Posted on 02/24/2024 9:47:21 AM PST by Reno89519
When does life begin? I think most agree that eggs and sperm individually by themseves is not life. By many standards it starts at conception, when they join and become an embryo. Or, is it when there is a heartbeat? Or, later when viable? Or, at birth?
If Christian, then thou shall not kill.
But what does that mean? At conception? Maybe when implanted (but what about in the not to far future, when a baby might be grown in an artifical womb? What about when faked in a mentally ill man?).
Once there is a heartbeat?
Once viable?
Once born?
Maybe even some point after birth?
And at what point do we say no, that is murder to kill a human life?
Or do we leave it as ready option for the AOC's of the world that want their recreational sex without consequences?
Do we have a community standard, law, whatever, or simply wash our hands of it because it is inconvenient, maybe conflicts with our personal, family, or political goals?
Roe v. Wade reversed course on the topic but did not settle it. The federal government still funds killing after conception--embryos for research, abortion mostly by choice.
I personally think that life begins at conception. Thus, killing embryos is wrong, or research or by choice. Abortion is wrong. Since it is life, human life, it is murder.
We tried IVF, no embryos were disgarded or kill. Ultimately, our boys were conceived the old-fashioned way. As Catholics we agonized over IVF, later, we agreed to disagree on the what-if baby vs. life of the mother. Luckily we never faced that choice.
With Roe v. Wade reversed, we've got states setting when it is okay to kill a human life--at heartbeat or up to birth or thereafter. Now, Alabama forces the bigger question, does life begin at conception and do we protect life at conception?
The federal government needs to set national standards, decide what federal funds can and cannot be used to kill human life at or after conception.
Yes, let states set their own within those national standards.
Thus, our national leaders need to lead, help set those standards, be honest and consistent.
Feeding that, what do we believe, what do we expect? For me, life starts at conception and no federal sanction of funding should be spent to kill human life thereafter.
What do you think? Do you think this is just inconvenient because it conflicts with AOC's recreational sex? Is it inconvenient because we might be a minority and thus lose elections?
Did you mean to write “when does life begin?”
Yes, I’ve got some typos that no matter how many times I review, I don’t see until after posted. I sure wish we had edit ability on FR.
So, yes, when does life begin and when do we call it murder and wrong to kill it?
I believe at conception.
Give an individual sperm time, nutrition, protection. . . no human being.
But give a fertilized ovum time, nutrition protection. . . complete human being.
It’s obvious to me.
No, I don’t believe we should use the present form of IVF. I sympathize with barren couples. If you could do IVF without discarding scores of people in the embryonic phase I think that is fine. But the modern way, no.
Also, I’ve known two barren couples who were supposed to never be able to have kids. In each of these cases after ten years or so they began to conceived naturally. It is not unusual.
Finally, if you cannot have children, perhaps you should adopt. There is a waiting list for healthy babies in this country, and a waiting list for Down’s babies. But older foster-to-adopt kids need parents. Perhaps that is your calling.
I agree with that.
A sperm is alive, but it’s not a human being.
An egg is alive, but it’s not a human being.
Put them together, and the zygote is alive, identifiably human, and a genetically unique individual.
I don’t believe in IVF.
The real point is whether the destruction of human life from IVF is any different than the murder of a born person. Since science now unequivocally tells us that at conception, it is a human being. That should be the starting point for any consideration of this question, not the aftermath.
As I said in another thread on this topic, when we speak of human zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, children, teenagers, adults, middle-aged, and old age, these are all simply descriptions of the various stages of human development. Some occur on one side of the birth canal, others on the other side. Some may be imperfect or unwanted by their parents or by society. But all are living human beings. All have an equal human dignity. None should unjustly be deprived of life.
So where do we draw the line at the taking of an innocent human life? What difference does location or stage of human development make? If we lower ourselves to countenance taking the life one category of people for our own convenience and satisfaction, who is next?
OF course it is.... In a Christian culture ..
We were .... but we have lost that battle back in the 60s ..
So the real question ... is it our responsibility to “impose”
our culture on the rest of the nation?
The common ethos are easy, but would you have women wearing bags on their heads? ... I think not ..
IF we are trying to stop the killing of babies at the slaughter house door, we are to late.
The time to win is the battle for hearts and minds.
The power of the gospel .....
I don't think the state should be the arbiter of cultural/ethical issues.
After all ...only the commonly held ethics can be enforced.
AS our culture has diversified ..fractured...less ethics are held in common ..... diversity is our strength?
no
It is our doom.
Every man stands or falls to his own master.
It won't be the state who gives final judgment.
....... just my 2 cents..
Science clearly shows that a unique, individual human life begins at conception.
Well...
What does God have to say about?
That’s the only opinion or truth that matters anyways.
