Topic: Origin of Life

[vamrat]

I will withhold my own opinion on the matter because I'd be interested in what you have to say without my own opinion being called into question without knowing what page you are on first.

In light these words, I can't help but recall Bill Hicks' (RIP) famous remark about the subject (paraphrased):

You're not a person till your name turns up in the phone book.

I used to rip the guy off all the time when I was seriously playing with Tollhouse 23. People would be dismayed by my smoking in bars (this is a feat given how much I was drinking that their concern would turn toward my smoking).

They would always ask: how many do you smoke a day?

I would answer: I am up to a two lighter a day habit.

Maybe I get to your question in earnest later. Maybe suggest another one. After all, one of the interesting traditional dichotomies which fell away some time ago from a strictly empirical basis is the difference between that which is alive and that which isn't.

The advent of the literature undead and all its fictional imaginings and its steady increase has more than a little to say on the matter.

In short, I could give you many answers. I just don't know if this is the proper question upon the question of abortion hangs much less the use of oral contraception.

In a strictly existential sense, I could use the old quip to the question is there life after death?

I am still waiting to see if there is life before.

No other factors being considered, supposing two people screw and do all the steps necessary that would under any circumstance result in pregnancy, at which point would you consider the resulting mass of cells to be a human life?

Start in a new thread non-religious topics for a couple of reasons:

So that the unsubstantiated remarks by Kerdy, Gebre, and company linking oral contraception to abortion and thus murder do not get buried.

Those having views non-religious can add to the discussion.

And those having manifold views including the religious can answer without the restrictions placed on them without too much of the piety police conflating such views with views regarding abortion.

It would allow a more concentrated debate, if that is possible.

 

[Kerdy]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

[orthonorm]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

Then your grasp of the science of "life" ended somewhere before middle school. There are different sorts of inquiry appropriate to different questions. Sometimes multiple forms of inquiry each with answers differing in their content but just as rigorous and truth to their method exist.

This thread is to allow such a mixture of methods to occur.



 

[Kerdy]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

I am still enthusiatically waiting.

[orthonorm]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

I am still enthusiatically waiting.

Enjoy, cause you will be waiting for quite a while. The possibility of falsification is consider rather important within modern (I mean this in the strict sense) mathematical-physical sciences.

[Kerdy]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

I am still enthusiatically waiting.

It appears no one can.  This is puzzling because so many people argue against others views when they are unable to clarify their own.  Interesting.

[vamrat]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

Then your grasp of the science of "life" ended somewhere before middle school. There are different sorts of inquiry appropriate to different questions. Sometimes multiple forms of inquiry each with answers differing in their content but just as rigorous and truth to their method exist.

This thread is to allow such a mixture of methods to occur.



 

So, how should I frame my inquiry to ascertain at which point you would consider human life to begin?

[orthonorm]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

Then your grasp of the science of "life" ended somewhere before middle school. There are different sorts of inquiry appropriate to different questions. Sometimes multiple forms of inquiry each with answers differing in their content but just as rigorous and truth to their method exist.

This thread is to allow such a mixture of methods to occur.



 

So, how should I frame my inquiry to ascertain at which point you would consider human life to begin?

If you are talking to me, you don't need to. I'll get to it. But to think that science has some sorta "irrefutable claims" is silly, since many folks would argue that for any claim to be considered within the realm of science it must necessarily be capable of being refuted. I am trying to help Kerdy as much as I can.

And I doubt that something like science is going to offer a meaningful answer. The fact the people flock to science or some "point" along the way to understand life is completely bassackwards.

And all my posts are answers. I fear before this is over, people will accuse me for being more cryptic than ever.

[Justin Kissel]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

I am still enthusiatically waiting.

It appears no one can.  This is puzzling because so many people argue against others views when they are unable to clarify their own.  Interesting.

