Is God Pro-choice? (A debate on conception)

[Aimee30]

I was told that life begins at conception, but is it true? Whereas, a fertilized egg marks the beginning of potential for life, it seems many fertilized eggs are rejected before they implant themselves in the walls of a uterus. See link below under the heading, II. General Concepts, then B. Philosophical views on the "nature" and status of an embryo, then read "Basis of the assumptions" and pay attention to the part under, "Philosophical arguments based on "potentiality"": http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_Affairs/Legal_co-operation/Bioethics/Activities/Human_embryo_and_foetus/GT3(2003)13E%20final%20public%20report%20embryo.asp
So, if fertilized eggs do not always implant themselves in the uterine wall, and supposedly this is the time the soul and spirit are received in this potential baby, if this/or some fertilized egg(s) do not implant themselves, why are the soul and spirit put into them at this time? Wouldn't it make more sense if the soul and spirit are received once it's implanted or is God basically pro-choice? Basically meaning, he decided the fertilized eggs or other eggs life/lives weren't worth living or something of that nature.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

In all honesty, I can't speak for the Lord, only for myself. It's a good question. Two thumbs up.

 

[Letalis]

Do you make the choice or does God make the choice? God is pro-choice in that He decides who lives and dies, but I see no evidence to suggest that he has given you the option to decide who lives and dies.​

 

[trunks2k]

Do you make the choice or does God make the choice? God is pro-choice in that He decides who lives and dies, but I see no evidence to suggest that he has given you the option to decide who lives and dies.​

Medicine and weapons give us the decision. We decide who lives and who dies all the time.

 

[Letalis]

Medicine and weapons give us the decision. We decide who lives and who dies all the time.

Yes, because free will gives us the choice to do good and bad. But to Christians, we are not given that choice. We must choose good, or we will go to Hell.

 

[trunks2k]

Yes, because free will gives us the choice to do good and bad. But to Christians, we are not given that choice. We must choose good, or we will go to Hell.

Choice implies an option. We obviously have the option to decide who lives and who dies, at least to a large extent (we have more control over who gets to die). We can kill everyone on this planet in a couple minutes with the push of a button.

So your initial premise is wrong. We do have a large amount of power in the decision of who lives and who dies. Sure, it's not absolute, but it's pretty darn strong.

 

[Letalis]

Choice implies an option. We obviously have the option to decide who lives and who dies, at least to a large extent (we have more control over who gets to die). We can kill everyone on this planet in a couple minutes with the push of a button.

So your initial premise is wrong. We do have a large amount of power in the decision of who lives and who dies. Sure, it's not absolute, but it's pretty darn strong.

Alright, but that wasn't my point. You seem to have gone off on a tangent. Yes, we have the choice to kill anyone, but I'm speaking of a choice that is within the Law of God.

 

[flicka]

Yes, because free will gives us the choice to do good and bad. But to Christians, we are not given that choice. We must choose good, or we will go to Hell.

Not to get too off topic here but do you honestly believe that if you make a bad choice you will go to hell? Isn't that kind of a scary way to live?

 

[Letalis]

Not to get too off topic here but do you honestly believe that if you make a bad choice you will go to hell? Isn't that kind of a scary way to live?

I'm speaking in general. If you choose evil (overall) you will go to Hell. I think when we make a bad choice, we will be forgiven if we are truly sorry and repent.

 

[loriersea]

Yes, because free will gives us the choice to do good and bad. But to Christians, we are not given that choice. We must choose good, or we will go to Hell.

But Christians make decisions about life and death every day. What if it was God's will that someone was to die, but we intervene with medication, and they live? Would that be a bad choice? What if it was God's will that someone was to live, but we voted for a President who led us into a war that killed that person? Would that be a bad choice? Would we go to hell for those choices?

