How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?

[Homeby5]

Saint Steven said: ↑
To all topic posters on this thread:
Over twenty posts and nothing said about ProLife doctrine. Perhaps that answers my question, but the thread is still young.

I guess that explains the doctrinal vacuum on this topic. - LOL

What do you define as "doctrine". I've seen plenty of prolife doctrinal examples listed in this thread.

 

[Saint Steven]

Personally, I'm "pro-Zipper."

Yes, because pregnancy is CAUSED by unzipped men.

The legal system seem to agree with you. The divorce courts are destroying men to the benefit of supposed female innocence. (monsters and victims on all sides, I would say)

 

[Saint Steven]

What do you define as "doctrine". I've seen plenty of prolife doctrinal examples listed in this thread.

Before post #20 ???

Saint Steven said: ↑
To all topic posters on this thread:
Over twenty posts and nothing said about ProLife doctrine. Perhaps that answers my question, but the thread is still young.

I guess that explains the doctrinal vacuum on this topic. - LOL

 

[Saint Steven]

Well...John Calvin may have believed this also...but he didn't create the doctrine. It's clear throughout all of our Christian scripture. Why do you assign this concept to Calvin?

Isn't "the depravity of man' part of Calvinism?

 

[atpollard]

How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?

What possible argument could claim that it is not alive at any point after conception? “Sorry, you have something dead growing inside your body” … is that really a viable argument?

One can debate its “personhood” … but not it’s “life”.

As far as the “doctrine” … scripture is clear that God “opens” and “closes” wombs … so God regulates conception. The OT Law supported the death of a life if a woman was struck and it caused a miscarriage … God says the unborn was a person that was killed (not a parasite). God knew us before we were born … God knows people, not tissue.

I hope that helps (and you can find and read the verses for yourself).

 

[atpollard]

Well I guess that is at the core of this debate.
Blessings

Not really.
That is equivalent to arguing that people are killed in terrible auto accidents, so it must be OK for me to cave in somebody’s head with a sledgehammer (after all, that’s what a car wreck does).

It is tragic when a baby fails to reach full term.
It is evil when a person causes that to happen deliberately because they wanted to.

 

[FenderTL5]

Very informative, thanks.

I wonder which came first: run-on sentences, or run-on commandments. - LOL

Lol! In ancient koine
Greek, every sentence was a run on sentence. (No punctuation)

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Not really.
That is equivalent to arguing that people are killed in terrible auto accidents, so it must be OK for me to cave in somebody’s head with a sledgehammer (after all, that’s what a car wreck does).

It is tragic when a baby fails to reach full term.
It is evil when a person causes that to happen deliberately because they wanted to.

So who is to be blamed ?

 

[Saint Steven]

I hope that helps (and you can find and read the verses for yourself).

Be warmed and fed. (by someone else)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, because pregnancy is CAUSED by unzipped men.

The legal system seem to agree with you. The divorce courts are destroying men to the benefit of supposed female innocence. (monsters and victims on all sides, I would say)

I wouldn't say my almost glib answer is positing that pregnancy is caused by unzipped men, it's just that that's more or less where I landed with the issue in taking the entire Bible into consideration, human sexual history and for the fact that the Abortion issue was one of the prime issues I had to study in Bio-Medical Ethics some years ago.

But yeah. I'm Pro-Zippa, suckas!! Jezebels galore notwithstanding!

[And no, this comment is not directed at you, Steven.]

 

[SapphirePrincess]

Sir, a parasite is still a living thing. So, your conversation with the rancher actually affirms that the unborn child is a living thing.

I listen to everybody. I have spent a lot of time reading their literature and talking to them. This is nothing new to me. I don't think I have encountered anything new from them in at least 10 years. This is very simple elementary school science. What is the difference between Living and NonLiving?

Christian doctrine aligns with the scientific understanding of "life", anything that loses its breath, dies. The unborn baby has a spirit at all stages of development.

