A question on Abortion

[SPF]

That's exactly right.

I'm confused, are you changing your stance now? He was saying "that's exactly right" to the way we explain how a new human being comes into existence, which is at fertilization [typically]. So are you willing to acknowledge the cited material as accurate and correct?

“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?

It's a very simple question to answer, but it's also off topic. However, once again I'll humor you if you'll first address the cited material. If you disagree, please provide your own referenced material, your simply saying it's wrong "because I said so" is no longer satisfactory.

 

[mreeed]

We know in a sense when God blew His breath into Adam, but not when/how He's done this for humanity since, unless it just stayed somehow with the DNA.

If this verse might be applicable in finding a biblical view on this subject:
For the life of a creature is in the blood... Lev 17:11 (sacrificial context)

The development of the blood starts about day 15, heartbeat 21 days, and circulation patterns clearly established in the 4th week.
Development of Blood Vessels and Fetal Circulation | Anatomy and Physiology II

Twins happen in the first two weeks, or up to day 13 for conjoined twins.
Twinning How Does it Happen? Identical Twins

But I don't know if this makes things clearer or more fuzzy. It's ok by me if God wants to leave it a mystery when precisely a new human being comes into being in terms of the spirit He gives that has the capacity to end up in heaven. I think He does things like this sometimes to show us our hearts.

In terms of the question at hand as it relates to abortion, I think the God-given inherent worth of human life is best served by treating this issue as human beings beginning their life as a new entity at the time of conception, due to aforementioned reasons, since we don't know, and also since the realization of pregnancy may be delayed by those two weeks anyways.

 

[Job 33:6]

We know in a sense when God blew His breath into Adam, but not when/how He's done this for humanity since, unless it just stayed somehow with the DNA.

If this verse might be applicable in finding a biblical view on this subject:
For the life of a creature is in the blood... Lev 17:11 (sacrificial context)

The development of the blood starts about day 15, heartbeat 21 days, and circulation patterns clearly established in the 4th week.
Development of Blood Vessels and Fetal Circulation | Anatomy and Physiology II

Twins happen in the first two weeks, or up to day 13 for conjoined twins.
Twinning How Does it Happen? Identical Twins

But I don't know if this makes things clearer or more fuzzy. It's ok by me if God wants to leave it a mystery when precisely a new human being comes into being in terms of the spirit He gives that has the capacity to end up in heaven. I think He does things like this sometimes to show us our hearts.

In terms of the question at hand as it relates to abortion, I think the God-given inherent worth of human life is best served by treating this issue as human beings beginning their life as a new entity at the time of conception, due to aforementioned reasons, since we don't know, and also since the realization of pregnancy may be delayed by those two weeks anyways.

Well that's exactly right.

We need to be honest and say that we don't know when that breath of God enters each individual person.

Because it's not something that can be answered scientifically. It's not something defined by whether physical matter is animated or whether that matter touches or turns in certain forms.

The question of when life begins and where life goes after our physical forms die is a question that is completely independent of any scientific experiment and it's something that no biochemist can answer.

At best all we can do is look at physical matter and see when we think that it begins to resemble what we will one day call a human or a person, And we arbitrarily just go with that as what we feel is of value.

This is the reality of the situation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm confused, are you changing your stance now? He was saying "that's exactly right" to the way we explain how a new human being comes into existence, which is at fertilization [typically]. So are you willing to acknowledge the cited material as accurate and correct?

“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

It's a very simple question to answer, but it's also off topic. However, once again I'll humor you if you'll first address the cited material. If you disagree, please provide your own referenced material, your simply saying it's wrong "because I said so" is no longer satisfactory.

It isn't my fault that you don't understand that person's response to you.

 

[Job 33:6]

At some point we all make a choice and this choice isn't based on scripture it isn't based on science. Or we could say that it's loosely based on both of them but nothing is foolproof. We make a choice of when we feel it's right to start recognizing constituents that one day will make George as George an individual being. We watch those constituents and DNA go from one generation to another and we watch them combine and separate, And at some point we get to a place where we think that the constituents are starting to look more like George than they did the day prior, And without seeing anything physically enter into existence and without seeing George the spirit enter into existence, We make a personal choice of when to recognize George's existence.

 

[SPF]

It isn't my fault that you don't understand that person's response to you.

But it is your fault you still won't address middle school level biology. What do you think about these references?

“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

 

[SPF]

The question of when life begins and where life goes after our physical forms die is a question that is completely independent of any scientific experiment and it's something that no biochemist can answer.

Yes and no. Science does reveal for us when a new human being comes into existence. That's settled at this point. And of course science doesn't address (nor does it attempt to address) what happens to us when we die. Scripture informs us of that.

 

[com7fy8]

Where we are in a position of deciding between the life of the woman and the life of the non-sentient embryo of the rapist.

I don't have to decide.

And being sentient or not does not decide if it is ok to kill a human being.

If you knock me out, first, it is not then ok to kill me. So, that has nothing to do with this, I would say.

