- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I said potential human life, not life or potential life. Don’t waste my time posting irrelevent definitions.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There’s no such thing as potential life. There is life and non life. Basic biology.
To cite just a few examples, the American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.” (For reference, a zygote is the first stage of a human embryo.)
Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Sciencestates that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”
Rubio’s statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:
- Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”
- Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)
- Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”
Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”
- Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”
In accord with the facts above, the textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects directly states: “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” This may be controversial from a political perspective, but the sciences of embryology and genetics leave no doubt as to when human life begins.
The science of abortion: When does life begin? - Just Facts
Anyone who things that the Garden if Eden is literal is living in medieval times. It is an allegory, but much can be gleaned from it like “breath of life.”Yeah that was Adam and Eve. A couple of points.
First when were they a human fetus? They never were.
Genesis confirms in procreation human life begins with the begetting or fathering. See Genesis 5.
Secondly, I am quite happy you are joining fundamentalists in the literal interpretation of the Creation Genesis account. Especially how our parents Adam and Eve were created. I mean who would base their entire philosophy of the beginning of life on myth and legend.
Perhaps you may be familiar with the following:No, I'm not. You don't know when the Lord places a soul into an unborn baby, but you do know it is unjust to force a woman to carry a child that it the result of rape.
It is common courtesy to do so if you are responding.Am I expected to read long-winded replies?
Ok I'll add a toe=fetus to my book of arguments which need a response. At least you did not use cancer like another poster did a year ago.Your tendency to respond to reasoning by calling it "sophistry" is noted. Your personal defense against logic and reasoning is complete.
I don't think so. There's no reason to be long-winded, and sometimes someone says something that needs to be responded to.It is common courtesy to do so if you are responding.
Again how is an innocent life responsible for this alleged enslavement ? You are just using shocking rhetoric attempting an emotional response . The woman raped is a victim. Aborting the child just creates another victim and makes the woman a murderer. The rapist gets 3 meals a day and cable TV if caught and is out on good behavior in a few years ready to rape again. So if you truly want to promote justice for a rape victim, execute the rapist and not the child. No Christian moral or ethical model supports your model.Forcing a woman who is a rape victim to carry the fetus to term is indentured servitude
No it's not evil for a woman to respect innocent human life. The life in the womb is not some demon child. They have done no wrong.But it isn’t evil to force a woman to carry the fetus of her attacker to term against he
There is no such thing as a potential life theologically nor scientifically. It must be some made up secular humanistic term.The rights of a life in being trump those of a potential life.
As I have said, you are entitled to your own opinion just as I am entitled to mine.
Therefore 5 minutes before birth the child is not a viable human?A newborn, having drawn the breath of life, is functioning as a self in a way an unborn is not. It is looking around starting to draw conclusions about what it sees. It recognizes how to get the others in its life to come to its aid by crying.
Some bioethicists place the cognitive threshold at 3 months to 6 months of age. Thus you are just adding another arbitrary subjective line in the sand.The formation of self recognition and abstract thinking starts at birth, and while your argument against a full self being present has some theoretical merit, the granting of human status and human rights at birth makes a lot of sense, legally and socially. In the United States, infants have citizenship rights at birth. They can be counted in the census and they can confer tax benefits to the parents.
Well the Bible confirms we have an immaterial soul/spirit.And this argument from an unknown state of those in heaven . . . what form their self existence takes, how their thoughts are processed being completely out of our realm of knowledge . . . is proposed by a human who accuses me of using sophistry.
It's evidence there are abnormalities or anomalies. How do you draw the conclusion God cannot place a soul in any of the above? You can't. There's still a beginning for all of the above from conception of the first fertilized egg.These multiple fates possible are evidence against the "soul issued at egg fertilization" t
Ok same questions now "potential human life."You are misquoting me. Inlesscyouvfound a typo I said potential human life, not potential human.
I've used scientific terms. There is life and non life. There is no such thing as potential human life. It is either life or not. Clear enough?There you go again, counting on alternate definitions of the same word, used confusedly, to advance your thesis.
What did the fetus eat?You cannot live without the death of other life. It's what you eat. That does NOT make you a murderer.
That's quite rich.Please speak with a clearer idea of what the words mean you are using.
Good maybe you can explain the objective truth behind shades of human worth.That is obviously true. What is your problem with that?
It's your definition to reveal to us.I said potential human life, not life or potential life. Don’t waste my time posting irrelevent definitions.
I see your theological standing is on an allegory.Anyone who things that the Garden if Eden is literal is living in medieval times. It is an allegory, but much can be gleaned from it like “breath of life.”
Good maybe you can explain the objective truth behind shades of human worth.
Why are some humans made in the image and according to the likeness of God of more moral worth than others?
Allow me to answer: They are both of equal worth in God's eyes, and therefore I do not have a right to choose between them.OK. We can think of a version of the Philippa Foot's trolley problem. You have two people both facing certain death, which you personally can prevent. But you only have time to save one. You have to choose. One is a murderer and rapist who is unrepentant of his crimes and has recently been diagnosed with cancer. The other is a 10 year old girl who is well behaved and has no health issues.
Which one should you save. Is either choice morally correct? If you would chose one over the other you are making a judgement about relative human worth.
I want to spare her more suffering.
This works if two lives are at stake .OK. We can think of a version of the Philippa Foot's trolley problem. You have two people both facing certain death, which you personally can prevent. But you only have time to save one. You have to choose. One is a murderer and rapist who is unrepentant of his crimes and has recently been diagnosed with cancer. The other is a 10 year old girl who is well behaved and has no health issues.
Which one should you save. Is either choice morally correct? If you would chose one over the other you are making a judgement about relative human worth.
OK. We can think of a version of the Philippa Foot's trolley problem. You have two people both facing certain death, which you personally can prevent. But you only have time to save one. You have to choose. One is a murderer and rapist who is unrepentant of his crimes and has recently been diagnosed with cancer. The other is a 10 year old girl who is well behaved and has no health issues.
Which one should you save. Is either choice morally correct? If you would chose one over the other you are making a judgement about relative human worth.
And I have already answered that a description of how God brought into being the first human life cannot be compared with the birth of every infant since that point. The same passage that describes God breathing into Adam also talks about him being formed from the dust of the ground as a fully adult human.I restate because people keep asking me questions I have already answered.
Genesis tells us that life begins with breath. Until then it is potential life.
No. The 'evil' was the act of rape that resulted in the pregnancy. Destroying the child would merely be another evil on top of the first.But it isn’t evil to force a woman to carry the fetus of her attacker to term against her will?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?