Life Begins At Conception

[chezuki]

 

[indiucky]

It's like watching a star ignite. Literally we now see The Spark of Life. Is that not completely magical?

Very magical......Very beautiful....Most folks seem to believe that science points away from a Creator...I am one of the few that thinks science points in the other direction...This is a perfect example of that...

IMHO....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I was responding to Chip's comment that those who understand biology know that abortion is wrong (paraphrasing). I was just saying that from a biological standpoint, I don't think that there is a difference. But, to your comment, I do believe that maybe the biggest difference between humans and animals is our ability to do just as you say, tamp down those base instincts in favor of humanity and a higher respect for life of our own children. So, it would have been better for me to have said that I believe the difference is there, but I doubt that I learned it from any biology class.

Ah...now I'm with you. The reason why I asked is that I've seen "well...it's common place in nature for x, y, and/or z to happen" as justification for shrugging off various human behaviors.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Very magical...Bordering on supernatural.....Very beautiful....Most folks seem to believe that science points away from a Creator...I am one of the few that thinks science points in the other direction...This is a perfect example of that...

IMHO....

Agreed.

 

[chipbennett]

I was responding to Chip's comment that those who understand biology know that abortion is wrong (paraphrasing). I was just saying that from a biological standpoint, I don't think that there is a difference. But, to your comment, I do believe that maybe the biggest difference between humans and animals is our ability to do just as you say, tamp down those base instincts in favor of humanity and a higher respect for life of our own children. So, it would have been better for me to have said that I believe the difference is there, but I doubt that I learned it from any biology class.

That's not a "paraphrase", that's a complete rewrite. Using your phrasing, I said that those who understand biology know that the body of the unborn is not the same as the body of the mother. As ChristianPatriot seems to want to insist in doing, you are taking several leaps in logic and argument, to try to reach a far-removed conclusion. (Doing so would be a straw man, but apparently, if I point that out, some people get the vapors.)

I was merely refuting the sophistry of the, "my body, my choice" assertion made earlier, by pointing out that the premise of that assertion is scientifically inaccurate.

 

[chipbennett]

Personally I'm disappointed another great debate broke out and very few people seem to appreciate much what the OP's link is about from non theological standards. It's like watching a star ignite. Literally we now see The Spark of Life. Is that not completely magical?

Thank you for seeing the OP exactly as I intended it.

 

[PaulF]

What happens when I shift this line 2 milliseconds after "birth"?

I still have a right to my body. Rearing a child can be emotionally draining, physically challenging, and financially damaging. What if the second the doctor hands me or my wife that clump of cells, it dawns on one of us I no longer wish to be saddled with this burden? Shouldn't I have the same right to end the progression as a woman does before that moment?

The clump of cells isn't self supporting. It doesn't even know day from night. It's a wriggling bag of meat. It probably wouldn't even know it was dying. With this sort of logic, im not sure why the line cannot be justifiably moved with a little consideration.

I wanted to address this, specifically.

Up to the point where the baby is born, it is my opinion that the woman has to consent to the pregnancy, and the associated risks. These risks run from the relatively minor (incontinence, etc...) to relatively major (paralysis, death). It is up to her, and her alone, to choose to accept or reject these risks. Her knowledge and understanding of these risks may be imperfect when she chooses to accept them, and may choose to change her mind later in the pregnancy.

It comes down to, for me, a matter of consent. Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Consent to pregnancy yesterday does not equal consent to pregnancy today. A woman may come to understand her risks differently, and change her mind.

While in-utero a child requires the consent of its mother to survive.

As long as the separate human being is living within her, feeding off her, changing her body and presenting a risk of disability or death the life of that separate human being is subject her consent. She may withdraw it at any time.

Following birth, a child requires the assistance of others to survive, but it no longer requires the very consent of its mother. For me, this is a key difference.

Following birth, the mother no longer faces the risk of death or disability due to pregnancy, and destroying the child is no longer justifiable. She must explore another avenue...drop it off at the fire station, seek adoption services...assistance from family or government.

I don't agree with using abortion as birth control...but I also don't agree with others forcing people to carry an unwanted, potentially debilitating, pregnancy to term.

 

[PaulF]

When referring to that Who one should capitalize Who.....

