When Does Human Life Begin?

[Beloved Child]

So it all comes down to defining when human life begins. When does that spark of humanness enter the cell(s), and make that body a living human being?

In my opinion, a life already begins when God first thinks of it. That which WE define as life (with its physical attributions) begins with mitosis. Since I believe that every human being on earth (and therefore also the embryo and unborn baby) is God's absolute plan of life, I'm against abortion or abusing the embryo as an item of stem-cell research.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, DrBubbaLove, you could find no verse to say that the embryo is a human being. I didn't think you would.

Yes, we all knew that people were formed in the womb. We didn't need the Bible to tell us that.

You claimed you (and ostensibly pro-choicers) agree that there should be punishment for injury causing a miscarriage.But due to your other stance punishment would only be merited if the baby is wanted. So at last we see you admit in your own words to the truth of it all. It is not whether or not this is a human life, but whether or not it is wanted. Which is exactly why we kept comparing “her choice” to deciding whether a person or a group of people are “wanted”

Huh?

One should be punished if he kills a neighbor's dog (provided of course, that the neighbor did not want you to kill the dog). Does that prove that a dog is human because one would be punished for killing it? Of course not! So the punishment for maliciously killing an embryo is in no way admitting that the embryo is human life, is it?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Okay, DrBubbaLove, you could find no verse to say that the embryo is a human being. I didn't think you would.

Yes, we all knew that people were formed in the womb. We didn't need the Bible to tell us that.

LOL merle, you asked for the verses I "alledgedly" refered to and at that point we were not talking about embryos. If it makes you feel better to twist our discussions to make your point, so be it.The point was to show your interpretation of Jerimiah was wrong, back up what my prior post said about there being many references to life in the womb and show that God recognizes human life as beginning in the womb.

One should be punished if he kills a neighbor's dog (provided of course, that the neighbor did not want you to kill the dog). Does that prove that a dog is human because one would be punished for killing it? Of course not! So the punishment for maliciously killing an embryo is in no way admitting that the embryo is human life, is it?

So now you equate or at least compare human life with a dog? That is ok, you are not alone for there are many folks that value animal life above human life. However, in my view such comparisons make my point, not yours. You will of course object, but that is what you said.

And you have already said that a zygote represents the beginning of human life. Oh sorry, you changed your mind and said zygote was the beginning of the "formation" of human life. To me such distinctions are equivocating. Ending a human life from a zygote forward is ending a human life, no matter when you do it. As such it is wrong.



The fact that we would even consider punishment for someone ending that life, either intentionally or unintentionally BTW, is telling. Again we are saying making it wrong hinges only on whether or not the mother wanted the baby. So the pro-choice position is really saying is that as long as the mother does not want the baby, it is ok to kill it. Many would say ok to kill it anytime before it is born. Some would say even while personably opposed and maybe recognizing some term of pregnancy where there is an arbitrary limit, these people will fight for other mother’s right to choose who lives and who dies. Changing what we call it does not change what “her choice” really is.

The position that birth is the beginning is to me more defensible, but few argue that. Ever wonder why that is?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Further on the matter for Merle,

If one accepts that we have a soul, as Christians should, then the question becomes when do we get such a thing. The soul is what distinguishes us from animals makes us human. So when do we get a soul?

Even non-Christians great thinkers such as Aristotle speculated there had to be something which animated all life, some force driving each life. They equate this life force to the concept of a spirit or soul. Granted he thought we all got animal spirits first, before getting a human one, however he still recognized the concept of a spirit or soul being the driving force behind the formation of a developing life. Even Aristotle recognized that such a force, because it drives the very development of life, would have to be present from the very formation of each individual, ie conception. His followers speculated 40 to 80 days after conception there is an exchange of an animal soul for a rational one.

So we have some of the greatest minds ever conceiving the idea of a spirit or soul being present from conception well before Christianity. Christianity is all about our relationship with God and the final state of our body and soul is an important part of that. How is it that anyone could think that the early Christians would not pickup this idea of a soul and realize that intentionally ending a life after conception is morally wrong?

