Posted on 01/22/2013 10:49:32 AM PST by GreenEyedGal
Does the belief that life begins at conception require the belief in a Creator God? I happen to believe in a Creator God, but I’m looking for a way to explain things in a way that is logical that will lead people who don’t necessarily believe in God to think about this very important issue. We could discuss the fact that if you don’t believe what the Bible says or in God, it’s impossible to truly value life (I am pretty sure this will offend some, but it can’t be helped). But we have to start somewhere. We have to get people thinking. We have to change the change the way this country views life in the womb or we’ll be talking about 60,000,000 aborted since Roe v. Wade before you can blink. I’m overcome with such grief when I think about all the children, grandchildren, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers we’ve killed since 1973. And our society is so calloused about it. So if we can make inroads through logic, we can add Creator God into the argument. I think one follows the other. Certainly, if you truly believe in a Creator God, you will come to the realization that life begins at conception. I believe it’s possible to move hearts and mind by attacking it from the opposite end, too.
Matthew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
As an active Christian man, I have to think of everything in "God" terms or I will go astray.
Exactly.
And look at this: 
Notice that the fertilized egg grows from a single cell to a blastocyst of about 100 cells before it ever implants into the uterine wall. It is living and growing all on its own without the mother's help before it attaches.
They want to make it seem like the baby is a parasitic entity that relies completely on the mother from the moment of conception. Not so.
To me there is a point at which the human exists, if we don’t kill it.
Once an egg is fertilized, then we already know what it is, it is the earliest age of a person, it won’t come out as a puppy or an apple, and it isn’t a wart or a tumor, it is already a separate being, alive and growing and fully involved it’s own life-cycle, if no one kills him while he is at that vulnerable stage, then soon, he will be walking among us and speaking for himself.
(1) Fusion of gametes (the sperm and the egg) to form a single cell, or
(2) Fusion of gametes to form a single cell, followed by several cell divisions and then successful implantation.
I believe that the second definition provides a clear moral line, although I completely understand those who choose the first definition out of an abundance of caution or a deferral to innocence. Given the frequency with which a fertilized egg fails to implant for natural reasons, I find it hard to consider that fertilized but not yet implanted zygote a self-sustaining individual who would, in the absence of outside intervention, become a fully-independent person.
The major moral issue with morning after pills is that they can first prevent ovulation (egg release) in violation of Catholic teaching, second prevent implantation of the fertilized egg, killing a human being under definition (1) but not under definition (2), and finally slough off the uterine lining, carrying away a fertilized and implanted egg and thus killing a human being under both definitions (1) and (2). The moral decision on a morning after pill seems clear to me, although in practical terms I do not believe that a law banning abortion in the first few days of pregnancy is any more enforceable than a law banning adultery. However, the moral decision on Obama's HHS decree that pro-life Christian employers must pay for killing an implanted fetus for their employees is clear. The HHS mandate is an act of pure evil, government imposing itself between us as individuals and our duty to God as we see that duty.
One other thing as well. A mother’s immune system’s only job is to be able to tell what IS part of her body from what ISN’T part of her body.
During pregnancy, the fetus needs to be shielded from the mother’s immune system. If that doesn’t happen, the immune system attacks it and kills it.
Why? Because it doesn’t recognize the fetus as part of the body.
The immune system makes a liar out of every pro-choicer. She may say “its my body” with her mouth, and believe it in her head, but her own body contradicts her every second of every day.
When you’re coppin’ a feel at the movie theater, of course!
Seriously, though, looking at it strictly from a scientific point of view, the only legitimate answer is “at conception”. At this precise moment, the DNA from two separate sources combine to become something completely new: a cell with the DNA blueprint of a specific individual human being. At no other point in the growth cycle is there such a dramatic and sudden change that can be pointed to as something worthy of defining “alive” vs. “not alive”.
All other attempts to draw that line are based on perception in some manner, not a specific single moment where a change occurs. When the heart beats? That observation is limited by the ability to detect the heart beating. When it can survive outside the womb? Medical technology continues to improve over time, so what won’t survive today might survive tomorrow — you have no “bright line” to point to.
I was taught, per my chiropractor, that only 7 hours after conception the entire brain and nervous system is developed, so basically before the mother-to-be gets a full nights sleep the little one is capable of thoughts and feelings.