So how would you define life? I assume you agree that human life begins at conception, but what of life generally? What does it mean to say that someone is alive? And what does it mean to say that someone is human? Is consciousness required? A working heart or nervous system? I don't think you can just say "it begins at conception" because things can go wrong after conception such that a human doesn't form. You could argue in this case whether God ensouled the conceived, but I'm just asking about how we know if it's life, human life, or not.

[minasoliman]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

[Kerdy]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

I am still enthusiatically waiting.

It appears no one can.  This is puzzling because so many people argue against others views when they are unable to clarify their own.  Interesting.

So how would you define life? I assume you agree that human life begins at conception, but what of life generally? What does it mean to say that someone is alive? And what does it mean to say that someone is human? Is consciousness required? A working heart or nervous system? I don't think you can just say "it begins at conception" because things can go wrong after conception such that a human doesn't form. You could argue in this case whether God ensouled the conceived, but I'm just asking about how we know if it's life, human life, or not.

I am always willing to have my mind changed, so I am more interested in hearing from those who claim to (or exude the appearance of) have better answers than the rest of us, especially when those same people demand empirical evidence from the ones they disagree (or present such a narrow allowance for evidence it’s ridiculous), but apparently have none to offer (most likely realizing there is someone one the sidelines waiting to punch little holes into their theories).  

You see, it seems as if certain personality types enjoy the argument for the sake of the argument, not for learning, teaching or expanding our minds and souls.  To attack and tear down is great, but there must be something to build in its place which will be longer standing.  In my mind, it’s no different than having comedians in the Senate.  Sure, they are interesting, but what do they really accomplish?

So, I sit here, waiting, eager, for the great minds of squabble to present their awe inspiring proof of what they claim, even though most times they really do not claim much of anything, rather present circular argument after circular argument, which leads to my above mentioned belief of personality traits.  In any event, they have the floor and have done nothing to quiet the restless souls squirming in their seats to be educated beyond belief.  This is not my opportunity, but theirs.

[Kerdy]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

[minasoliman]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

[Kerdy]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Are you speaking in terms of the natural course of things?

[minasoliman]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Are you speaking in terms of the natural course of things?

...natural and necessary courses of action for the preservation of the life of the mother

[Kerdy]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Are you speaking in terms of the natural course of things?

...natural and necessary courses of action for the preservation of the life of the mother

I am not sure I follow you here.  I understand the human body naturally not allowing continued growth of a fetus beyond the control of the parents even if they knew nothing about it in the first place, but the preservation of the mother’s life I need more explanation.  

Going from what I understand you to say (and correct me if I am wrong), you propose about half of all pregnancies end without our interference through means such as abortion.  If this is the case, I would only respond with these things happen at the behest of God, not man.  We have no control over the actions of God or what He allows to take place, only what we do and our actions.

[minasoliman]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Are you speaking in terms of the natural course of things?

...natural and necessary courses of action for the preservation of the life of the mother

I am not sure I follow you here.  I understand the human body naturally not allowing continued growth of a fetus beyond the control of the parents even if they knew nothing about it in the first place, but the preservation of the mother’s life I need more explanation.  

Going from what I understand you to say (and correct me if I am wrong), you propose about half of all pregnancies end without our interference through means such as abortion.  If this is the case, I would only respond with these things happen at the behest of God, not man.  We have no control over the actions of God or what He allows to take place, only what we do and our actions.

Not including those abortions that are performed for necessary reasons.

Yes I agree that there are things at the behest of God that is done.  But usually these natural occurrences that are beyond our control are a relatively small percentage.  This isn't a small percentage.  There's nothing to prevent it, except perhaps to never try to conceive.

[orthonorm]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

I am still enthusiatically waiting.

It appears no one can.  This is puzzling because so many people argue against others views when they are unable to clarify their own.  Interesting.

So how would you define life? I assume you agree that human life begins at conception, but what of life generally? What does it mean to say that someone is alive? And what does it mean to say that someone is human? Is consciousness required? A working heart or nervous system? I don't think you can just say "it begins at conception" because things can go wrong after conception such that a human doesn't form. You could argue in this case whether God ensouled the conceived, but I'm just asking about how we know if it's life, human life, or not.