My Faith (like yours, is yours) calls for love.....I see Paul differently than others...I see myself (before I believed in Who) in Paul...When I am talking to Paul I speak to him as an equal in search of truth....Paul has never (to my knowledge) tried to sway anyone to his belief...He makes his case for why he believes what he believes..I have never once thought of him as anything more or less than a man searching for answers...

I know this...He once put aside his beliefs to pray for myself, my wife and my little girl during a tragic loss...He did so publicly...I don't know Paul...Never met him face to face and he and I have had disagreements in the past...What that showed me is that when it comes time to man up and cut bait Paul will get on bent knee and pray to someone he may or may not believe in for a friend.....He is welcome at my table or fire anytime....

Paul asks many questions and seems to be looking for the same answers all of us seek...Who are we? Why are we here? Do we matter? Are we just matter? Is there a purpose to our existence or are we just the product of random mutations leading up to these messed up beings that are ourselves?

I do believe we all (eventually) get to that curious point in our lives where we quote from Psalms 8 and look to the heavens and ask, "What is man that thou art mindful of him?"

May God Bless you and yours...I enjoy your posts CP....

I think this is the best post I've seen in this thread. I'd rep you, but INGO says I have to spread some rep around first!

I think it speaks well for INGO that this thread is still going and nobody is in trouble, it was getting pretty heated for a while, and nobody wins that way. I don't really like conflict, but sometimes i don't feel right if i don't state what I feel is true. I imagine PaulF feels the same.

Thanks, guys...I don't know exactly how to respond.

I hope everyone knows it is not my intention to insult or offend anyone. I want to offer my viewpoint as honestly as I can, so you can understand how I arrived at it and see it for what it is...an opinion that I hold, nothing more.

It means a great deal to me that I can have a conversation with others of differing viewpoints honestly. I have no desire to demonize or belittle anyone for the opinions they hold, and it does my heart proud to see people treat me with the same deference. We all have views that appear ridiculous to others...it doesn't make us actually ridiculous.

 

[chipbennett]

Thanks, guys...I don't know exactly how to respond.

I hope everyone knows it is not my intention to insult or offend anyone. I want to offer my viewpoint as honestly as I can, so you can understand how I arrived at it and see it for what it is...an opinion that I hold, nothing more.

It means a great deal to me that I can have a conversation with others of differing viewpoints honestly. I have no desire to demonize or belittle anyone for the opinions they hold, and it does my heart proud to see people treat me with the same deference. We all have views that appear ridiculous to others...it doesn't make us actually ridiculous.

Paul, you know I think that you're good people, even though we disagree about this issue. And I respect and appreciate that we can discuss it in a forthright - even blunt - manner, without worrying about whether we may personally offend each other.

 

[OutdoorDad]

I'll start whatever thread I want, with whatever title and content that I want, provided that it is within the stated site rules.

"Life begins at conception" is a scientifically factual statement, and the content of my OP clearly discussed a scientific observation.

No. It isn't.

You do that a lot.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I wanted to address this, specifically.

Up to the point where the baby is born, it is my opinion that the woman has to consent to the pregnancy, and the associated risks. These risks run from the relatively minor (incontinence, etc...) to relatively major (paralysis, death). It is up to her, and her alone, to choose to accept or reject these risks. Her knowledge and understanding of these risks may be imperfect when she chooses to accept them, and may choose to change her mind later in the pregnancy.

It comes down to, for me, a matter of consent. Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Consent to pregnancy yesterday does not equal consent to pregnancy today. A woman may come to understand her risks differently, and change her mind.

While in-utero a child requires the consent of its mother to survive.

As long as the separate human being is living within her, feeding off her, changing her body and presenting a risk of disability or death the life of that separate human being is subject her consent. She may withdraw it at any time.

Following birth, a child requires the assistance of others to survive, but it no longer requires the very consent of its mother. For me, this is a key difference.

Following birth, the mother no longer faces the risk of death or disability due to pregnancy, and destroying the child is no longer justifiable. She must explore another avenue...drop it off at the fire station, seek adoption services...assistance from family or government.

I don't agree with using abortion as birth control...but I also don't agree with others forcing people to carry an unwanted, potentially debilitating, pregnancy to term.