I think the OP brings up a very valid point. If a fertilized egg is a baby, then why do more than 3/4 of them fail to implant? Why do around 1/3 of those that do implant end up sponaneously aborting (i.e., miscarrying)? If God believes that life begins at fertilization, as people who are in favor of illegal abortion often argue, then why does God allow the majority of fertilized eggs to be passed out of the body without anyone knowing? When people lose a child, they are consumed with grief. When a pregnancy is miscarried in the first couple of weeks, generally people don't even notice. We could argue, I suppose, that God is grieving, but if God really grieves the loss of pregnancies in the early stages, why does God allow the majority of fertilized eggs to not develop into viable pregnancies? Because God enjoys grieving? Or because it is not God's plan that every fertilized egg or implanted embryo become a person? Since abortion has been around since unwanted pregnancies have been around, how do we know that abortion isn't also part of God's plan? That doesn't mean that every abortion is part of God's will, but there really is no basis for assuming that at least some elective abortions are not as much a part of God's plan as spontaneous abortions are.

 

[DieHappy]

I'll say it again:
There is no proof that conceptions fail before they are detectable to a pregnancy test. This question is based on a guess of how many embryos don't implant, but there is no proof that less than 100% of them do.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Yes, because free will gives us the choice to do good and bad. But to Christians, we are not given that choice. We must choose good, or we will go to Hell.

I'll let Scripture speak for itself:

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Romans 8:38-39 (NIV)

I was told that life begins at conception, but is it true?

I don't know. Scripture does not answer that question. I personally do not believe that life begins at conception in God's eyes.

Diane

 

[Uphill Battle]

Medicine and weapons give us the decision. We decide who lives and who dies all the time.

ability to decide, and right to decide are very different.

 

[invisible trousers]

I'll say it again:
There is no proof that conceptions fail before they are detectable to a pregnancy test. This question is based on a guess of how many embryos don't implant, but there is no proof that less than 100% of them do.

Yeaahhh so could you prove this negative?

I think the only thing I can gather from this is that God really isn't a big fan of pregnancies.

 

[Tangnefedd]

Contraception is moral, not using it when you don't want a baby isn't imo!

 

[ebia]

Yes, because free will gives us the choice to do good and bad. But to Christians, we are not given that choice.

Very often we don't have a choice between good and bad, but instead between bad or other bad.

We must choose good, or we will go to Hell

That's the worst reason in the world for choosing good.

I'll say it again:
There is no proof that conceptions fail before they are detectable to a pregnancy test. This question is based on a guess of how many embryos don't implant, but there is no proof that less than 100% of them do.

Expert medical opinion is that the majority of conceptions fail before they are ever detected, so you'd better have some real evidence that this is not the case beyond your wish for it not to be the case.

Just in case someone will actually answer it this time, because no-one ever has when I've asked it on other threads:

• If life begins at the moment of conception, how does one person suddenly become two people (identical twins)?

 

[gladiatrix]

I'll say it again:

There is no proof that conceptions fail before they are detectable to a pregnancy test. This question is based on a guess of how many embryos don't implant, but there is no proof that less than 100% of them do.

And your evidence to support this assertion would be WHAT? All of the data, using animal models and humans contradicts your assertion. All we ever get from you is a lot of handwaving like the above (Example HERE and Example HERE). Even antichoicers don't go so far as to deny the data ( EXAMPLE).

All you do is assert your claim, but NEVER once, give any evidence as to why we should discard the data, collected for decades, that show beyond a reasonable doubt, that most conceptions fail.

More that shows your claim to be erroneous:

Medscape

Spontaneous abortion is the most common complication of pregnancy and is responsible for significant emotional distress to couples desiring children. Approximately 70% of human conceptions fail to achieve viability, and an estimated 50% are lost before the first missed menstrual period. Most of these pregnancy losses are unrecognized. Studies using sensitive assays for human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) have indicated that the actual rate of pregnancy loss after implantation is 31%. In pregnancies that are clinically recognized, loss occurs in 15% prior to 20 weeks of gestation (from last menstrual period).

Survival Probability of HumanConceptions from Fertilization to Term (pdf)

ABSTRACT: Preterm death of the human conceptus is common. A consistent biphasic pattern in the rate of loss from biochemical pregnancy detection to term suggest that most wastages occurs prior to clinical recognition. After simple adjustments for varying methods, existing data show that at least 73% of natural single conceptions have no real chance of surviving 6 weeks of gestation. Of the remainder 90% will survive to term. IVF conceptions do nearly as well as natural pregnancies after clinical recognition, but poorly before, despite selecting apparently normal embryos for transfer. Reasons may lie I the uterus mort than the embryo itself. Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions, of which number about 2% survive to term as twins and about 12% as single births. In all of these situations, simple equations for exponential decay in a mixture of two populations can accurately describe the distribution of these deaths in time.