I am always willing to have my mind changed, so I am more interested in hearing from those who claim to (or exude the appearance of) have better answers than the rest of us, especially when those same people demand empirical evidence from the ones they disagree (or present such a narrow allowance for evidence it’s ridiculous), but apparently have none to offer (most likely realizing there is someone one the sidelines waiting to punch little holes into their theories).

You really have a hard time understanding the basics of domains of truth and discussion? You make a claim which can be determined by scientific inquiry and offer nothing but rumor.

Discussing the validity of a stance on a piece of literature for example would be open to another sort of method.

Just cause you were shown to have no leg to stand on in one argument in which science plays the determining role doesn't mean that every discussion is decided by recourse to science.

[Kerdy]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Are you speaking in terms of the natural course of things?

...natural and necessary courses of action for the preservation of the life of the mother

I am not sure I follow you here.  I understand the human body naturally not allowing continued growth of a fetus beyond the control of the parents even if they knew nothing about it in the first place, but the preservation of the mother’s life I need more explanation.  

Going from what I understand you to say (and correct me if I am wrong), you propose about half of all pregnancies end without our interference through means such as abortion.  If this is the case, I would only respond with these things happen at the behest of God, not man.  We have no control over the actions of God or what He allows to take place, only what we do and our actions.

Not including those abortions that are performed for necessary reasons.

Yes I agree that there are things at the behest of God that is done.  But usually these natural occurrences that are beyond our control are a relatively small percentage.  This isn't a small percentage.  There's nothing to prevent it, except perhaps to never try to conceive.

I apologize if I misunderstand what you are saying, but if you are saying these things occur as a result of our action in the majority, then we have the ability not to allow them to happen.  What type or actions are you specifically addressing which are not preventable but fill up the percentages you spoke of?  Birth control?

[minasoliman]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Are you speaking in terms of the natural course of things?

...natural and necessary courses of action for the preservation of the life of the mother

I am not sure I follow you here.  I understand the human body naturally not allowing continued growth of a fetus beyond the control of the parents even if they knew nothing about it in the first place, but the preservation of the mother’s life I need more explanation. 

Going from what I understand you to say (and correct me if I am wrong), you propose about half of all pregnancies end without our interference through means such as abortion.  If this is the case, I would only respond with these things happen at the behest of God, not man.  We have no control over the actions of God or what He allows to take place, only what we do and our actions.

Not including those abortions that are performed for necessary reasons.

Yes I agree that there are things at the behest of God that is done.  But usually these natural occurrences that are beyond our control are a relatively small percentage.  This isn't a small percentage.  There's nothing to prevent it, except perhaps to never try to conceive.

I apologize if I misunderstand what you are saying, but if you are saying these things occur as a result of our action in the majority, then we have the ability not to allow them to happen.  What type or actions are you specifically addressing which are not preventable but fill up the percentages you spoke of?  Birth control?

The rate of fertilized eggs' inability to implant on a uterus, thus leading to rejection and eventual "death" of a potential human being.  The rate is 50%.  This is unavoidable.

[Kerdy]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Are you speaking in terms of the natural course of things?

...natural and necessary courses of action for the preservation of the life of the mother

I am not sure I follow you here.  I understand the human body naturally not allowing continued growth of a fetus beyond the control of the parents even if they knew nothing about it in the first place, but the preservation of the mother’s life I need more explanation.  

Going from what I understand you to say (and correct me if I am wrong), you propose about half of all pregnancies end without our interference through means such as abortion.  If this is the case, I would only respond with these things happen at the behest of God, not man.  We have no control over the actions of God or what He allows to take place, only what we do and our actions.

Not including those abortions that are performed for necessary reasons.