Either the unborn is a human equal to born people, or not.

I would not accept responsibility for choosing between a mother and her child. Plus, I do not think I would dictate that both have to die so we avoid directly killing one human being or the other; I mean I don't think I could accept responsibility for that choice.

If God put them with each other in the union they have, I consider I would need to keep them with each other for what God decided. However > I could take best care as I could of them together until the instant when one or the other died, then rescue the remaining person . . . if possible.

But the fact a rapist was involved would not change how I relate with the unborn baby, I would say. Evil people should not decide what we do, or have power over our choices. Or else, it is possible I am letting an evil person turn me into a killer . . . not a good idea.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes and no. Science does reveal for us when a new human being comes into existence. That's settled at this point. And of course science doesn't address (nor does it attempt to address) what happens to us when we die. Scripture informs us of that.

Once again, you're conflating when a human comes into existence with when we simply begin calling something that already exists "human".

Nothing comes into existence at conception, no more does a cookie come into existence when I pull it out of the oven.

You could say that a cookie "begins to exist" once the dough is baked, but in reality, the constituents of the cookie have existed all along and have just been reformed.

The same applies to an embryo. The constituents of the embryo exist prior to conception and are just reformed.

When I take deli ham and cheese and put it into a piece of bread, my sandwich does not "come into existence". It is just the reformation of already existing ham, cheese and bread.

When God created the earth, God did not take pre-existing constituents and reform them into a planet. He created and brought earth into existence from non-existence. This is true creation and true bringing of things into existence. Not me making a sandwich.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, when a person physically dies, when their physical body fails, their spirit goes to the afterlife. Their true identity lives on.

"George" and the existence of "George", are not constrained the the physical form of George here on Earth. George does not cease to exist upon physical death.

And just as George's existence doesn't depend on the deformation or destruction of his physical body, George's existence also doesn't depend on the formation or construction of an embryo at conception.

The existence of George is not dependent on his physical form at all, and much like Adam in the book of Genesis, who God breathed life into Adams nostrils of Adam to create Adam, God breaths life into us in a non physical or non materialist way.

See Genesis 2:7 for reference:
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV)

And only materialists or atheist naturalists can rightfully disagree.

 

[SPF]

Once again, you're conflating when a human comes into existence with when we simply begin calling something that already exists "human".

Once again you’re ignoring basic biology.

Nothing comes into existence at conception, no more does a cookie come into existence when I pull it out of the oven.

At conception a new, unique, growing and developing organism that did not previously exist, now exists. We call this new growing organism a zygote, also known as a human being at their earliest stage of development. It’s basic biology, and I’ve cited dozens of references for you.

And your cookie analogy is a false analogy.

The same applies to an embryo. The constituents of the embryo exist prior to conception and are just reformed.

Biologically incorrect. Go back to middle school and take a science class, it’ll help. At conception a new, unique organism comes into existence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Once again you’re ignoring basic biology.

At conception a new, unique, growing and developing organism that did not previously exist, now exists. We call this new growing organism a zygote, also known as a human being at their earliest stage of development. It’s basic biology, and I’ve cited dozens of references for you.

And your cookie analogy is a false analogy.

Biologically incorrect. Go back to middle school and take a science class, it’ll help. At conception a new, unique organism comes into existence.

Once again, you're conflating when a human comes into existence with when we simply begin calling something that already exists "human".

Nothing comes into existence at conception, no more does a cookie come into existence when I pull it out of the oven.

You could say that a cookie "begins to exist" once the dough is baked, but in reality, the constituents of the cookie have existed all along and have just been reformed.

The same applies to an embryo. The constituents of the embryo exist prior to conception and are just reformed.

When I take deli ham and cheese and put it into a piece of bread, my sandwich does not "come into existence". It is just the reformation of already existing ham, cheese and bread.

When God created the earth, God did not take pre-existing constituents and reform them into a planet. He created and brought earth into existence from non-existence. This is true creation and true bringing of things into existence. Not me making a sandwich.

Re-forming matter into different or new shapes is not equivelant to bringing that matter into existence.

 

[Albion]

By that reasoning, the people who say that the "organism" isn't really a human being when it's born, either, but only when it is capable of mature reasoning or able to provide its own means of survival or something else along those ridiculous lines, would have to be considered correct.

 

[Job 33:6]

By that reasoning, the people who say that the "organism" isn't really a human being when it's born, either, but only when it is capable of mature reasoning or able to provide its own means of survival or something else along those ridiculous lines, would have to be considered correct.

The existence of "George" is not dependent on his physical form at all (conception, birth, brain size etc.). According to the book of Genesis, God breathed life into the nostrils of Adam to create Adam, and to give Adam life. God breaths life into us in a non physical or non materialist way.

See Genesis 2:7 for reference:
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV)

And only materialists or atheist naturalists can rightfully disagree. It is God that creates life, not man.

 

[SPF]

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

Once again, you're conflating when a human comes into existence with when we simply begin calling something that already exists "human".

