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.
These weren´t my criteria. I just worked from the criteria as presented in the argument. That´s what you do when you scrutinize the validity of an argument.Then your criteria was flawed.
That´s your philosophical interpretation. It´s not a "biological distinction".And yes a conceived homosapien is its own life. A sperm cell belongs to its owner and not distinct. The original OP has it about right.
I thought we visited the sperm and egg example earlier.
Both belong to the host and contain the DNA of the host and are not distinct. When the two join a natural miracle occurs creating a new and distinct human life.
From:
WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?
"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
Where doe science argue that "a new human being begins at conception"?To hear some people tell it science is what it's all about, its always right. But when you use science to support your side of the argument those same people just want to blow it off and say "No that's not right".
Sounds to me that they have no clue what to believe they just want to argue...
Yes exactly they are very quick to turn their back on science when it does not serve their purpose or their agenda. Good that Creationists do not have that problem because there is no conflict between Creationism and the Bible. There is only a problem when man's opinions do not line up with the truth. That is what Science is all about, weeding out those things that do not prove to be true.To hear some people tell it science is what it's all about, its always right. But when you use science to support your side of the argument those same people just want to blow it off and say "No that's not right".
Sounds to me that they have no clue what to believe they just want to argue...
That´s your philosophical interpretation. It´s not a "biological distinction".
Where doe science argue that "a new human being begins at conception"?
Well this is a thought that is groping towards a good answer but it is not yet a rigorous definition. To say one grows into the ability to perform personal acts . . . . and call that a qualifying definition . . . allows one to accept a pair of sperm and egg, not yet conjoined, to be called a person. They could grow into one that performs personal acts, after all. And another thing . . this concept of "personal acts" is too vague to be used without definition of what a personal act is.
I think a person is a being with an inherent, natural capacity to perform acts such as reasoning, choice, language, and loving, whether or not a person's capacity for such acts is presently being exercised. Hence, newly conceived humans, persons in comas, newborns, people dying, people with mental disabilities or illness, are all as much persons as you or I.
A sperm and a fetus both have the capability to - given certain developments - grow into the ability of reasoning etc.I think a person is a being with an inherent, natural capacity to perform acts such as reasoning, choice, language, and loving, whether or not a person's capacity for such acts is presently being exercised. Hence, newly conceived humans, persons in comas, newborns, people dying, people with mental disabilities or illness, are all as much persons as you or I.
As Kreeft says:
One grows into the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a person.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm
This would obviously not apply to a sperm or egg in themselves, because they do not not have the inherent capacity to reason, decide, love, etc.
A newly formed embryo does not yet have such a capacity. That capacity only comes with development down the road, and - here is the crux - if its life is cut short before the capacity is developed, that personhood was never there in that embryo.
.
The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. If that individual does not enter into this world they will enter into heaven. They say there are lots of children in Heaven. Jesus said: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". There is energy invested in a male and a female joining together to create a new individual. Sometimes they nurture that life and bring it into this world and sometimes they don't.I believe my comments are supported by the following embryologist:
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
I skimmed it and couldn't see that claim. How about a direct quote?
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.
Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.
You do realize that this "whole human being" at that stage is nothing other than a clump of stem cells.
Yes, because it's not alive, and not human either.Are you implying the clump of cells are not a distinct human life?
Yes, because it's not alive, and not human either.
Stem cells are basically "blank cells" that have the potential to become any kind of cell.
Embryologists disagree with you.
As I pointed out in several posts. It is not a matter of opinion.
That facts that are not in dispute are what the cells are like, what they grow into if all goes well.
The conclusion that is a matter of opinion is whether the first few cells qualify, at that point, as a person.
The newly conceived human zygote could not grow into functional personhood unless he/she were not already a person. -snip-
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?