HELP !!!!!!!!

Recent events, in the USA, have pushed the abortion rights issue back into the arena of politics. Individual states must decide on the issue after the Supreme Court overruling of Roe vs. Wade. Correct me if I did state that properly, thanks.

My purpose is not to start a topic about politics, but doctrine. Controversial Christian doctrine. ("Prolife" doctrine)

I had a long discussion with an agnostic friend about the subject of abortion, and more specifically, when life begins. His perspective was very interesting, to say the least.

He grew up on a ranch. He has lots of experience with the birthing and weening of calves, and very successful experience with artificial insemination of cattle. If you want to know anything about bovine reproduction, he's a great source. Anyway...

I was a bit shocked when he informed me that they consider a calf fetus to be a parasite until it can be independent enough to live on its own. By "live" they mean able to walk and eat on its own. Otherwise, it's not a "viable" life.

He didn't seem to deny that "viable" life was at the end of a process of the beginning of that life, but without ongoing viability, was it really a life? His point was that viable life does not begin at conception.

I was somewhat familiar with the Prolife doctrine apologetics, having followed the church crowd with the "Life begins at conception" mantra. Was even voting that way. Basically one-issue voting. (guilty as charged)

I suppose I was a victim to a one-sided discussion on the subject. We had never taken much time to hear the other side out, or in the rare cases that we did, we fell back on the Prolife doctrinal position. We even made bumper-stickers (labels) that read: "God is Prolife".

I haven't declared myself to be ProChoice, but have pulled back into a neutral position on the issue. I can see both sides now. What to do, what to do... ???

How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?

 

[JMireles]

HELP !!!!!!!!

Recent events, in the USA, have pushed the abortion rights issue back into the arena of politics. Individual states must decide on the issue after the Supreme Court overruling of Roe vs. Wade. Correct me if I did state that properly, thanks.

My purpose is not to start a topic about politics, but doctrine. Controversial Christian doctrine. ("Prolife" doctrine)

I had a long discussion with an agnostic friend about the subject of abortion, and more specifically, when life begins. His perspective was very interesting, to say the least.

He grew up on a ranch. He has lots of experience with the birthing and weening of calves, and very successful experience with artificial insemination of cattle. If you want to know anything about bovine reproduction, he's a great source. Anyway...

I was a bit shocked when he informed me that they consider a calf fetus to be a parasite until it can be independent enough to live on its own. By "live" they mean able to walk and eat on its own. Otherwise, it's not a "viable" life.

He didn't seem to deny that "viable" life was at the end of a process of the beginning of that life, but without ongoing viability, was it really a life? His point was that viable life does not begin at conception.

I was somewhat familiar with the Prolife doctrine apologetics, having followed the church crowd with the "Life begins at conception" mantra. Was even voting that way. Basically one-issue voting. (guilty as charged)

I suppose I was a victim to a one-sided discussion on the subject. We had never taken much time to hear the other side out, or in the rare cases that we did, we fell back on the Prolife doctrinal position. We even made bumper-stickers (labels) that read: "God is Prolife".

I haven't declared myself to be ProChoice, but have pulled back into a neutral position on the issue. I can see both sides now. What to do, what to do... ???

How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?

What I'm posting here is a series of quotes and verses from Embryologists and other sources, all of which speak to when human life begins. Take from it what y'all will, but what I see is that they have taught that human life begins at fertilization for decades. In fact, they were teaching this before Roe v Wade was decided.
“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.” Dr. Bradley Patten, “Human Embryology”, 3rd Ed., 1968

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally is not a “moment”) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” -O’Rahilly and Müller, “Human Embryology and Teratology”, 3rd Ed., 2001

“There are different opinions of when an embryo becomes a human being because opinions are often affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human being from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution. The zygote is the beginning of a developing human.” Moore, Persaud, Torchia “Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects”, 10th Ed. 2019

"To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced." Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., "When do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36