Yes I agree that there are things at the behest of God that is done.  But usually these natural occurrences that are beyond our control are a relatively small percentage.  This isn't a small percentage.  There's nothing to prevent it, except perhaps to never try to conceive.

I apologize if I misunderstand what you are saying, but if you are saying these things occur as a result of our action in the majority, then we have the ability not to allow them to happen.  What type or actions are you specifically addressing which are not preventable but fill up the percentages you spoke of?  Birth control?

The rate of fertilized eggs' inability to implant on a uterus, thus leading to rejection and eventual "death" of a potential human being.  The rate is 50%.  This is unavoidable.

Then this would fall into Gods territory, right?

Edit:  I believe I see where you are going with this.

Do we agree the deeper we go, the more questions arise?

[minasoliman]

We had a discussion on this elsewhere.  In the end I stand in the "I don't know" camp because indeed science does not definitively answer this question, and if people use science, they might be at odds or ambivalent with their own beliefs.  To say that science conclusively proves that "life" begins at conception is disingenuous.

I encourage people to read the addendum in Dr Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" where he discusses the issue with all honesty, opening up more questions rather than answering it for you.

This is the point I would like to make in regards to these issues.  We simply do not know, so why take the risk of being horribly wrong?  Wait for definitive confirmation prior to action, especially when an innocent life may be the price.

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Are you speaking in terms of the natural course of things?

...natural and necessary courses of action for the preservation of the life of the mother

I am not sure I follow you here.  I understand the human body naturally not allowing continued growth of a fetus beyond the control of the parents even if they knew nothing about it in the first place, but the preservation of the mother’s life I need more explanation. 

Going from what I understand you to say (and correct me if I am wrong), you propose about half of all pregnancies end without our interference through means such as abortion.  If this is the case, I would only respond with these things happen at the behest of God, not man.  We have no control over the actions of God or what He allows to take place, only what we do and our actions.

Not including those abortions that are performed for necessary reasons.

Yes I agree that there are things at the behest of God that is done.  But usually these natural occurrences that are beyond our control are a relatively small percentage.  This isn't a small percentage.  There's nothing to prevent it, except perhaps to never try to conceive.

I apologize if I misunderstand what you are saying, but if you are saying these things occur as a result of our action in the majority, then we have the ability not to allow them to happen.  What type or actions are you specifically addressing which are not preventable but fill up the percentages you spoke of?  Birth control?

The rate of fertilized eggs' inability to implant on a uterus, thus leading to rejection and eventual "death" of a potential human being.  The rate is 50%.  This is unavoidable.

Then this would fall into Gods territory, right?

Edit:  I believe I see where you are going with this.

Do we agree the deeper we go, the more questions arise?

Well, there are more things in science that helps make the conception question become even more questionable.  But I just wanted to make the point that compared to other natural things that can be avoided, this one is at an unusually high rate (50%!!!).  That's my point.  If we were to define this within God's territory, well then, for one thing, it's quite a considerably significant problem that God's territory allows for such a high number in nature to die off.

It's not like disease or natural disasters, where a small population in the world is affected.  Imagine that for every one child that is born today, AT LEAST "one other human soul" was killed by the natural cause of inability to implant in a uterus.  Compare this with the total death rate of the worst country, South Africa (including preventable deaths), which is 1.723%.  Compare this to the worst country in the world in terms of death rate of children under 5, Romania, which is 2%.  Compare that also to perinatal death rates, which measure death rates of fetuses and neonates no greater than 1 month old.  In the worst countries, you could probably reach something along the lines of 5%.  And if we go to miscarriage rates ("spontaneous abortions"), there's a 15-20% chance on average, and that's usually it reaches high numbers due to increasing maternal age.

