When Does Human Life Begin?

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

[dairygirl4u2c]

also... some important points.
what is the difference between a cell and the early cell as per an organism? i genunitely don't know. other than the idea that the early one is unique and separate, its own entity. it must be stem cells, that have hormones or something that direct it. but stem cells are not uncommon in a human either. basically,,, it seems like you could probably call it an organism by scientific definitions, but you could also call it a cell. there's no organisms that grow into greater ones, other than in the formation process, so there's no direct analogies.
and when its all said and done... if you formalistically, which is all it'd be, call it an organism... it's still a human organism at its unicellular state,,, not a human person at a significant state.
all you guys insisting its a person, are overlooking the common sense idea that, hey,,,, its a cell.
so at least before the heartbeat it's more debatable.
even at the heart beat though... it's a human organism at the the state of a heart,,,, it's basically a heart and a little exra stuff. a heart isn't a person, that's common sense.
now... wiht that said... the definitions are so random, and there's so many variables, that it could be truly and fully be considered a human person. common sense isn't so common. it's uncertain.

[Winchester]

A human life begins at the moment of conception. We don't know about ensoulment, but the life cycle of every sexually reproduced animal begins at conception. There is no other logical point for it to begin.

[dairygirl4u2c]

by your reasoning, a snowball is a snowman,,, cause there's no other logical point for it to begin.
i recognize you wish for certainty, but that's life.
any argument you make on either side can be said to be illogical.
being calling the others illogical, fail to understand logic and hte limits of it.
i guess that could be said to me too... given that i think it's uncertain and is based on reasoning. but, at least for me,,, i see merit in others calling my arguments illogical. i may be wrong, but i insist there's merit to all the arguments and none are per se illogical.

i mean... maybe the arguments should start saying... it's a person, but it's a person at an insignficant stage.
a cell isn't a person. a heart isn't a person. sure, there's some thing about these that make them different than most cells and hearts,,,, but, a cell isn't a person, and a heart isn't a person. it's common sense, at least arguable.
everyone knows,,, in terms of common sense,,, that they'd save a person over two embryos in a burning building scenario. all the what ifs aside... cause they want to do what they're sure about. people who would consider saving the embryos have only ocnvinced themselves that there's something there to save, for sure.

[Madame Vengier]

Science has already answered this question. Life begins at conception.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i can see people thinking the not certain, not person folks are conflating the person arguments with soul etc.

that's not the case. the reason i said we could call it person but at an insignificant stage,, is because i recoginze that formalistically you can call it an organism. if an organism, you culd conceivably call it a person. aside from the soul stuff... it's not necessarily a significant stage,,, because a cell is not signifcant like a full person, and a heart is not significant like a full person, in terms of murder, purely in the physical sense.


like i said in my convoluted essay in the first page, the purely biologically wihtout the sol stuff, looking at it with faith,,, you wouldn't think God would cause half the persons that are significant to die,,, you wouldn't think he'd allow a perosn that's significant to split into two persons. it harms their dignity.
the soul stuff only makes that case stronger, cause if there's a soul, their dignity means all the much more.

so really... you can call it a person by a formalistic reasoning,, but the leap of logic involved in putting women in jail for fifty years as if it's the same thing... is that,,, a heart isn't necessarily a person and a cell isn't either, not necessarily significant.
the people who say it's all the same, are relying on arbitrary distictions. you're going to treat someone the same as who killed a person full formed,,, as someone who killed a being that can only be classified by argibtrary disctionctions?

[geetarplayer]

Consider looking at a picture that was taken ten years ago. "Who is that person in the picture?" your friend asks. "That's me," you say. Sure, the person in the picture looks younger, and is in a different location, and had different needs and desires, but the person is you, the same you that you are, and essentially no different than you.

Now look at a sonogram of you. "What is that?" your friend asks you again. "That's me, too," you say. And what else could it be? It's no longer an egg, nor a sperm. Sure, it looks a great deal younger, and different, too. But essentially, it's you, the same you that you are, and essentially no different than you.

-Mark

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1618194' date='Aug 5 2008, 11:16 AM']Science has already answered this question. Life begins at conception.[/quote]
Please provide more evidence than just stating your opinion.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1618248' date='Aug 5 2008, 01:18 PM']Please provide more evidence than just stating your opinion.[/quote]


Science has provided the evidence.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1618314' date='Aug 5 2008, 01:47 PM']Science has provided the evidence.[/quote]
Well then, please enlighten me. You continue to make claims of science but provide no proof.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1618347' date='Aug 5 2008, 03:27 PM']Well then, please enlighten me. You continue to make claims of science but provide no proof.[/quote]
If you're genuinely interested, here's a couple websites with plenty of scientific facts:
[url="http://www.sfuhl.org/"]http://www.sfuhl.org/[/url]
[url="http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/prenatal_developement.asp"]http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_develop...evelopement.asp[/url]

An unborn human is scientifically a living, distinct, unique human being.

Thus far you have provided not one drop of scientific evidence that an unborn child is not living or is not human.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1619797' date='Aug 6 2008, 07:36 PM']If you're genuinely interested, here's a couple websites with plenty of scientific facts:
[url="http://www.sfuhl.org/"]http://www.sfuhl.org/[/url]
[url="http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/prenatal_developement.asp"]http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_develop...evelopement.asp[/url]

An unborn human is scientifically a living, distinct, unique human being.

Thus far you have provided not one drop of scientific evidence that an unborn child is not living or is not human.[/quote]
I will evaluate this information, and if I find it to be factually sound, I will honestly be willing to shift my stance.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The zygote moves through the uterine tube toward the uterus. At this point, the zygote is a stem cell that will give rise to daughter cells with the maximum capacity for differentiation. It is considered "totipotent" meaning that this cell has the capacity to give rise to cells that can become any type of embryological tissue. This totipotent cell will differentiate into every type of fetal tissue as well as the support structures for the fetus (such as the placenta.)[/quote]

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1618347' date='Aug 5 2008, 03:27 PM']Well then, please enlighten me. You continue to make claims of science but provide no proof.[/quote]


You can do the research. Science has already provided the evidence and the proof. I'm not sure why I am expected to do the research for you.

??????? (Confused)

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1619797' date='Aug 6 2008, 08:36 PM']If you're genuinely interested, here's a couple websites with plenty of scientific facts:
[url="http://www.sfuhl.org/"]http://www.sfuhl.org/[/url]
[url="http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/prenatal_developement.asp"]http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_develop...evelopement.asp[/url]

An unborn human is scientifically a living, distinct, unique human being.

Thus far you have provided not one drop of scientific evidence that an unborn child is not living or is not human.[/quote]


Those links are awesome.

But see, this is my point. The information is available out there for EVERYONE. Anyone can do a Google search on "human embryonic development" or any variation of such. The fact that science has provided the information and the fact that it is readily available at the fingertips of anyone who wants it, is why I don't have patience for people saying "prove it". Um, it's already been proven. Just look it up. Why should I do the research for a person if they claim to be genuinely interested? Personally, when I want to know something then I look it up. I don't tell others to prove it or provide data to back up their opinions. I go find it myself. Asking someone to prove that life begins at conception is like asking to prove the grass is green. If people don't know by now that a human life begins at conception, then it's becuase they don't WANT to know.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Madame Vengier