From the second and possibly third century writings of Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix, we see early Christians equating abortion with murder. This is supposedly the earliest and first known writings making that distinction. Since these were pupils of people taught directly from the Apostles it occurs to me and should occur to all that these ideas would not have been NEW. By the time these thoughts were preserved in writings for which we now have copies, it would have already been considered a teaching of Christians. Not a proof, but given the date of these writings it logically would have needed to be a first century teaching to make it writing in the next. These being second or third generation Christians and if one is inclined to believe in apostasy, it is also doubtful that the orthodox would stray far from the Apostles teachings by the time these writings were made.

We have copies of Roman laws and 300 hundred years earlier the writings of Hippocrates indicating that people felt it was wrong. Hippocrates required doctors to take an oath to never give women drinks fatal to the child in the womb.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Long as we are talking about dogs, it occurs to me that compared with the decision of ending a pregnancy or giving thought to considering actions which lead to pregnancy, many anguish more over the "human(e)" treatment of animals, the quality of their pets life, the "senseless" slaughter to feed those of us People for the Enjoyment of Tasty Animals (PETA) or even the consideration of which pet to buy.

How can one be so callous in thought and deed towards human life and yet exhibit so much passion for all other forms of life? If more people thought as much about whether or not they should be having sex in the first place as they do thinking of their pets or animal rights, perhaps we would not have so many “unwanted” babies.

 

[Archivist]

Back in the mid-80's comedian David Frye issued a comedy album titled "The First Family Rides Again." Frye provided the voice of Ronald Reagan on the album.

One cut depicted Reagan conducting a press conference. One of the reporters asked, "Mr. President, when does a fetus become a human being?"

"President Reagan" responded with "When it votes Republican."

 

[Phillip Lorenz]

This question is a very difficult one to deal with. I still feel that there is a way to save everybody, and that there doesn't need to be a sacrifice. If human live begins at conception, I don't think I would ever forgive myself if I destroyed a child. Let us pray that God guides us in the direction that is correct. Only He knows for sure either way.

 

[doubtingmerle]

DrBubbaLove, let's get back on track. The question before us is when human life begins. You turn to the Bible. Okay, and what does the Bible say about this matter? Is an unfertilized egg human life? How about a fertilized egg before it attaches to the womb? An embryo or fetus before the nerves develop? A fetus with a nervous system that is not functioning? After the nervous system begins to function ("quickening")? Near brith? At birth? Your Bible has no answer to that question, does it? If so, when does it say?

there being many references to life in the womb and show that God recognizes human life as beginning in the womb.

But when exactly does life begin? The Bible doesn't answer that, does it?

BTW, the bible also praises Abraham for setting out to kill his son. But it is wrong to set out to kill one's son, isn't it? So the Bible is not my authority--it is sometimes wrong.

So now you equate or at least compare human life with a dog?

No, of course I do not. what makes you think that?

That is ok, you are not alone for there are many folks that value animal life above human life.

Please show me one person who values animal life above human life.

However, in my view such comparisons make my point, not yours. You will of course object, but that is what you said.

You misunderstood.

Let me try again. If somebody maliciously destroys a mailbox, he will be punished for it. Now that does not prove that a mailbox is a person, does it?

Do you get it now? Just because there is punishment for the malicious destruction of something does not prove that this something is a person.

And you have already said that a zygote represents the beginning of human life. Oh sorry, you changed your mind and said zygote was the beginning of the "formation" of human life.

When the first weld is made on the assembly line, it is the beginning of a car. Is it a car? No! It is the beginning of a car. They are different.

I have explained that to you many times. Would you like me to repeat it a few more times?

To me such distinctions are equivocating. Ending a human life from a zygote forward is ending a human life, no matter when you do it. As such it is wrong.

