• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Beginning of Human Life

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hi Valjean. Good afternoon. Thanks for the response. Don't you think it's rather convenient that we can't actually prove macroevolution to be true? You say some things are too slow or distant to be observed, however, the leaps that theorists have made to claim that one organism evolved in to a radically different organism by adding the sum of hundreds of thousands of years to the equation is to me laughable. I read articles like this: From Bambi to Moby Dick: how a small deer evolved into the whale | Evolution | The Guardian and I'm laughing all the way through. It's not science. It's something that belongs to a Disney production. I have no idea how people who consider themselves intelligent could believe such absurdity.

Perhaps you feel the same way about the Bible, that it's all made-up. But historians and archaeologists use the Bible as an accurate source to explain where certain cities were located, events occurred and cultures were evident. It makes sense that what we see around us was created because there is beauty and harmony in this world. If Yahweh didn't create in this world, this world would look like that mentioned in Genesis 1:2 "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep...". No amount of time will result in human beings evolving in to something else. What about Mendel's laws?
A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations also confirm these boundaries. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 3. Mendel’s Laws (creationscience.com)



Let's start with the DNA record. Natural processes cannot produce large amounts of information. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information (creationscience.com) Even if matter and life somehow arose—perhaps only a bacterium—the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero. To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10 to the power of 40,000 trials.i (To begin to understand how large 10 to the power of 40,000 is, realize that the visible universe contains fewer than 10 to the power of 80 atoms.)

What about "junk" DNA? Evolutionists out of ignorance began to call huge chunks of DNA they considered to be irrelevant and redundant aspects of our evolutionary past, yet this so called "junk" DNA was shown to contain millions of switches that regulate gene activity at specific times and in unique ways for each of thousands of different types of cells. No, DNA implies creation, it certainly doesn't imply macroevolution.

What about fossils you might ask? Fossils are proof of a global flood. If that much water sloshed over the earth for a year, many dead animals and plants would have been buried in vast amounts of mud and other sediments. This could explain how almost all fossils formed, especially those on the highest mountains. Further, in-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species.

There's a good explanation here about that of the fossil record proving rapid burial: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 21. Rapid Burial (creationscience.com)


Well, I can't speak on the Quran, or any other religious literature. I was brought up on the Bible, and the scripture says in Romans 10:16-17 "16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Yahweh, who has believed our message?” 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about the Messiah." I heard the message, and I came to believe it. Actually, in my youth nearly every day I would listen to a sermon and my faith grew and the fruits in my life increased of which I give the praise to Yahweh. The Bible doesn't resonate with everyone. It did resonate with me and by Yahweh's grace He called me (see scriptures like 1 Corinthians 1:25-27, 2 Thessalonians 2:14 etc):

“But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
you descendants of Abraham my friend,
9 I took you from the ends of the earth,
from its farthest corners I called you.
I said, ‘You are my servant’;
I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
10 So do not fear, for I am with you;
do not be dismayed, for I am your Elohim.
I will strengthen you and help you;
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."

I have found that we have to be called by Yahweh and that won't happen unless Yahweh sees something in us worth salvaging. If we are worthy to have the good news dawn upon us, Yahweh will call us, but we should be seeking Him. Do you remember what happened in Mark 10:49? The blind man wasn't healed right away, Yahshua had to call him to him. People in this world are blinded. We need Yahshua to open our eyes.

Knowing Yahshua has been the best thing that has happened in my life. He makes my life worth living and I have so much to live for, keeping the commandments, trying to please Yahweh and Yahshua and following in his footsteps.
If you want to be taken seriously you should not link to sites that require their "scientists" not to follow the scientific method.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
And that is NOT a scientific question.
That's odd for all of the resources that I can and have quoted saying precisely when the human lifespan begins.

Now, it is brain death. And we can use the same criterion of brain activity for when the human lifespan *starts*
But, we don't because that isn't accurate. The same entity that grows a brain exists as a living being before that brain forms.

But again, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You cannot sustain the position that human life doesn't begin until some arbitrary brain activity level is reached AND that sperm and ova exist as distinct human lives. One or the other sir.