JEREMIAH 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
PSALM 139:13 - 16
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
JOB 10:8-9
Your hands fashioned and made me, and now you have destroyed me altogether. 9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?
ISAIAH 49:1
Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.
Do we give up? Saying that it is now a question of whether to “impose” our views on others, is a bit of a cop-out. That appreach is great in a anarchic liberatarian way but what is the result? Here we talk about murdering life, elsewhere we might talk about closing the border and deporting illegals. Everything can legitimately be framed as imposing our view. So, where’s the line in what is worth it to speak up and impose or what is not? Or do we simply say no, do whatever you want?
On another thread yesterday , I was told that the proper Christian view is that we should be against the operation of IVF clinics.
Yet some Christians are in favor of IVF clinics. They see IVF as a way for people to have children who would otherwise not be able to have children.
Where do we draw lines on all of this , that’s always been the question.
What you are asking is "when does that human life become a person with rights"?
And that is an issue we have been arguing about for a very long time. Mostly because we have a deep ingrained desire to murder and we would like to know who we can murder without getting into trouble. This concept bothers a lot of people but it is once again the only logical conclusion for this argument.
We started with the idea that it was ok to murder those who were not of our tribe because they were not people. That is why if you trace the meaning of names of tribes it ends up being "The People", "The Real People", "The Real Humans" and so forth. The People have rights and you may not murder them without cause. The rest of the world are "not People" and so you can kill them, steal from them, rape them, mutilate and enslave them. It's ok. They are not people.
But we ran into Christianity. And the basis of civil Christianity is "we are all people". It took a long time but that idea finally sunk into the world conscience. We are all people. No matter what we look like. People.
But what about those we can not see? And that is where the argument starts again. Because we can not see babies before they are born it is easy to say they are not really people. After all some of them will die before we see them so that makes them "not People" and it is perfectly ok to murder them.
Except logically it does not. Just because you do not see someone does not mean they are not people. There are entire groups of humans out there that we will never see. And they will die with out us ever seeing them. And they are still people.
I’m in favor of IFV. I think they can work on it, though, so they only need to use one egg.
Still, I would not condemn IVF if it is used to bring at least one baby to life. Many women have miscarriages through no fault of their own, through abuse by someone or even through self harm. God does allow some unborn to not make it. I don’t even pretend to understand His reasons for allowing miscarriages, yet He does. God’s Will.
I believe life begins the very microsecond you are conceived.
They do. However trying to adopt them is harder then you think.
First off you are going to run into the fact that the state does not want you to adopt. The more children they have under their care the more money they get, the more employees they have and the more control they can wield.
To foster you are going to have to agree to any number of things that most people find morally repugnant.
Lastly the children you might possibly be able to adopt will have been deliberately damaged by the system. Sometimes to the point where they are not safe to have in the home.
We did IVF but never faced the issue of choosing and discarding embryos. In our case it was simply to get my sperm in the right place. We also used IVF drugs to enhance the chance of conception. Anyway, there is the downside risk of multiple viable embryos, we discussed that, accepted the risk. We had twins.
Some people are going further and using the technology to choose sex and more.
The Catholic church has some set positions, a lot is in a gray area at the moment, technology outstretching our moral and ethical values.
I think IVF is good, but has acceptable limits. When it gets to killing after conception, that is wrong.
To know when life begins we might look at when life ends, when the heart stops beating.
First, scripture understood in the correct context should be viewed as .. “Thou shall not Murder!”
As a Christian I take the side of God, not man!
As written by David in the book of Psalms ..
“Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.”
Psalm 139:16.
David does not simply say “an embryo” but “the embryo of ME” revealing that David’s life began when he was conceived, long before his birth.
Under inspiration by God, David also revealed that at conception the development of his body parts was according to a plan, or detailed ‘written’ instructions, which made him the person he was.
As a Christian, the choice is clear.🤔
Almost everyone in this country, Christian or not, still believe that it is unjust to kill an innocent person. But many, because of ideological reasons, selfishness, or just ignorance because they have not been given all the facts, do not extend that to the unborn. Our job is to provide the facts to those who are willing to listen with the facts.
I am a Christian, but I do not believe that arguments from Scripture or Church teaching on this issue is the most effective means in most cases simply because so many people are not open to the Gospel or will simply say, "That's just your interpretation."
There are enough scientific and reasonable arguments to be made against abortion and IVF that one does not need to rely on religious arguments, true as they may be. See my post #6,
While it is true that Christians should not "impose" our convictions on others, just like anyone else we have a right to voice our views and propose them to others. And just because we are Christians, we do not lose our right to participate in the public sphere. Just like other citizens, we should be active in the political arena to make our society better and not leave it in the hands of the godless and the materialists to make it worse.
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.