Okay, so if Abraham would have killed Isaac, that would have been wrong? Is that what you are saying? So it was sin for Abraham to grab that knife and hold it up with the intention of killing Isaac? Is this what you are saying?

The fact that we would even consider punishment for someone ending that life, either intentionally or unintentionally BTW, is telling.

The fact that you would even consider punishment for someone ending that mailbox, either intentionally or unintentionally BTW, is telling. Yes, indeed. But does it prove that the mailbox is human life? No, of course not!

Get it?

 

[Bonhoffer]

probably at conception. The Abortion debate is more difficult than the Middle East Crisis.

If abortion is murder it shouldnt be allowed. If it isnt it is still wrong, but should be allowed. Sadly there is no proof that abortion is murder!

 

[Madcoil]

I am a human. I am not finished yet. I grow, I learn, I acquire new pieces of my whole. I am not complete. But I am alive.

 

[Archivist]

probably at conception. The Abortion debate is more difficult than the Middle East Crisis.

If abortion is murder it shouldnt be allowed. If it isnt it is still wrong, but should be allowed. Sadly there is no proof that abortion is murder!

I agree with your first statement. Not since slavery has an issue done more to divide Americans tahn the issue of abortion.

However, abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term that requires that specific elements be committed. Abortion does not meet those elements, the first of which is that it must be an unlawful killing.

If people want to say that abortion is killing, they are certainly entitled to do so. However, it is not murder.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Long as we are talking about dogs, it occurs to me that compared with the decision of ending a pregnancy or giving thought to considering actions which lead to pregnancy, many anguish more over the "human(e)" treatment of animals, the quality of their pets life, the "senseless" slaughter to feed those of us People for the Enjoyment of Tasty Animals (PETA) or even the consideration of which pet to buy.

How can one be so callous in thought and deed towards human life and yet exhibit so much passion for all other forms of life? If more people thought as much about whether or not they should be having sex in the first place as they do thinking of their pets or animal rights, perhaps we would not have so many “unwanted” babies.

Excuse me, DrBubbaLove, which do you anquish over more? The suffering of a dog that was hit by a car, or an unfertilized egg that is dying for lack of sperm? Do you spend many hours anguishing that some teenagers are not getting pregnant, and thus allowing their eggs to die? Do you cry because some eggs die due to lack of fertilization? Of course not. Why not? Because you don't think the unfertilized egg is human life. If an unfertilized egg is not human life, it need not have the rights of a person. Likewise, if a zygote or embryo is not human life, it need not have the rights of a person.

When will you ever get it? The issue of this thread is when human life begins.

Quick review: What is the issue of this thread?

You keep assuming the point in question. You keep assuming the embryo is human life. You then come to all these conclusions based on this assumption. But you have not proven your assumption.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am a human. I am not finished yet. I grow, I learn, I acquire new pieces of my whole. I am not complete. But I am alive.

I see.

And were you also a human when you were an unfertilized egg? Would it have been wrong to destroy that egg? Would it have been wrong to not fertilize that egg?

When exactly did you begin to be human? How do you know that your answer is right?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If one accepts that we have a soul, as Christians should, then the question becomes when do we get such a thing. The soul is what distinguishes us from animals makes us human.

Why should Christians believe in a soul? Many do not. For science has shown that it is the brain that remembers, feels, thinks, and decides. What is left for the soul to do?

So when do we get a soul?

Good question. Even if you believe in a soul, when do we get a soul? Simply picking a time and stating that this is when it happens proves nothing.

So since there is no scientific evidence for a soul, and no evidence for when it enters the body (if it does), this seems to be irrelevant to helping us resolve the question at hand--"When does human life begin?"

Even non-Christians great thinkers such as Aristotle speculated there had to be something which animated all life, some force driving each life. They equate this life force to the concept of a spirit or soul.

The ancients also believed the earth was flat. And yet the earth is not flat.

Perhaps the ancients were wrong. Did that not occur to you?

 

[Natman]

A skin cell that falls off your body has all the information for human life. But it is not a human, is it?

