It's still just 2 cells at the instance of fertilization. There is a possibility of human life there, not human life (well, no more human life than the egg or sperm individually).
Does life begin at conception?
- Thread starter omej
- Start date
-
- Tags
- begin conception life
It's still just 2 cells at the instance of fertilization. There is a possibility of human life there, not human life (well, no more human life than the egg or sperm individually).
The defintion of life is an objective scientific standard. I didn't invent it.
Besides, I said life begins at conception and I explained why. Now I am asking you to tell me why I am wrong. Ball's in your court.
the sperm and egg are two cells. they are not humans. however when they unite they create a new living being.... regardless of the number of cells.
Again, you're assertion doesn't have a friendly relationship with reality. Skin is part of a human. Same with hair. A bumper is not a car nor hair a human but each is a part of its greater whole.
Because hair cells don't gestate for nine months in a mothger's uterus and result in a baby?
You ar comparing a part of a human to a whole human at early stages of development.
No, those cells are alive. If they were not they would stop growing and reproducing and developing.
eggs Zachary: the sperm and egg are potential life
It has been my experience that people try to deny that the the embryo, fetus, zygote (whatever state it is at) use these terms in the belief that they do not describe an actual living human at very early stages of development because using those terms creates the "intellectual" distance nbecessary to be ok with terminating a pregnancy.
and - ftr - I am in no way inviting discussion on the legality of abortion
The point is that the sperm+egg is nothing more than 2 cells combined that can produce life. Seperating them, they are 2 individuals cells that can produce life. So where does one draw the line?
As I said, the whole concept revolves around what one considers conception.
Is it the sperm meeting the egg?
Is it the act of sex?
Is it when the fertilized egg attaches?
True sperm and egg are potential life.
When they get together they create a new life.
You continue to get caught up in matters that describe stages of that new life rather than recognizing that that mass of cells actually is alive.
Conception creates new life.
Attaching to the uterine wall describes a stage, an event. What attaches? A human baby in a very early stage of development.
Last edited:
You are describing life. I'm talking about human life. A fertilized egg is not human life. It has the potential to become human life.
The definition of life is objective. It doesn't change depending upon what living thing you are looking at.
Once the egg is fertilized its a new human life at the first stage of development. That's scientific fact not opinion. It is alive.
Why do you think that "life" means X in case 1 and "Y" in case 2?
What definition applies to humans? When does a human become alive?
Once the egg is fertilized its a new human life at the first stage of development. That's scientific fact not opinion. It is alive.
Why do you think that "life" means X in case 1 and "Y" in case 2?
What definition applies to humans? When does a human become alive?
Conception is fertilization. That's the scientific definition. You're trying to take something that people aren't arguing over and trying to make it sound like anyone who's pro-life is being a hypocrite for not making an argument which, logically and scientifically, has no baring of the subject. A hair won't develop into a human. A lone egg or sperm will not develop into a human. A zygote (that's what it's called by the way) will, if the pregnancy goes to term, develop into a human. Genetically, a zygote is human.
I don't know if you simply can't grasp this fact or you're making a strawman argument but those are the facts.
Careful how you answer this, connermt. Give the answer I'm thinking you will and you'll not like my rebuttal. :smug:
As an agnostic Jew, I have no religious eggs in this basket, but my short answer to the OP is yes, life begins at conception. To answer elsewise is to open the possibility of degrading human life at many other stages.
Someone up yonder suggested that the human brain was not functioning, possibly as late as six months (roughly 26 weeks). Both of my daughters were born at about 22 weeks, weighing 560 grams (a bit less than four sticks of butter in weight), and their brains were functioning nicely, and continue to do so nearly 27 years later. Fetuses much heavier than my daughters at birth are routinely dissected and disposed of for convenience.
It is far too easy to disregard the sanctity (I hesitate to use that word, but it works) of human life at all stages. Either all human life from conception to old age is precious, or none of us are worth the ten-pound sack of carbon we consist of.
Meanwhile, over the years I've known fellows who have sat in trees to protect the redwoods or chained themselves to processing plant gates to protest chicken beheadings, and the same idiots were violent supporters of the rights of women and doctors to slice and dice preborn human children. Frankly, I think we fellers would do the world a great favor if more of us acted like men and supported our women and our children, rather than treating them as inconveniences. Only a rare woman would decide to abort a child if she knew the father was willing, able and proud to raise the kid.
You youngsters who support abortion? I truly hope you never need offspring to assist you in your old age.
Someone up yonder suggested that the human brain was not functioning, possibly as late as six months (roughly 26 weeks). Both of my daughters were born at about 22 weeks, weighing 560 grams (a bit less than four sticks of butter in weight), and their brains were functioning nicely, and continue to do so nearly 27 years later. Fetuses much heavier than my daughters at birth are routinely dissected and disposed of for convenience.