Now, I bet a lot of research is trying to decrease the miscarriage rate more so than non-implantation rate.  The astounding 50% implantation rate would pretty much make someone like me cringe if I was to define life beginning at conception.  I'm not sure where we can draw the line on mortality rates of certain living ages, but at the very least 50% is un-excusable, and a very hard number to ignore.  It causes many atheists to ridicule God as the biggest abortionist ever.  The "I don't know" for me means that we are willing to be open to possibly new definition of when life begins, unless certain conditions and advances in humanity is willing to change that rate to a completely lower number that it should be.

Sources:
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2007/US-Death-Rate1may07.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241563206_eng.pdf
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

[Kerdy]

I appreciate the dialogue, but as you accurately pointed out, there are more questions than answers.  I would have expected after a full day there would have been more people engaged in this thread presenting all sorts of factual evidence.  It appears I was mistaken.  Perhaps at some point in the distant future.  Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me.  I enjoyed hearing them.

[Melodist]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.

You inherit "life" from your parents, the cells carrying your genetic makeup are already "alive" when they are formed from your parents cells. You become an individual human being when all of the genetic material that physically makes you "you" combines togther at conception. Scientifically speaking anyway.

From a Christian POV, when exactly during Mary's pregnancy did the Word become flesh?

Just a couple of thoughts.

[minasoliman]

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.

You inherit "life" from your parents, the cells carrying your genetic makeup are already "alive" when they are formed from your parents cells. You become an individual human being when all of the genetic material that physically makes you "you" combines togther at conception. Scientifically speaking anyway.

From a Christian POV, when exactly during Mary's pregnancy did the Word become flesh?

Just a couple of thoughts.

From a scientific pov, when you die, the genetic material is still there and yet you're in a coffin.  So fro. A scientific pov, that holds no water.

[Melodist]

From a scientific pov, when you die, the genetic material is still there and yet you're in a coffin.  So fro. A scientific pov, that holds no water.

?

I didn't say that the presence of genetic material means "alive", only that it means physically belonging to an individual. Cloning would be a better argument against my post. I'm not sure how that would relate to personal individuality.

[stanley123]

From a Christian POV, when exactly during Mary's pregnancy did the Word become flesh?

For the RCC, it is the moment of conception.

[minasoliman]

From a scientific pov, when you die, the genetic material is still there and yet you're in a coffin.  So fro. A scientific pov, that holds no water.

?

I didn't say that the presence of genetic material means "alive", only that it means physically belonging to an individual. Cloning would be a better argument against my post. I'm not sure how that would relate to personal individuality.

this is what you said:

"You become an individual human being when all of the genetic material that physically makes you "you" combines togther at conception.".

So this sentence holds no water.  Maybe you need to rephrase.  Because logically life has to end when genetic material "separate" which is what the sentence implies.  Either that or you never really cease to be an individual human being as a corpse.

And yes, cloning is a better argument.  In fact there was another thread a while back on this same issue where I pretty much talked about how cloning may force us to change the "life begins at conception" theory.

[Opus118]

Well we already know that a significant amount of fertilized cells are aborted at least.  About 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant.  Already we see here that if we say that life begins at conception, then at least 50% of the population has been killed. That doesn't include miscarriage and partial birth abortions.  That personally bothers me.  Usually, a small percentage would be plausible. No?

Thanks. I did not know about this. I did a quick search and I came up with this from the President's Council on Bioethics:
Early Embryonic Development: An Up-to-Date Account (Opitz, 1-16-2003)
http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/jan03/session1.html

Quote:
PROF. SANDEL: So if we take the 7-day stage, it's 60 percent. The 80 percent is if you go back to the moment of fertilization. But if you take just starting at the 7 days, there's 60 percent rate of natural loss. And of those 60 percent that are lost from the 7-day stage, what percentage of those have abnormalities or defects such that they wouldn't otherwise be able to be born?

DR. OPITZ: I would say somewhere around 50 to 60 percent and mind you, many of these are empty sacs, tiny, tiny stunted little embryos, but when you culture the sacs you find a chromosome abnormality, even though the embryo has vanished already.

PROF. SANDEL: So of the 60 percent that are lost at the 7-day stage, 40 to 50 percent did not contain defects or abnormalities, could have been born?