Or look at it this way - that unique human DNA is composed of 3 billion lines of unique living code [hence the scripture where God fearfully and wonderfully knits us together in our mother’s womb]. DNA or 3 billion coded sets of A,C,T,& G is the logic/code if written in books would require approx 4,000 average sized books - a stack that would equal the height of the Washington Monument [555 ft]. AND we are not the largest genome in the animal kingdom but we are certainly the most complex and have a god-likeness [i.e. ability to think abstractly, create, etc.] The brain can hold over 6 peta bytes of information and is millions of times faster than the average computer.
Lastly, consider Shannon’s theory of information which basically says if you have symbolic code [i.e. written spoken language, computer language op systems, compiler, or DNA/rNA] that indicates intelligence - intelligence required by and created by an highly-intelligent being. The many varied life kinds indicate a higher-intelligence far surpassing the accumulated knowledge of mankind.
SIMPLY PUT - Any symbolic code can never write itself, it has to have intelligence from outside of the organism acting upon it. And BTW this DNA/rNA code corrects, reproduces, and has natural adaptations and variations so no 2 organisms are exactly the same. Heck not even 2 snowflakes nor fingerprints are exactly the same!
To simplify though I only have 3 problem with dem/libs:
1.) Worship only God [not gov nor anything man-made nor God-made].
2.) Sanctity of Life.
3.) Sanctity of Marriage.
These firm foundations are laid out clearly in Genesis 1 and the warnings for these failures in Romans chapter 1.
I remember asking my mom about this... ‘when should a mother be able to terminate the kid”
“Senior in High School” was her reply.
“the culture of death and they insist that a fertilized egg isn’t alive; that a child growing in the womb is a parasite on the mother’s body”
Thats just what they tell themselves so they don’t have to think about the truth. If it wasn’t alive it would just wash away like everything else there. But since it is alive, it know it has to attache and grow. It’s nature.
the only difference between you now and when your mom and dad made you is time and the number of cells.
Isn’t it the case that not every creature has unique DNA? I thought identical twins had the same DNA.
For the problem with that argument, see post #43...the zygote is self-sustaining and growing prior to implantation.
Also, I think this self-sustaining bit is not a good criteria generally. A newborn won't do so well if it doesn't get outside intervention in the form of warmth and food. Toddlers can't fend for themselves. Every organism is dependent on a small range of environmental and biological conditions to live. Every one. Take it out of those conditions and it is dead. There's no such thing as a fully independent existence.
Kinda but did you also know that those cells die constantly and are replaced constantly so that in 1 years time your body basically recreates and replaces every single cell in your body [not the brain though iirc]. Furthermore, your heart and other vital organs are on a much faster cycle, the heart is 21 days iirc.
‘He makes us new everyday!’
Unique DNA is created at conception, as a reult what has been concieved is a unique human being. It can not be anything else. Period.
A unique individual human being is created and every forensics lab in the country would agree! Now that we have a consensus, this argument is over!
Just tell your pro-murder correspondents that this discussion is moot. As of last week, their cult leader nullified the “right to privacy” between a doctor and patient and confirmed that medical records can be used for criminal prosecution. As a result, he eliminated the “right to privacy” with the stroke of a pen.
Roe established that “right to privacy,” therefore their cult leader overturned Roe by Executive Action.
Start with the person you’re talking too.
Ask them to work back, second by second, to that bright line where their own life began.
Keep on topic.
Avoid hand waving flourishes of “well this stage isn’t life” which are not well defined.
Conception is it.
I honestly don’t know. Seems like it depends on one’s definition and their beliefs.
God knows, but it appears that for some reason, He wants us to keep up the discussion.
How would anyone prove their belief to someone that has a different belief?
Oddly, although abortion advocates could seek to revive the older Christian teaching so as to build a case for the moral acceptability of at least first term abortions, they have not done so because it would acknowledge the authority of Christian teaching, would give credence to the idea of a soul, and would subvert their arguments for the acceptability of mid and late term abortions.
Moreover, from a Christian, and even from atheistic and scientific standpoints, life plainly begins at conception. If the embryo or fetus is a mere tumor or growth, then surely it could be forcibly removed without legal incident, just as a minor or other person under care can be compelled to permit a tumor to be removed. An embryo though is not a tumor or mere growth because, uniquely, an embryo will naturally progress into a fetus and be delivered as a baby.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.