The skin cell, or any fully developed cell has the information, but not the program. It's program has already been run. In the case of the skin cell, it's program has resulted in breaking down the cell such that it wll be rejected by the body Even stem cells do not contain the entire program necessary to be considered human life. Only the conceptus has the entire program.

And no, a zygote, if left to itself does not become a person.

Could it not be that the zygote has the information necessary to be a person and that it directs the cells to develop into a person, but it is not yet a person? Why is that logically impossible?

The vast majority of the time, a human zygote, unless forcibly removed from it's mother's womb or destroyed by it's mothers antibody system, will develop into a complete human being.

But how can a zygote be said to have a soul? It has no brain. What functions of a soul can occur if there is no brain? So how do you know it has a soul?

Let's pose the opposite question. What functions of a soul occur when there is no longer a body (post-mortum)? If you are a Christian, you probably believe that the soul continues to exist after death, in the presence of the Lord, so a sould does not need a brain to exist.

Since we have no medical procedure to determine the presence of a soul (at least yet), or the point of it's injection, how can you state with any certainty that a conceptus does not have a soul. At this point, this is a purly theological question and so we must rely on a theological answer. The Biblical verses given earlier in this thread all indicate that God creates life in our mother's wombs and "knows" life even before conception.

Science is constantly pushing back the point of discernable human characteristics in fetuses. The science of fetal development (embryology) is relatively new. It was not that many years ago that our view of early fetal stages were nothing more that gelatinous globs. The advent of the microscope, ultrasound and now 3-d ultrasound have changed all of that. For example. we now know that the structures of the brain, spinal column and heart are all present and visible within the first three weeks of development. Does this mean that they do not exist before this point, or merely that we do not have the technology to see them?

Again, because I love and fear the Lord, and I know that I will answer directly to His judgement some day soon, I do not desire to second guess His definition of "life", and in so doing commit an act of murder. Nor do I believe that I should be forced to fund such murder by our governments condoning of the willful, flippant destruction of human life at ANY level of development.


Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

The issue of when life begins has been argued by many without any real conclusion far a very long time. We can believe it begins at conception or at the first trimester, or at birth. Or we can believe that life is the soul, which is immortal and so began quite a long time before the soul entered the human being. But none of us actually know when the soul enters into a human body. We can only surmise and form an opinion.

I know it's hard to admit when we don't know something. But...I don't know the answer to when life begins anymore than anyone else does. Life begins when it begins...regardless of what we think, believe, or have to say about it.

I'm not for human suffering. My only concern about stem cell research was the possibility that a child would be hurt to further advance medicine for those who are dealing with disease. My concern was that one person's rights as a human being would be considered not as important as anothers. But, from my understanding, the stem cell research in question would be done on embryo's that would otherwise be disposed of. Maybe it's because I'm an organ donor that I don't see the sense in not using human tissue that would otherwise go to waste, to help another human being.

Furthermore, How can we hurt the soul of a human being by doing research on cells that will never become a living person? I do not believe that a soul would enter into a human that was not going to be born. What purpose would it serve for it to do so? Obviously none. So for me, Stem Cell research is neither an ethical or a moral issue.

 

[gizmo03]

I am also a firm believer that human life begins at the time of conception.

 

[A. believer]

A. believer, previously you had said:


And when I asked you to support this claim you responded with:


And it turns out that Peter Singer is an anti-abortionist! In no way is Singer making the claim that mothers can kill their infants if they choose! And he quotes nobody who says that it is okay to kill infants! Unbelievable! Your claim is simply wrong!

From the chapter entitled "Taking Life: Humans" from Practical Ethics by Peter Singer:

In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.