DR. OPITZ: Right.

[Melodist]

So this sentence holds no water.  Maybe you need to rephrase.  Because logically life has to end when genetic material "separate" which is what the sentence implies. 

Genetic information, whether from living or dead tissue or fluids, is what is scientifically used to identify who it belongs to. I didn't link genetic material to being the source of life, but to physical identity.

Either that or you never really cease to be an individual human being as a corpse.

Your body doesn't cease to be human or belonging to you, it just ceases to be alive.

[Melodist]

In fact there was another thread a while back on this same issue where I pretty much talked about how cloning may force us to change the "life begins at conception" theory.

I guess the question would be "when does the old tissue receive a new personal identity". Seeing how, last I heard, cloning required the genetic information to be inserted into a new egg to be developed, it could be argued that it becomes a new person at that point. If we get to a place where complex organisms can be cloned by regeneration from just a piece of tissue belonging to the original subject, things might get a little more complicated.

[Iconodule]

And I doubt that something like science is going to offer a meaningful answer. The fact the people flock to science or some "point" along the way to understand life is completely bassackwards.

An unfortunate number of "religious" people are really empiricists/ positivists before anything else.

[Iconodule]

I appreciate the dialogue, but as you accurately pointed out, there are more questions than answers.  I would have expected after a full day there would have been more people engaged in this thread presenting all sorts of factual evidence.  It appears I was mistaken.  Perhaps at some point in the distant future.  Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me.  I enjoyed hearing them.

Kerdy, let me help you out here and try to make the points orthonorm was making as concisely as possible.

You made a claim (birth control pills are abortifacients) which would in fact be demonstrable or refutable by the methods of modern empirical science.  You have yet to provide any such support for your claim.

You then approach an entirely different question (when does life begin) as if it can be answered with equal falsifiability according to the same methods.

You are confusing a very broad, thorny philosophical/ theological question with a straightforward modern scientific one. The approach you are taking speaks of a mindset often labeled as "scientism," which assumes that the scientific method can be used to answer practically any philosophical question. As a Christian, that should bother you.

[Kerdy]

I appreciate the dialogue, but as you accurately pointed out, there are more questions than answers.  I would have expected after a full day there would have been more people engaged in this thread presenting all sorts of factual evidence.  It appears I was mistaken.  Perhaps at some point in the distant future.  Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me.  I enjoyed hearing them.

Kerdy, let me help you out here and try to make the points orthonorm was making as concisely as possible.

You made a claim (birth control pills are abortifacients) which would in fact be demonstrable or refutable by the methods of modern empirical science.  You have yet to provide any such support for your claim.

You then approach an entirely different question (when does life begin) as if it can be answered with equal falsifiability according to the same methods.

You are confusing a very broad, thorny philosophical/ theological question with a straightforward modern scientific one. The approach you are taking speaks of a mindset often labeled as "scientism," which assumes that the scientific method can be used to answer practically any philosophical question. As a Christian, that should bother you.

Allow me to attempt to clarify for your understanding. Either we have answers or we don't.  If we don't, we guess, which usually is shown to be incorrect, then incorrect again.  It's a cycle of wrong guesses.  So, if we are guessing when life is in the balance, preventable death I should add, that should bother you.

Let's not forget the inability to read my entire posts instead of focusing on just the parts which you (generic sense) don't like.  What I find most confusing is your (generic sense) lack of ability to provide the very thing demanded of others.  When someone, anyone, claims superior intellect and knowledge, they should be prepared to prove they are right, not just prove others are wrong.  You don't get to be right just because you say you are.

The questions I ask should be the main focus, at least I think so. 

BTW, if he doesn't accept information from the very people who designed and created something because he doesn't like the answer, would you consider that at all scientific or academic?  Me either. 

So, let's stop feebly attempting to show how inept others are and start proving how we should believe everything you (generic sense) tell us.