"To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being." Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., "When do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36

"The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species." Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., "When do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36

"In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual." Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., "When do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36

"As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being and that that is the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development." Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., "When do Human Beings Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36

"Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25." Moore and Persaud, "The Developing Human", 1998

“Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.” David Boonin, "A Defense of Abortion"

“Why are sexism and racism wrong? Isn’t it because they pick out a surface difference (gender or skin color) and ignore the underlying similarity all of us share? We should treat women and men, African-Americans and Whites, as equal and protect them from discrimination. Why? Because they all have a human nature. But if the unborn also has that same human nature, shouldn’t we protect her as well?” Stephen Wagner, “Common Ground and Uncommon Conversations”

 

[RalphDaveWestfall]

HELP !!!!!!!!
He grew up on a ranch. He has lots of experience with the birthing and weening of calves, and very successful experience with artificial insemination of cattle. If you want to know anything about bovine reproduction, he's a great source. Anyway...

I was a bit shocked when he informed me that they consider a calf fetus to be a parasite until it can be independent enough to live on its own. By "live" they mean able to walk and eat on its own. Otherwise, it's not a "viable" life.


"

Very well true. I'm sure my recollections are localized.

I can say that I'm fairly certain non-Catholic groups didn't coalese as a unified political block on the abortion issue until Falwell's Moral Majority.. late 70s, which helped Reagan get elected the first time.

 

[RalphDaveWestfall]

"they consider a calf fetus to be a parasite until it can be independent enough to live on its own. By 'live' they mean able to walk and eat on its own. Otherwise, it's not a 'viable' life."

My father was a veterinarian and he bred cattle for milk and meat for the large family. I raised some steers myself. I also had some agriculture classes in high school. I never heard anyone saying a calf was a parasite or anything remotely similar.

This statement sounds like someone seeing current politics in something that happened in the past.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't understand your comment. I wasn't talking about killing an innocent woman but about whether a woman who got pregnant through rape should be forced by law to have the child. I said that I don't know what my view is on this.

It is usually phrased that one of these two innocent people has to die, almost exclusively the choice is for the death of the small one.

All that's clear to me in this scenario is that if the woman had an abortion it would be a tragedy of circumstance, and her decision was made to try to alleviate a tragedy already occurring.

Does the second tragedy somehow cancel the first tragedy, or are they additive. I think more often than not the tragedies are additive.

While I believe in the sanctity of life and that life starts at conception, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of men making the decision for women in these hard cases. As I say, I don't know where I stand on this issue. I don't see it as a simple question, as I realise you don't either.

Is it somehow better for women to make the decisions to kill their babies if the cases are hard to decide? Why should it be OK for ANYBODY to decide to kill an innocent person?

What if the woman had a medical condition and would die if the pregnancy continued? Should she have the child? What if that woman was your wife?

I think the basic thing is that there are TWO patients in such a situation, not just one. It is a 'both and' thing rater than an 'either or' thing. The 'either or' thinking is that one must die for the other to live.

 

[Hmm]

It is usually phrased that one of these two innocent people has to die, almost exclusively the choice is for the death of the small one.

Does the second tragedy somehow cancel the first tragedy, or are they additive. I think more often than not the tragedies are additive.

Is it somehow better for women to make the decisions to kill their babies if the cases are hard to decide? Why should it be OK for ANYBODY to decide to kill an innocent person?

I think the basic thing is that there are TWO patients in such a situation, not just one. It is a 'both and' thing rater than an 'either or' thing. The 'either or' thinking is that one must die for the other to live.

Yes, I think you're right. I've changed my mind on the rape scenario then, but I'd still allow the woman to decide if her pregnancy was genuinely life-threatening. I don't know what sort of support can be given to the raped woman though, but whatever can be done should be offered free of charge.

