• 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.

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
God declares an unborn child a person. ( see my post in this thread ). Premeditated killing of a person is first degree murder, murder is a sin.
This is where I am unclear. On a personal level I don't support abortion as a form of birth control, but I do where the mother is placed at harm as a result of the pregnancy.

Where I struggle on a christian level is that I cannot find exact verses that state unconditionally that abortion is a sin regardless of the circumstance.... though logically it would seem that God wouldn't support abortion as a birth control option at the least.

However throughout the bible there seems to be verses where God condones or commissions abortion:
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.”

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”.

Judges 11:30-40
Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

1 Samuel 15 Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’

Well you get the picture and of course there's many more verses like that. Can you see the apparent contradiction?
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Then just find us a valid medical/scientific source that declares the unborn are dead until a defined point in their development.
The unborn are not yet brain alive until they have an adequate brain. They can't be brain alive without an adequate brain.
 
Upvote 0

HypnoToad

*croak*
Site Supporter
May 29, 2005
5,876
485
✟104,802.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
However throughout the bible there seems to be verses where God condones or commissions abortion:
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.”
Miscarriage isn't abortion. That's like claiming if God lets people die in car accidents, then it must be ok for us to use our cars to run over & kill people.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”
There's no abortion going on there.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”.
It doesn't actually say God is the one who is going to do it.

Judges 11:30-40 .
Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.
Not an abortion. Further, God *NEVER* commanded Jephthah to kill his daughter.

1 Samuel 15 Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
No abortion mentioned there.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Jon Osterman

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
716
473
Glasgow
✟66,548.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, they are saying that we are known by God at or before conception, thus meaning we are a person at conception. Womb isn´t a scientific term, it may not even be the exact Jewish definition for the word translated womb. Womb has historically been known where babies are both conceived and carried. The point is clear. If God knows us before or at conception, we are persons IN HIS EYES at the exact same time. Exhaustive anatomy is irrelevant to the matter.

Sorry, but no. The verses you quote say nothing of the sort. They are consistent with the notion that the person is formed at some point after the fertilisation of the egg. The concept of conception isn't even mentioned here never mind defined. You argue that this is just inaccuracy in the Jewish understanding of pregnancy, but at best this argument makes these verses inappropriate to support your argument.

But thank you for your posts. You have reinforced my understanding that a fertilised egg is not a person by using biblical sources!
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Miscarriage isn't abortion. That's like claiming if God lets people die in car accidents, then it must be ok for us to use our cars to run over & kill people.


There's no abortion going on there.

It doesn't actually say God is the one who is going to do it.


Not an abortion. Further, God *NEVER* commanded Jephthah to kill his daughter.


No abortion mentioned there.
How can you answer in that way - I'm incredulous. I know as Christians we can choose to ignore the obvious sometimes but this is unbelievable. Are you telling me that none of these verses are condoned by God, and./or that these verses do not related to infanticide and/or the death of the unborn..Don't bother answering - the fact that you are defending it in the manner you have makes it obvious that the bible is conflicting in the sense that one the one hand it does not overtly describe abortion as sin [by all means correct me with the requisite verse if I'm wrong] yet has a plethora of verses that commissions infanticide.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Miscarriage isn't abortion. That's like claiming if God lets people die in car accidents, then it must be ok for us to use our cars to run over & kill people.
God was saying he will cause a miscarriage - that's the very definition of abortion

It doesn't actually say God is the one who is going to do it.
When God is commanding to rip open pregnant women - who do you think is in charge - who do you think is to blame. Your answer is incredibly obtuse.

No abortion mentioned there.
When you command the killing of every single woman - then you are killing unborn children because its obvious some were pregnant - not to mention it actually commands to kill the infants.
There's no abortion going on there.
he commanded to kill every woman that been with a man. Is it your position that none were pregnant? Where do you get that incredible piece of evidence from?
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟149,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
In fact, these verses are contrary to the view that identity is made at fertilisation. The egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube, not in the womb, but the verse says "you knit me together in my mothers womb" implying that the parts happening prior to the womb are not "me".
Actually it implies no such thing. Human development takes roughly 25 years. By your logic, because this verse does not specifically mention what goes on after the womb, we should also assume that there is no growth and development once a human resides outside the womb, which we know is false. Context matters in Scripture. The context of Jeremiah 1:5 is that Jeremiah is acknowledging the sovereignty of God, not on when a new human comes into existence. And honestly, even if we were to play your game, when the author was using the term "womb", he wasn't referring to specifically the location of the womb, he was referring to the totality of time spent developing pre-birth, which would include the location of fertilization.