Until we can clearly define when life begins, all other arguments are futile.

[Opus118]

Until we can clearly define when life begins, all other arguments are futile.

Isn't this the real question? I am also not sure what other arguments are at issue here.
Until we can clearly define when life begins, all other arguments are futile.

Biologists generally have a definition for this. It allows them to make statements that viruses and mitochondria aren't living organisms.

[orthonorm]

BTW, if he doesn't accept information from the very people who designed and created something because he doesn't like the answer, would you consider that at all scientific or academic?  Me either. 

So you posted those studies? Can you link me to the post? Thanks. If your he refers to me.

[orthonorm]

Kerdy, have faith. I'll be posting here. My weekends get in the way my posting here sometime. Work, health, and life outside the board calls.

[Kerdy]

I'm any event, I have little doubt whatever is presented will not fulfill its empty promise.  So, I will focus my attention in other threads.  It should have been an easy endeavor.

[minasoliman]

In fact there was another thread a while back on this same issue where I pretty much talked about how cloning may force us to change the "life begins at conception" theory.

I guess the question would be "when does the old tissue receive a new personal identity". Seeing how, last I heard, cloning required the genetic information to be inserted into a new egg to be developed, it could be argued that it becomes a new person at that point. If we get to a place where complex organisms can be cloned by regeneration from just a piece of tissue belonging to the original subject, things might get a little more complicated.

I think you'll enjoy this discussion 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20098.0.html

[orthonorm]

I'm any event, I have little doubt whatever is presented will not fulfill its empty promise.  So, I will focus my attention in other threads.  It should have been an easy endeavor.

Please quote the promise.

It's not fun having to back up claims, is it?

Yes, the education of Kerdy is as much the point of this as anything.

[Melodist]

In fact there was another thread a while back on this same issue where I pretty much talked about how cloning may force us to change the "life begins at conception" theory.

I guess the question would be "when does the old tissue receive a new personal identity". Seeing how, last I heard, cloning required the genetic information to be inserted into a new egg to be developed, it could be argued that it becomes a new person at that point. If we get to a place where complex organisms can be cloned by regeneration from just a piece of tissue belonging to the original subject, things might get a little more complicated.

I think you'll enjoy this discussion 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20098.0.html

Some interesting points in there to think about concerning genetic material and what makes a person physically unique and identifiable. We still have the questions from the religious POV, "Do we believe the Word became flesh?" and "At what point during Mary's pregnancy?".

[JamesRottnek]

Does the point at which a fertilized egg has a right to life (even if such point is the point of birth) really matter in any fundamental way?  Shouldn't we, instead of lobbying to outlaw abortion - something that is usually not going to succeed, and will only serve to make more abstractions out of more people, and cause more people to hate those abstractions, and the people they associate with them - perhaps focus on real efforts to minimize the number of people who choose to abort babies?  Perhaps, instead of debating when abortion becomes a killing or a murder or whatever term you wish to use, we should be discussing how to promote birth control, such as condoms, and teaching people to properly use them, and discussing how to provide - as a society - for unwed (and otherwise poor) mothers and their children, and work to make adoptions easier, and encourage more Americans to stop going to godawful countries like China and Haiti and adopting all their infants, when they could instead be meeting with poor pregnant women, including unwed teen soon-to-be-mothers, and arranging the adoption of those children, so that they are not aborted?  Wouldn't this be a more useful expenditure of time and energy?

[Shiny]

Does the point at which a fertilized egg has a right to life (even if such point is the point of birth) really matter in any fundamental way?  Shouldn't we, instead of lobbying to outlaw abortion - something that is usually not going to succeed, and will only serve to make more abstractions out of more people, and cause more people to hate those abstractions, and the people they associate with them - perhaps focus on real efforts to minimize the number of people who choose to abort babies?  Perhaps, instead of debating when abortion becomes a killing or a murder or whatever term you wish to use, we should be discussing how to promote birth control, such as condoms, and teaching people to properly use them, and discussing how to provide - as a society - for unwed (and otherwise poor) mothers and their children, and work to make adoptions easier, and encourage more Americans to stop going to godawful countries like China and Haiti and adopting all their infants, when they could instead be meeting with poor pregnant women, including unwed teen soon-to-be-mothers, and arranging the adoption of those children, so that they are not aborted?  Wouldn't this be a more useful expenditure of time and energy?