The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it. Some parents want even the most gravely disabled infant to live as long as possible, and this desire would then be a reason against killing the infant. But what if this is not the case? in the discussion that follows I shall assume that the parents do not want the disabled child to live. I shall also assume that the disability is so serious that - again in contrast to the situation of an unwanted but normal child today - there are no other couples keen to adopt the infant. This is a realistic assumption even in a society in which there is a long waiting- list of couples wishing to adopt normal babies. It is true that from time to time cases of infants who are severely disabled and are being allowed to die have reached the courts in a glare of publicity, and this has led to couples offering to adopt the child. Unfortunately such offers are the product of the highly publicised dramatic life-and-death situation, and do not extend to the less publicised but far more common situations in which parents feel themselves unable to look after a severely disabled child, and the child then languishes in an institution.

Infants are sentient beings who are neither rational nor self- conscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self-conscious must apply here too. As we saw, the most plausible arguments for attributing a right to life to a being apply only if there is some awareness of oneself as a being existing over time, or as a continuing mental self. Nor can respect for autonomy apply where there is no capacity for autonomy. The remaining principles identified in Chapter 4 are utilitarian. Hence the quality of life that the infant can be expected to have is important.

​

And you consider these arguments for infanticide to be the those of an "anti-abortionist"?!?!

Please show me one person who actually finds the argument quite convincing that it is acceptable to kill infants if they get in the way of their mother's self-interest.

Again--the man who wrote this book is a world-famous "ethicist" and Princeton professor.

So I think we should just ignore the ridiculous argument that there are enlightened, sane people out there who find it "quite convincing" that "post-natal infants have no inherent right to life and that their mothers' perceived self-interest supercedes the interests of the child." You simply have presented no evidence for that claim, have you?

If you can honestly confuse Peter Singer with an "anti-abortionist," I certainly can't expect you to understand the broader point that you can't arbitrarily assume your premises with the argument "any sane person agrees with me." So-called "enlightened" notions of morality are mere arbitrary conventions without the foundation of the moral lawgiver who is the Triune God. If humans are not "created in the image of God," then human life is not sacred. And if human life is not sacred, then there is nothing intrinsically immoral about killing people for whatever utilitarian reason any given person or group of people deems fitting. And if there's nothing intrinsically immoral about killing humans for utilitarian reasons, then it doesn't matter if embryos are "really human" or not. Sorry, Merle, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And you consider these arguments for infanticide to be the those of an "anti-abortionist"?!?!

Sorry. I was in a hurry and skimmed through that lengthy (and quite boring) essay. It appears I misunderstood.

If you can honestly confuse Peter Singer with an "anti-abortionist," I certainly can't expect you to understand the broader point that you can't arbitrarily assume your premises with the argument "any sane person agrees with me."

That article is about euthanasia. It is not about arbitrarily killing children because a mother doesn't want them. Once more, please show me someone who advocates that a mother has the right to kill living children because she doesn't want them.

So-called "enlightened" notions of morality are mere arbitrary conventions without the foundation of the moral lawgiver who is the Triune God.

But how can God help us know what is moral? Do you have a way of telling what God wants? (Hopefully you don't tell me that God wants us to follow the Bible, a book that commands us to hate parents and says it is blessed to kill enemy babies.)

If humans are not "created in the image of God," then human life is not sacred.

What exactly do you mean by life being "sacred"?

And if human life is not sacred, then there is nothing intrinsically immoral about killing people for whatever utilitarian reason any given person or group of people deems fitting.

Huh? There are many reasons to value thinking, feeling humans. What could possibly make you think that the only thing that makes it immoral to kill people is "sacredness" of people (whatever that means)?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Again, because I love and fear the Lord, and I know that I will answer directly to His judgement some day soon, I do not desire to second guess His definition of "life", and in so doing commit an act of murder.

Oh, God has a definition of when life begins? Oh, please do show me where I can read God's defininition of when life begins.

What if it turns out that the unfertilized egg is a human, and that all who allow that egg to remain unfertilized are murderers? What would your logic suggest that we do in that case? You logic seems to suggest that we must fertilize that egg, just in case it might be human life, and just in case God might consider us to be murderers if we don't fertilize that egg.