If you’re looking for a more scientific way to say it, perhaps you could say that since at conception, there is enough genetic material in place to define a new individual, that that would be the beginning of a new life.
Life begins w/ “AHHHHH”!
Or mayybe “O G*D”!
Questions make for excuses.
Human life begins at conception without a doubt because it has never occurred otherwise, since a male and female human first walked this earth. No conception, no life, period, end of discussion.
Even in test tube babies, conception is the FIRST requirement. You can destroy sperm or an egg individually without killing a human but once those two meet, life begins.
After conception, cells are reproducing, which is another proof or requirement of life.
However, you may be wasting your time as the religion of death has overwhelmed us to the point where we would even elect a Marxists to the highest office in the land.
You are alive before conception. And move into your new digs at conception.
If life didn’t begin until after conception you are automatically a resurrected being.
There is no question when Life begins. There never was. Period. You’re playing THEIR game.
I’m not a medical professional, so can’t say for certain with any authority what the fertilized human egg “is”, although if left alone, unmolested, I know what it “becomes”...
Human beings progress thru many stages in our lives, from birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adult, middle and old age, and finally death...
The moment of conception and the brief time spent in our mother’s womb are but more stages in this lifetime...
I believe a human life begins at conception...
Abortion for any reason other than a doctor’s advice based on sound medical necessity, and the mother’s life/good health is murder by the most fundamental definition of the term...
You are brave and have a sense of humour. I commend you for that, for what it’s worth.
Have you researched the history of this debate, when and how it started, what the ancients thought, wrote of it?
(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.
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 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.
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.
These should get you started. We watched a version of this during Sunday School this week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXA-RNgOLyc
http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/product/dvds/science-and-space/in-the-womb-dvd