The above file references NUMEROUS experiments on this topic as well as presenting the data from these experiments. Your only option is to pretend these just don't exists.


Pregnancy Loss

Early pregnancy is also the time for early miscarriage. Over 75 percent of conceptions fail to establish healthy pregnancies. The fertilized egg is simply lost in a menstruation that may be a little heavierbut not sufficiently so to raise suspicions. Of recognized, implanted pregnancies, 18 to 20 percent may spontaneously abort.

Do we know EXACTLY what percentage (pin down an exact figure) of zygotes go bell up? No. The FACT remains, whether you want to believe it or not is that most conceptions don't result in a live birth. I can see why you don't want to acknowledge what the science shows because the fact that so many conceptions fail makes a laughingstock of the claim that a human "being" is present from conception onward. Nature is very wasteful and if your God is involved then that makes him a the biggest "baby" murderer (to use your phrase) of all time.

My links to why development is critical to making any assessments on when a human "being" is present:

Post #66/PART 1--The Personhood Argument

Post #67/PART 2--The "Life Begins at Conception" Myth (Is there any Scientific Basis?)

Post #68/PART 3-The "Life Begins at Conception" Myth (Historical Aspects)

Description of what scientists mean when they say something is "alive" (references for this in the posts above)

 

[gladiatrix]

Just in case someone will actually answer it this time, because no-one ever has when I've asked it on other threads:

• If life begins at the moment of conception, how does one person suddenly become two people (identical twins)?

More interesting are the cases of human chimeras which are people in whom two fertilized eggs combined to form ONE person. So are there really 2 "people" here?

• Does that person have 2 "souls" (if God whammies each conceptus with a soul?)?
• If not which "soul" (matching what original fertilized egg) now 'inhabits" this person.
• If a chimera is murderered are there really two "murders" (one count for each alleged "soul"?)

More on Chimeras:

Definition of a Chimera

Chimera: In medicine, a person composed of two genetically distinct types of cells. Human chimeras were first discovered with the advent of blood typing when it was found that some people had more than one blood type. Most of them proved to be "blood chimeras" -- non-identical twins who shared a blood supply in the uterus. Those who were not twins are thought to have blood cells from a twin that died early in gestation. Twin embryos often share a blood supply in the placenta, allowing blood stem cells to pass from one and settle in the bone marrow of the other. About 8% of non-identical twin pairs are chimeras. Many more people are microchimeras and carry smaller numbers of foreign blood cells that may have passed from mother across the placenta, or persist from a blood transfusion. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is also contributing to the number of human chimeras. To improve success rates, two or more embryos are placed in the uterus so women who have IVF have more twin pregnancies than usual. More twins mean more chimeras.

A chimera featured as a rapist on an episode of CSI (sperm DNA didn't match his cheek swab DNA which came from his "absorbed" fraternal twin).

Photo of a Chimera Exhibiting Blaschko’s lines

From HERE
In the episode, what the investigator discovered was something called Blaschko’s lines. These swirling patterns are found on the backs of many chimeras. Often you need UV light to see them.

These patterns arise from the fact that chimeras start out with two cells, each with different DNA. Remember, DNA is a set of instructions for creating and running an individual. Because a chimera starts out with two cells with different DNA, the chimera ends up with some cells that have one set of instructions and others that have a different set.

The skin of a chimera is made up of two sets of cells, each with different DNA. One of the instructions DNA has is how dark to make the skin. The Blaschko’s lines result from the fact that some of a chimera’s skin cells say make darker skin and some say to make lighter skin.

For more on this fascinating subject click on Genetic Mosaics and see the section on the "Tetragametic Human" in particular.

What I think is amusing is this pretense that a conceptus = human being and that development is not important. If one went to one's favorite fried chicken shack and ordered up 8 pieces of fried chicken, I don't think that most people would accept 8 fried eggs as an acceptable substitute, not even antichoicers.

 

[Adelheide]

Do you make the choice or does God make the choice? God is pro-choice in that He decides who lives and dies, but I see no evidence to suggest that he has given you the option to decide who lives and dies.​

 

[Adelheide]

ability to decide, and right to decide are very different.