But we do educate and promote contraceptive use. The problem is that it's just not enough. Plus we should have the freedom to have contraceptives or not. Now I do agree that those who willingly not use contraceptives and the female is pregnant is ultimately responsible for its birth. But when they don't want the birth it's either abortion or adoption. So I think there should still be a focus on outlawing abortion then we will see a change in sexual ideology.

[minasoliman]

In fact there was another thread a while back on this same issue where I pretty much talked about how cloning may force us to change the "life begins at conception" theory.

I guess the question would be "when does the old tissue receive a new personal identity". Seeing how, last I heard, cloning required the genetic information to be inserted into a new egg to be developed, it could be argued that it becomes a new person at that point. If we get to a place where complex organisms can be cloned by regeneration from just a piece of tissue belonging to the original subject, things might get a little more complicated.

I think you'll enjoy this discussion 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20098.0.html

Some interesting points in there to think about concerning genetic material and what makes a person physically unique and identifiable. We still have the questions from the religious POV, "Do we believe the Word became flesh?" and "At what point during Mary's pregnancy?".

That was also talked about in the thread.  And I believe ozgeorge made a good point that you can't compare the Incarnation to man's conception.  For man, our question is when does personhood begin in the embryo.  In Christ, the person is the Word of God, pre-existent.  Second of all, and this is my own argument, there was no fusion of sperm and egg.  This was a full-blown virgin miracle.  We don't know at what point or how Christ was made man out of woman's seed alone, but somehow it happened.  So at this particular issue, you cannot compare as well.  Either way, personhood and the way the incarnation was done, the point you make seems invalid.

[vamrat]

Does the point at which a fertilized egg has a right to life (even if such point is the point of birth) really matter in any fundamental way?  Shouldn't we, instead of lobbying to outlaw abortion - something that is usually not going to succeed, and will only serve to make more abstractions out of more people, and cause more people to hate those abstractions, and the people they associate with them - perhaps focus on real efforts to minimize the number of people who choose to abort babies?  Perhaps, instead of debating when abortion becomes a killing or a murder or whatever term you wish to use, we should be discussing how to promote birth control, such as condoms, and teaching people to properly use them, and discussing how to provide - as a society - for unwed (and otherwise poor) mothers and their children, and work to make adoptions easier, and encourage more Americans to stop going to godawful countries like China and Haiti and adopting all their infants, when they could instead be meeting with poor pregnant women, including unwed teen soon-to-be-mothers, and arranging the adoption of those children, so that they are not aborted?  Wouldn't this be a more useful expenditure of time and energy?

"Wouldn't this be a more useful expenditure of time and energy?"

Yes, I very much believe that it would be.  But then, here is the problem:

"...and work to make adoptions easier..."

Anything the .govs get their fingers in is going to be difficult.  I think the main thing is that there would have to be a "no strings attached" policy.  I'm not exactly sure how adoptions work in the US, as is, but I think that it would be easier to get people to adopt if there were something in place where the natural mother of the child has no right to ever try and get back into the life of the child without explicit consent from the adopted parents.  I can see that being a sticky issue.  At least when the natural mother is some peasant in China with no means of contact the parents know that they will be able to raise the child without interference.

This may not actually be an issue, once again, I know almost nothing about the adoption laws and process.

One thing I do know is that adoptions can be very expensive.  I think that it would be in society's best interest to make it cheap for someone who has the desire to adopt since they are doing a service to society, rather than adoption being a service rendered to the potential parents.