What verses are you using to identity that abortion is a sin?
It isn't hard to understand that from a Biblical perspective abortion is wrong. We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. That point is no longer argued upon, it's established scientific fact. We know Biblically that man alone is created in the image of God and that we possess inherent moral worth and value. Therefore, one has to ask on what basis do we as fellow humans think we have the right to terminate the life of these other humans?

Exodus 21 demonstrates the moral worth and value of the unborn by giving the example of where if two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman which results in losing the baby, that life for life must be given. Clearly God views the unborn child as just as morally valuable as the born human.

God was saying he will cause a miscarriage - that's the very definition of abortion
You have to recognize that there is a difference between the God of the universe, the Creator of all that there is carrying out judgment upon His creation compared to you and I deciding on our own to kill another human being. Do you remember how God responded to Job, when he questioned Him? Does not the potter have the right to do with the clay as He sees fit? You are not God, you do not have the authority of God, and we need to keep that in mind before we attempt to compare God's judgment to our own decisions.

Finally, Paul! I'm so glad that after a few days silence and absence you've decided to jump back in. Don't think though that it has gone unnoticed that you never came back to defend your arbitrary position. My response to you can be found in reply #45, please respond to it when you have time!

The bottom line with regards to abortion is simple.

1) The how in which a new human being comes into existence plays no bearing upon its moral worth and value. Meaning, whether John came into existence because his mother was raped, or he came into existence because his loving parents wanted him has no bearing upon his moral worth and value in the eyes of God.

2) All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

3) A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

4) We, as finite humans have no right to kill a new human being that has yet to do anything wrong that would cause them to forfeit their right to life.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Up Quark
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Obviously there isn't one because the Bible is not a biological textbook. However, we know 1) scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, 2) Biblically, all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. Therefore, we can conclude 3) Unborn human beings possess inherent moral worth and value.

I too believe that a fertilized egg is a human being. I reach this belief, not in faith, nor as the result of a papal bull, but because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the complete and total word of God ( sola scriptura ). If God knows us before we were in our mothers womb, does he not know us the instant we are in our mothers womb ? If God knows us as a person as a fertilized egg, does that not make us as a fertilized egg most definitely a person ?

So why do only 1 of 3 (people) get the opportunity to breath actual air?
God is cutting out the stupid people, and losers early?

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clint Edwards

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 15, 2016
455
158
76
Slome, Arizona
✟8,727.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
God has n
So why do only 1/3rd of (people) get the gift of breathing?
God is cutting out the stupid people, and losers early?

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully
God has nothing to do with it, anymore than he was responsible for my first wife dying of cancer at 35 years of age. Natural processes exist, and operate. Here is the deal. Christian morality is defined in the Bible. It is clear an unambiguous, you either accept it, or not, your prerogative. You have your own set of values on this issue, fine. Apparently you have a different yardstick with which to measure morality. Sarcasm as a refuge has no effect on the Christian standard, so why employ it ? BTW it is a very weak debating tactic.
 
Upvote 0

Clint Edwards

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 15, 2016
455
158
76
Slome, Arizona
✟8,727.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
God has n
God has nothing to do with it, anymore than he was responsible for my first wife dying of cancer at 35 years of age. Natural processes exist, and operate. Here is the deal. Christian morality is defined in the Bible. It is clear an unambiguous, you either accept it, or not, your prerogative. You have your own set of values on this issue, fine. Apparently you have a different yardstick with which to measure morality. Sarcasm as a refuge has no effect on the Christian standard, so why employ it ? BTW it is a very weak debating tactic.
ADDDENDUM: Abortion is the process where nature is usurped and humans decide to eliminate alleged losers, stupid people, and absolutely worthless people.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SkyWriting
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God has n
God has nothing to do with it, anymore than he was responsible for my first wife dying of cancer at 35 years of age. Natural processes exist, and operate.