The mother and now the father do face possible health consequences after birth. The mother especially, can face sometimes debilitating post partem depression for example. The child most definitely depends on the parent to survive. Left to its own devices, it could not survive the first day of life.

It's all a matter of where one wishes to draw the line. In years past, once the baby popped out, it was obviously human. 40-50 years ago, it was more mysterious and our knowledge of its object humanity was limited.

(Gotta go).

 

[chipbennett]

No. It isn't.

You do that a lot.

Yes, it is. And it is accepted, non-controversial, scientific fact - biologically, physiologically, and genetically - that life begins at conception.

 

[PaulF]

Paul, you know I think that you're good people, even though we disagree about this issue. And I respect and appreciate that we can discuss it in a forthright - even blunt - manner, without worrying about whether we may personally offend each other.

Agreed.

 

[oldpink]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Armas

Now, if I can just close my eyes, cover my ears, and stomp my feet, all in the name of political agenda trumping known facts, everything will be all right.

 

[CindyE]

Thanks, guys...I don't know exactly how to respond.

I hope everyone knows it is not my intention to insult or offend anyone. I want to offer my viewpoint as honestly as I can, so you can understand how I arrived at it and see it for what it is...an opinion that I hold, nothing more.

It means a great deal to me that I can have a conversation with others of differing viewpoints honestly. I have no desire to demonize or belittle anyone for the opinions they hold, and it does my heart proud to see people treat me with the same deference. We all have views that appear ridiculous to others...it doesn't make us actually ridiculous.

I think that's a great response. I like understanding different points of view, even if i don't agree with them.

 

[CindyE]

Oh, and Calamari... La Scala in Lafayette has great fried calamari. I thought I didn't like it until I tried it there!

 

[CindyE]

Personally I'm disappointed another great debate broke out and very few people seem to appreciate much what the OP's link is about from non theological standards. It's like watching a star ignite. Literally we now see The Spark of Life. Is that not completely magical?

I appreciate it! It IS magical.

 

[singlesix]

Very magical......Very beautiful....Most folks seem to believe that science points away from a Creator...I am one of the few that thinks science points in the other direction...This is a perfect example of that...

IMHO....

Who is the Creator, Christian God, Jewish God, Muslim God, Greek God, Viking God, etc, etc, etc. Calamari sound so much better than squid, but it still tastes great. Love me some squid stir fry.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Yes, it is. And it is accepted, non-controversial, scientific fact - biologically, physiologically, and genetically - that life begins at conception.

No. You're doing it again.

Repeating over and over, the same thing you wish to be true, isn't the same thing as it being true.

It is incontrovertible, accepted by all mammalian life forms on this planet, and most Presbyterians that you are incorrect on this point.

And as we all know, the first person to bring Presbyterians into the conversation wins.*





*see what I did there? I made a wild claim with no basis in fact. I'll refer back to it later as a foundation upon which all our discussions are based if you don't challenge it immediately.


And to the original "spectacular" nature of the chemical reaction, I'm betting I can make bigger sparks crunching Wint-O-Green lifesavers in the dark.

My beliefs on this subject are very similar to yours Chip. But they are only beliefs. They are not scientific fact. Assertions to the contrary are disingenuous at best. Since I think your a pretty smart person, I believe you're just being contentious and playing intellectual games

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

That's not a "paraphrase", that's a complete rewrite. Using your phrasing, I said that those who understand biology know that the body of the unborn is not the same as the body of the mother. As ChristianPatriot seems to want to insist in doing, you are taking several leaps in logic and argument, to try to reach a far-removed conclusion. (Doing so would be a straw man, but apparently, if I point that out, some people get the vapors.)

I was merely refuting the sophistry of the, "my body, my choice" assertion made earlier, by pointing out that the premise of that assertion is scientifically inaccurate.

I'm not at all sure how proving that an unborn child is a distinctly separate being refutes the "my body, my choice" assertion. And, without that connection, it does seem like your comment meant exactly what I thought it meant. I'd be interested to understand how accepting the fact that a woman's body is different from her unborn baby should lead me to the inevitable, logical conclusion that the mother has no right to end a pregnancy.