George go?

If George dies, he's goes to heaven, he isn't "absorbed".

And if it's purely a matter of genetics, and sustainable self replicating cells, then George is alive and well inside Sally.

 

[SPF]

Maybe I should ask this question,

How could God make one individual life out of two individual lives?

Lets say george and Sally are conceived. And both are individuals and are alive.

George dies, and Sally, Sally's "aliveness" or "life" absorbs George?

Where does George go?

If George dies, he's goes to heaven, he isn't "absorbed".

And if it's purely a matter of genetics, and sustainable self replicating cells, then George is alive and well inside Sally.

Like I said, for someone who is still refusing to acknowledge middle school level biology, I'm not surprised this is entirely outside your capacity to understand.

Please feel free to provide resources and cited material that contradict with these: You saying "because I said so" is no longer acceptable.

“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)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“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)

“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

 

[Job 33:6]

Like I said, for someone who is still refusing to acknowledge middle school level biology, I'm not surprised this is entirely outside your capacity to understand.

Please feel free to provide resources and cited material that contradict with these: You saying "because I said so" is no longer acceptable.

“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)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“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)

“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

You just ignored my question. If George dies, he's not absorbed by Sally. Where does George go?

Does George exit out of existence?

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, I think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from KomatiiteBIF. For you, life begins with the recipe itself, the instructions for creating, not the organism that the instructions are creating. God created life when he created the DNA code, the instructions for life. Perhaps our definition of life hasn't kept pace with technological advances like the 'synthetic biology' referred to in your articles.

I see what you're doing there in terms of maintaining a high view of God in the face of humans playing with DNA -- 'playing god' so to speak. But you're missing the forest for the trees here. Maybe SPF is too, though clearly they have a point there too that you are missing. Maybe the problem is we don't have enough separate words for the too-easy-to-conflate concepts we are trying to describe.

What gives life its value? What makes life worthy of protection? The one sperm and one egg are each representative of millions of others. As a group, they are worthy of protection, like when we discover the effects chemicals in our environments have on fertility, but individually it is well-nigh impossible, unless a small number are selected, such as in IVF, but that's a whole different topic. Or unless laws are passed restricting the creation or use of synthetic biology, manipulation of DNA instructions, but that is also a whole different area than the questions about abortion that we started from.

The point being that the sperm and the egg can't do much of anything on their own, but much growth and development naturally occurs when they come together. Even if we grant that the sperm and egg are life, even human life, they are incomplete life, incomplete human life, since they are missing half of the instructions they need in order to develop and mature. Kept apart, even if we could protect all sperms and eggs every day, what exactly would we accomplish? In the ridiculous extreme case, this would ultimately be the *destruction* of all life. But once sperm and egg come together, a complete human life begins, a life worthy of protection, and a life that can make use of its being protected in its natural habitat.

Also, there cannot be such as a thing as half of life, or incomplete life. Either George is alive, or George isn't alive. We are pondering this question of when George comes into existence. Not when "physical parts of george form his arms or legs".

 

[SPF]

You just ignored my question. If George dies, he's not absorbed by Sally. Where does George go?

Does George exit out of existence?

Champ, you're the one who's been ignoring everything I've cited for the past 4 pages, pretending what all biology textbooks say as incorrect and what you say is right and more authoritative with "because I said so" as the only thing you can put up.

And you already answered your own question in your own example - George died.

 

[nolidad]

I'm so terribly sorry for your loss. I can't imagine how difficult that decision was for the two of you. God bless you both.

Thanks

 

[Job 33:6]

Champ, you're the one who's been ignoring everything I've cited for the past 4 pages, pretending what all biology textbooks say as incorrect and what you say is right and more authoritative with "because I said so" as the only thing you can put up.

And you already answered your own question in your own example - George died.

But remember, people go to heaven. They don't just disappear out of existence. George is much more than an arrangement of molecules that just ceases to exist when the molecules fall apart.

Right?