God has every instant in your life as His will for you. The real deal.
There are no natural processes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clint Edwards

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 15, 2016
455
158
76
Slome, Arizona
✟8,727.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Well, you're reading your conclusion into the interpretation of those verses. It isn't a necessary interpretation. Not the first or last time that has happened.

Take this verse: " Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you " Jer. 1: 4-5"

Since it clearly says the time God "knew" Jeremiah was BEFORE Jeremiah was formed in the womb, I fail to see how it in any way implies it was at the moment of conception that Jeremiah became a person. Clearly God was viewing from outside our time frame completely, and it would be more logical to conclude that God views our whole existence from His eternal perspective; and those fertilized eggs that die before even starting a brain simply never were people.

Just as logical an interpretation as yours.
Hmmmmm, So God only knows those before conception, therefore at conception, as people, in eggs that survive ? The eggs that don't survive are nothing to him ? Predestination, some people believe that, though it's nonsense. What if God decides to know someone as a person but someone decides to kill that person ? Or, back to predestination, God knows that someone will kill that fertilized egg, and in that foreknowledge he refuses to know it as a person, so it's death means nothing ? I think not
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SkyWriting
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟149,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So why do only 1 of 3 (people) get the opportunity to breath actual air?
God is cutting out the stupid people, and losers early?
First of all, this is not a very charitable response that encourages beneficial conversation. The obvious answer to the question though is that the introduction of sin into this world has had devastating consequences.
Scripture says we each decide what is moral:

16 As it is, you boast in your proud intentions. All such boasting is evil.
17 Therefore, whoever knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin.
So if I decide that it is moral to kill you, does that make it so? I find it hard to take something like this seriously. Do I even need to quote Scripture that talks clearly about actions and behaviors that are wrong? I think your idea of what this verse means ranks about as high up in the misinterpretation realm as is humanly possible. How is it that we know the right thing to do? Morality is not subjective, it is objective because what is right and wrong is based upon the immutable character of God.

Abortion is always immoral because all humans are created in the image of God, possessing inherent moral worth and value.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clint Edwards
Upvote 0

Clint Edwards

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 15, 2016
455
158
76
Slome, Arizona
✟8,727.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
God has every instant in your life as His will for you. The deal.
No, God does not will airplanes full of people to fall out of the sky, He does not will that people be burned alive in cages, He did not will that my wife waste away in abject agonizing pain that no drug could block. God allows the perverted processes of this world to play out, His will was that the process not start in the first place. He MAY reach into history for a specific purpose, but that may be very rare. Gods over riding will is that everyone chose to be saved, ultimately from this entire perverted physical and spiritual system
 
Upvote 0

Clint Edwards

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 15, 2016
455
158
76
Slome, Arizona
✟8,727.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Scripture says we each decide what is moral:

16 As it is, you boast in your proud intentions. All such boasting is evil.
17 Therefore, whoever knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin.
Correct. How do you know what is right ? Do you just decide for yourself ? If I feel that killing all democrats is right, does that make it right ? We are subject to two laws, Paul talks about the law that most people are naturally born with. This natural law knows that murder is wrong, or rape for example. The second is the law of God throughout the Bible that tells us what is right. Sin is clearly defined, ignorance is rarely an acceptable excuse
 
Upvote 0

Jon Osterman

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
716
473
Glasgow
✟66,548.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Actually it implies no such thing. Human development takes roughly 25 years. By your logic, because this verse does not specifically mention what goes on after the womb, we should also assume that there is no growth and development once a human resides outside the womb, which we know is false. Context matters in Scripture.