It is far too easy to disregard the sanctity (I hesitate to use that word, but it works) of human life at all stages. Either all human life from conception to old age is precious, or none of us are worth the ten-pound sack of carbon we consist of.
Meanwhile, over the years I've known fellows who have sat in trees to protect the redwoods or chained themselves to processing plant gates to protest chicken beheadings, and the same idiots were violent supporters of the rights of women and doctors to slice and dice preborn human children. Frankly, I think we fellers would do the world a great favor if more of us acted like men and supported our women and our children, rather than treating them as inconveniences. Only a rare woman would decide to abort a child if she knew the father was willing, able and proud to raise the kid.
You youngsters who support abortion? I truly hope you never need offspring to assist you in your old age.
And it wouldn't matter if you did. Well, unless you would have taken the mother of your children to a rabbi to determine if she was pregnant etc.
The issue is solely one of science - not religion.
How does it feel having living dead daughters?
I have several friends who have had children at a very early stage and all of them pulled through. Miraculous what modern medicine can do. In any event, I'm willing to bet that those parents (like you, me etc) put imediate value on that baby as soon as the mother knew she was pregnant. I don't know anyone who regarded their unborn babies as potentially alive.
FTR - the current state of the law (iirc) from Casey uses the viability test to determine the cut off date for when legal abortions may be conducted. However there are so many carve outs and exceptions for the health of the mother that there are few barriers to aborting at any point.
So true. Bill Cosby responded to a comment about the "unwed mother" problem that the bigger problem was the "unwed father."
I'm talking about human life. Biologically, every cell is life. The issue is when does human life (humanity) start. I don't believe it (HUMAN life) starts at fertilization simply because one cell enters another cell.
Last edited:
I know many religious people who consider conception that act of sex, not fertilization. Thus the reason why I asked what one considers the definition for clarification of the discussion. And I am well aware of the biological facts, thank you very much
I know many religious people who consider conception that act of sex, not fertilization. Thus the reason why I asked what one considers the definition for clarification of the discussion. And I am well aware of the biological facts, thank you very much
You are the only one that has brought religion into this discussion.
I know of no one who has gone to thier Prie4st, Pastor, Rabbi, Imam, Shaman etc to have pregnancy check ups.
The matter is purely biological and scientific.
That you now run toi religion and claim that only people of faith think life begins at conception means you've run out of anything useful to say.
You either do not or will not accept objective scientific facts and are now reduced to hurling inaccurate suppositions at those who disagree hoping something might stick to the wall.
If you aware of the facts you're done a miserable job of accepting them. Quite frankly, you've done nothing in this thread except demonstrate that you are quite unaware of the facts.
This is the parsing of some one who does not understand what he is saying.
That sperm and egg cell create a new life. That is simply scientific fact.
Yes, every cell is life. But the newly created cell that is neither mother nor father but equally both is a new life.
You are taking a religious view here not a scientific view.
You say you BELIEVE.... that's a matter of faith... not fact.
Something I didn't dispute. And I explained why.
Depends on who you talk to.
Good word that's not what I said at all....
Stop trying to find reasons to argue. I was trying to, for sake of conversation, make the determination of what a specific person considers conception. I have had this discussions with different people and there are differing opinions of what "life begins at conception" means. If that's not you, then fine. Move on.Ugh...see above
Not at all. You don't seem to understand what's being said for the sake of arguing.
Something I never disputed
Ditto last reply
Scientifically, a fertilized cell is life, but not human life. It's potential human life (human life as in consciousness). There's a difference.
Again, not disputed. There's no need to say something that not disputed is there? Not at all.
Something that has no business in this discussion
I suppose it does. However that's not relevent. I can get people who'll tell me that left is right but that doesn't make it so.
The fact is that conception creates a new life.
Good word that's not what I said at all....
Conception is a quantitative term not qualitative. It doesn't vary person to person except for people who do not know what it means.
I'm not arguing nor trying to find things to argue about. I'm trying to get you to understand the words you are using don't mean what you think they mean.
Again, conception has a definition. When egg and sperm unite and create a new life - that is conception. That you can find people who do not understand that proves nothing other than the fact that other people share your misconception. (if I may use that word)
Ugh...see above
Not at all. You don't seem to understand what's being said for the sake of arguing.
Something I never disputed
Please reread thread for the overwhelming evidence directly refuting that claim.
No, there isn't. If that were true then people in a coma are not alive. People in persistently vegative states are not alive. Hell, 2 day old babies may well not be alive under that defintion. etc etc
Consciousness does not define life.
lol - I suppose not when you change you position on the topic willy nilly.
Wrong. a human being has, from the moment of conception the complete DNA already written on them. At no time is it anything but human.
and if they lose the child before birth, they grieve. No one grieves for a piece of tissue.
Similar threads