The above, basic biology citations refute your position. Again I ask, do you have anything to support your position beyond, “Because I said so”?
At conception a new, unique, growing and developing organism that did not previously exist, now exists. We call this new growing organism a zygote, also known as a human being at their earliest stage of development. It’s basic biology, and I’ve cited dozens of references for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

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

The above, basic biology citations refute your position. Again I ask, do you have anything to support your position beyond, “Because I said so”?
At conception a new, unique, growing and developing organism that did not previously exist, now exists. We call this new growing organism a zygote, also known as a human being at their earliest stage of development. It’s basic biology, and I’ve cited dozens of references for you.

Once again, you're conflating when a human comes into existence with when we simply begin calling something that already exists "human".

Nothing comes into existence at conception, no more does a cookie come into existence when I pull it out of the oven.

You could say that a cookie "begins to exist" once the dough is baked, but in reality, the constituents of the cookie have existed all along and have just been reformed.

The same applies to an embryo. The constituents of the embryo exist prior to conception and are just reformed.

When I take deli ham and cheese and put it onto a piece of bread, my sandwich does not "come into existence". It is just the reformation of already existing ham, cheese and bread.

When God created the earth, God did not take pre-existing constituents and reform them into a planet. He created and brought earth into existence from non-existence. This is true creation and true bringing of things into existence. Not me making a sandwich.

Re-forming matter into different or new shapes is not equivelant to bringing that matter into existence.

Scientifically there is the law of conservation of matter. Matter is not created nor destroyed (not by any man-made actions). Making a sandwich out of ham, cheese and bread is not equivelant to bringing a sandwich into existence.

 

[SPF]

Once again, you're conflating when a human comes into existence with when we simply begin calling something that already exists "human".

Nothing comes into existence at conception, no more does a cookie come into existence when I pull it out of the oven.

You could say that a cookie "begins to exist" once the dough is baked, but in reality, the constituents of the cookie have existed all along and have just been reformed.

The same applies to an embryo. The constituents of the embryo exist prior to conception and are just reformed.

When I take deli ham and cheese and put it onto a piece of bread, my sandwich does not "come into existence". It is just the reformation of already existing ham, cheese and bread.

When God created the earth, God did not take pre-existing constituents and reform them into a planet. He created and brought earth into existence from non-existence. This is true creation and true bringing of things into existence. Not me making a sandwich.

Re-forming matter into different or new shapes is not equivelant to bringing that matter into existence.

Scientifically there is the law of conservation of matter. Matter is not created nor destroyed (not by any man-made actions). Making a sandwich out of ham, cheese and bread is not equivelant to bringing a sandwich into existence.

Is there a reason you refuse to engage with any of the cited material I’ve presented?

Again, why should I take your opinion as more valid than the dozens of credible resources I’ve cited.

From what I can see, all you’re doing is repeating the same biological inaccuracies over and over.

 

[Job 33:6]

Is there a reason you refuse to engage with any of the cited material I’ve presented?

Again, why should I take your opinion as more valid than the dozens of credible resources I’ve cited.

From what I can see, all you’re doing is repeating the same biological inaccuracies over and over.

Your responses are with respect to rearrangement of pre existing matter. We aren't discussing rearrangement, we are discussing the creation and bringing of things into existence.

When God created the earth, God did not take pre-existing constituents and reform them into a planet. He created and brought earth into existence from non-existence. This is true creation and true bringing of things into existence.

Nothing comes into existence at conception, no more does a cookie come into existence when I pull it out of the oven.

You could say that a cookie "begins to exist" once the dough is baked, but in reality, the constituents of the cookie have existed all along and have just been reformed.

The same applies to an embryo. The constituents of the embryo exist prior to conception and are just reformed.

When I take deli ham and cheese and put it onto a piece of bread, my sandwich does not "come into existence". It is just the reformation of already existing ham, cheese and bread.

Re-forming matter into different or new shapes is not equivelant to bringing that matter into existence.

Scientifically there is the law of conservation of matter. Matter is not created nor destroyed (not by any man-made actions). Making a sandwich out of ham, cheese and bread is not equivelant to bringing a sandwich into existence.

 

[Job 33:6]

"“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”"

Yes, and when I make a ham and cheese sandwich, my sandwich is unique, unlike any other sandwich in all of existence.

But I did not bring this sandwich into existence, I simply rearranged pre existing ham, cheese and bread and made the personal choice to call it a sandwich for ease of conversation.

We God creates, he doesn't simply rearrange pre existing entities. When God created the heavens and the earth, He did not rearrange pre existing matter. And when creating Adam, he didnt merely rearrange dust of the earth.

Genesis 2:7

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God went further and brought life to Adam by breathing the breadth of life into Adams nostrils. Not merely by rearranging dust.

 

[SPF]

Before fertilization, you and I, as growing and developing human beings didn’t exist.

You were not a sperm or an egg. Your life as a human being began at fertilization. This is basic biology and has not really been debated for decades.