Nonsense. The poster to whom I was responding was claiming that these verses tell us that personhood is achieved at fertilisation of the egg. I was countering that it does no such thing because it only states the the person is formed in the womb, and never specifies a time point in the womb where this happens. Therefore, one should not use these passages as evidence that personhood is achieved at fertilisation. I am quite happy for you (or whomever) to claim that the ancient Hebrews were too ignorant to know that fertilisation of the egg doesn't happen in the womb at all (even though you are implying biblical error by adopting this position) because it does not dilute my point that these passages do not provide evidence of the stated position.

It isn't hard to understand that from a Biblical perspective abortion is wrong. We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. That point is no longer argued upon, it's established scientific fact.

Again, this is nonsense. Legally, the term "human" only applies after birth (as does "child", "individual" and "person"). The issue of whether a foetus has personhood in a colloquial sense (or rather when it gains such personhood) is what is being discussed in this thread. You can't claim your conclusion as an ansatz.

Exodus 21 demonstrates the moral worth and value of the unborn by giving the example of where if two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman which results in losing the baby, that life for life must be given. Clearly God views the unborn child as just as morally valuable as the born human.

I agree that in this context, the foetus has moral value. But again, this doesn't support the claim that abortion is wrong in the eyes of God. It only supports the claim that some types of abortions are wrong in the eyes of God. In this case, it is clear that it is wrong to forcibly and violently abort a foetus in the later stages of pregnancy without the mother's consent. I am more than happy to agree with that point.

1) The how in which a new human being comes into existence plays no bearing upon its moral worth and value. Meaning, whether John came into existence because his mother was raped, or he came into existence because his loving parents wanted him has no bearing upon his moral worth and value in the eyes of God.

I agree with this.

2) All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

I agree with this too.

3) A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

I disagree strongly with this and you have presented no evidence, biblical or otherwise, to support this claim.

4) We, as finite humans have no right to kill a new human being that has yet to do anything wrong that would cause them to forfeit their right to life.

I agree with this too. So it seems we are only having trouble with point 3.
 
Upvote 0

HypnoToad

*croak*
Site Supporter
May 29, 2005
5,876
485
✟104,802.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
God was saying he will cause a miscarriage - that's the very definition of abortion
At best, the only abortions allowed, therefore, are those carried out directly by God. I'm fine with that. God has the authority to take life.

When God is commanding to rip open pregnant women - who do you think is in charge - who do you think is to blame. Your answer is incredibly obtuse.
That passage is NOT a command. It's a prophecy that it is going to happen. It was done by the Assyrians. God knowing that the Assyrians would do those things does not mean God commanded nor condoned it.

When you command the killing of every single woman - then you are killing unborn children because its obvious some were pregnant - not to mention it actually commands to kill the infants.
At best, the only abortions allowed, therefore, are those directly commanded by God. How many of those are happening today? I'm fairly certain it's zero.

he commanded to kill every woman that been with a man. Is it your position that none were pregnant? Where do you get that incredible piece of evidence from?
Same as last.

God having the authority to take life in no way translates to people being able to do the same whenever they feel like it.
 
Upvote 0

HypnoToad

*croak*
Site Supporter
May 29, 2005
5,876
485
✟104,802.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I disagree strongly with this and you have presented no evidence, biblical or otherwise, to support this claim.
You disagree that a human being comes into existence at conception?

Take a look at an earlier post in this thread, plenty of evidence has already been provided:
The Great Evil of Abortion
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟149,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I disagree strongly with this and you have presented no evidence, biblical or otherwise, to support this claim.
Well then this must be the first abortion thready you've taken a look at. There is no debate scientifically about when a new human being comes into existence.

So once again I'll suggest that for Christians who have the benefit of Scripture and knowledge of an omniscient, omnipotent, immutable God, the question of whether or not abortion is immoral ought to be an easy one.

1. All humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
2. One human killing another human being without just cause is immoral and wrong.
3. Human beings come into existence at fertilization.
4. Abortion is the killing of a human being.
5. There can never be a just cause for an abortion committed for convenience sake (this accounts for 98.5% of all abortions).
6. All abortions committed for convenience sake are immoral and therefore wrong.


“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“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)

“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)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life:

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“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

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136



“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“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)


The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.


In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.
 
Upvote 0