 

[nolidad]

Thank you for sharing and I'm terribly sorry for your loss.

My concept is purely hypothetical just for the sake of investigating ideas. However my mother had an immune response of some kind that nearly killed her. My scenario is hypothetical but given the complex nature of childbearing, I think it's fair to consider different possibilities.

And the scenario you described in your own personal life is the kind of idea that I think is worth considering. Abortion is a terrible thing, But ultimately the question is if there is ever a scenario in which abortion is the feasible choice. Is there ever a scenario where a choice is needed.

And maybe instead of all out bans on all types of abortions, Maybe there should be room for those 1% of extreme cases where the mother is in danger. And I just threw in other hypothetical concepts related to things like sexual assault just to add to the question of if there should be options. I have a cousin who raped a woman, she abducted her and held her at knife point. And sometimes I wonder, As a married man myself, what if my spouse were sexually assaulted and then later put in a scenario where her life was endangered by the pregnancy.

It's a fair question. And what I found from most people on this topic is that while a lot of people are opposed to abortion, It seems like even the people who are staunchly pro-life also understand that there should be room for those extreme cases. That's the impression that I get from the responses here in this topic.

opposition to abortions' amongst us staunchly pro life folks is for the general abortions which are over 99% (the life of the mother is less than 1/2 of 1% of all abortions performed) of all the baby killings done.

With the technology we now have, the health (physical not mental) of the mother can mostly be assuaged by an early C- Section before things get out of hand. Preclampsia is the usual criminal in this and now bed rest and early delivery solves that.

Given that if the situation, like ours was, is to choose one or both die then mom gets the priority because she can bear again. And usually if you have to choose one nowadays it is the baby that will normally die no matter what. It is a terrible situation to be in, but that is what I am convinced God taught us in the midst of it.

 

[SPF]

But remember, people go to heaven. They don't just disappear out of existence.

Right?

I suppose that is a theological question that you could start in another thread if you wanted. But in the meantime, why don't you go ahead and address some of the things I've said:

Please feel free to provide resources and cited material that contradict with these: You saying "because I said so" is no longer acceptable.

“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)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“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)

“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

 

[Job 33:6]

I suppose that is a theological question that you could start in another thread if you wanted. But in the meantime, why don't you go ahead and address some of the things I've said:

Please feel free to provide resources and cited material that contradict with these: You saying "because I said so" is no longer acceptable.

“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)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“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)

“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

Hold on, so you won't admit that when George dies in a physical sense, that George's spirit lives on?

Is it too difficult of a question to answer?

This is Christian Forums right? Did I somehow end up in the materialist forum by accident?

There is a gaping hole in your argument that you don't seem to want to address.

 

[nolidad]

I suppose that is a theological question that you could start in another thread if you wanted. But in the meantime, why don't you go ahead and address some of the things I've said:

Please feel free to provide resources and cited material that contradict with these: You saying "because I said so" is no longer acceptable.

“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)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“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)

“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

You have described the physical part of a new life being formed perfectly! It becomes at conception a living entity(for the pro-abort crowd) It has its DNA complete and is fully human genetically. All it needs is time to grow, just like a new born needs to grow to become and adult.

But we cannot discuss human life without the Word of God involved except for in a physical science book.

 

[Job 33:6]

You have described the physical part of a new life being formed perfectly! It becomes at conception a living entity(for the pro-abort crowd) It has its DNA complete and is fully human genetically. All it needs is time to grow, just like a new born needs to grow to become and adult.

But we cannot discuss human life without the Word of God involved except for in a physical science book.

That's exactly right.

This whole discussion, as someone rightfully pointed out maybe 100 posts ago, comes down not to when God shaped Adam of dust of the Earth, but when Adam was brought to life by the breadth of God through Adams nostrils.

There is more to life and death beyond the physical activity of molecules that make up the body.

At least from a Christian perspective. If we approach the discussion from a materialistic perspective then perhaps the physical molecules are all that life is. But that's not how we are attempting to break this one down (though we can if we want to).