Thankfully these hard cases are relatively rare. I think the only way to abortions to stop or reduce abortions in a significant way is to support public policies that are proven to reduce abortion rates, such as comprehensive sex education, free and accessible contraception and good social welfare programs in general. I realise of course that the Catholic church doesn't agree with contraception but making it free and easily available to the public is not opposing that belief, I don't think, because taking it remains a matter of individual choice.

 

[atpollard]

Be warmed and fed. (by someone else)

Is "Saint Steven" really ignorant of the biblical verses referenced on God knowing us before we were born and the OT references to harm to pregnant women?

If not, then Saint Stephen is merely being pedantic.

 

[John Owen]

HELP !!!!!!!!

Recent events, in the USA, have pushed the abortion rights issue back into the arena of politics. Individual states must decide on the issue after the Supreme Court overruling of Roe vs. Wade. Correct me if I did state that properly, thanks.

My purpose is not to start a topic about politics, but doctrine. Controversial Christian doctrine. ("Prolife" doctrine)

I had a long discussion with an agnostic friend about the subject of abortion, and more specifically, when life begins. His perspective was very interesting, to say the least.

He grew up on a ranch. He has lots of experience with the birthing and weening of calves, and very successful experience with artificial insemination of cattle. If you want to know anything about bovine reproduction, he's a great source. Anyway...

I was a bit shocked when he informed me that they consider a calf fetus to be a parasite until it can be independent enough to live on its own. By "live" they mean able to walk and eat on its own. Otherwise, it's not a "viable" life.

He didn't seem to deny that "viable" life was at the end of a process of the beginning of that life, but without ongoing viability, was it really a life? His point was that viable life does not begin at conception.

I was somewhat familiar with the Prolife doctrine apologetics, having followed the church crowd with the "Life begins at conception" mantra. Was even voting that way. Basically one-issue voting. (guilty as charged)

I suppose I was a victim to a one-sided discussion on the subject. We had never taken much time to hear the other side out, or in the rare cases that we did, we fell back on the Prolife doctrinal position. We even made bumper-stickers (labels) that read: "God is Prolife".

I haven't declared myself to be ProChoice, but have pulled back into a neutral position on the issue. I can see both sides now. What to do, what to do... ???

How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?

HOw Ironclad? Most people get it from the scriptures, and they and I would say it is clear, although not a fundamental of the faith.

 

[Bobr]

HELP !!!!!!!!

Recent events, in the USA, have pushed the abortion rights issue back into the arena of politics. Individual states must decide on the issue after the Supreme Court overruling of Roe vs. Wade. Correct me if I did state that properly, thanks.

My purpose is not to start a topic about politics, but doctrine. Controversial Christian doctrine. ("Prolife" doctrine)

I had a long discussion with an agnostic friend about the subject of abortion, and more specifically, when life begins. His perspective was very interesting, to say the least.

He grew up on a ranch. He has lots of experience with the birthing and weening of calves, and very successful experience with artificial insemination of cattle. If you want to know anything about bovine reproduction, he's a great source. Anyway...

I was a bit shocked when he informed me that they consider a calf fetus to be a parasite until it can be independent enough to live on its own. By "live" they mean able to walk and eat on its own. Otherwise, it's not a "viable" life.

He didn't seem to deny that "viable" life was at the end of a process of the beginning of that life, but without ongoing viability, was it really a life? His point was that viable life does not begin at conception.

I was somewhat familiar with the Prolife doctrine apologetics, having followed the church crowd with the "Life begins at conception" mantra. Was even voting that way. Basically one-issue voting. (guilty as charged)

I suppose I was a victim to a one-sided discussion on the subject. We had never taken much time to hear the other side out, or in the rare cases that we did, we fell back on the Prolife doctrinal position. We even made bumper-stickers (labels) that read: "God is Prolife".

I haven't declared myself to be ProChoice, but have pulled back into a neutral position on the issue. I can see both sides now. What to do, what to do... ???

How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?

 

[Bobr]

The human body rejects 40 to 80% of fertilized eggs. Are they all now dead persons?