How is that relevant to being a human being?
You asked as though the concept of constituent parts was foreign to you. Each human has their own constituent parts, normatively determined by its developmental stage.

Because then you miss the whole point. Personhood is the philosophical and moral issue. It is NOT a scientific question.
This thread isn't for the philosophical or moral debate. (And again, I reject personhood as a moral issue entirely, I don't care what convenient definition of personhood someone has; I believe in essential moral value).

You want the science.
Yes. Which is why I've backed up what I've said with scientific resources which say the same thing I'm saying. Humans begin as zygotes. It is the zygote that is the beginning of a new human being. These are scientific statements.

I presume there is a reason you've offered no resources which state that sperm or ova are human beings. One might think that this is perhaps because it is not "the science". Which of course makes sense, sperm and ova are not themselves new human beings, they are not separate creatures, they do not independently develop, they don't have a human being's complement of chromosomes. They are a small constituent part of a human being, the man or woman that produces them just as skin cells are produced by a human being that those skin cells are identified as part of.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That's odd for all of the resources that I can and have quoted saying precisely when the human lifespan begins.


But, we don't because that isn't accurate. The same entity that grows a brain exists as a living being before that brain forms.

But again, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You cannot sustain the position that human life doesn't begin until some arbitrary brain activity level is reached AND that sperm and ova exist as distinct human lives. One or the other sir.

As I have said, human life continues through conception and started about 1-200,000 years ago. The issue isn't a scientific one. It is a oral and philosophical one.

There are several different concepts here:

1) Human. Sperm, eggs, somatic cells, etc are all *human*. They are also all alive. So they are human life.

2) Individuality. This is an incredibly complex subject, but is primarily a philosophical issue. What identifies something as an individual, especially over time?

For example, identical twins are formed when a single zygote divides (as they all eventually do), but forms *two* embryos as opposed to one. Was the zygote an individual that divided into two individuals? What about identical triplets?

On the other end, it is possible (but extremely rare) to have chimeras where two different blastulas (very early embryos) merge to form a single organism. Often the resulting person doesn't realize this until much later (years to decades) if at all. Is this two individuals or a single individual?

These are *philosophical questions*, not scientific ones. The science of what happens in clear. How we want to draw our lines is not. We haven't even touched sesquizygotic twins or mirror twins.

3) Human being. This is usually reserved for living diploid humans that have been born (with some possibility of using quickening as the marker). What constitutes a human being in this sense isn't a scientific question. It is a philosophical one equivalent to the question of personhood.

4) Personhood. When do moral and legal right accrue? This is not a scientific question.

5) Life: everything we have been discussing is alive and human: somatic cells, gametes, zygotes, etc. That is not in dispute scientifically.

You asked as though the concept of constituent parts was foreign to you. Each human has their own constituent parts, normatively determined by its developmental stage.

Yes, an in humans, the constituent parts are our various organs and organ systems. Those are not yet developed in a zygote.

This thread isn't for the philosophical or moral debate. (And again, I reject personhood as a moral issue entirely, I don't care what convenient definition of personhood someone has; I believe in essential moral value).

But you are essentially making the same claim when you point to a zygote as opposed to an unfertilized egg. The reason you give it moral standing isn't because of the science, but because of a moral philosophy.

Yes. Which is why I've backed up what I've said with scientific resources which say the same thing I'm saying. Humans begin as zygotes. It is the zygote that is the beginning of a new human being. These are scientific statements.

Just as the formation of a sperm and egg start individuals of our haploid stage.

I presume there is a reason you've offered no resources which state that sperm or ova are human beings.
They are human and alive. Whether that makes them 'human beings' isn't a scientific question, but a philosophical one. Do you dispute that they are human? That they are alive? That they are genetically distinct?

Your 'human being' is essentially the same as personhood.

One might think that this is perhaps because it is not "the science". Which of course makes sense, sperm and ova are not themselves new human beings, they are not separate creatures, they do not independently develop, they don't have a human being's complement of chromosomes.

They have the full haploid complement of chromosomes. They are 'new human life' if not 'new human beings'. Do you understand the difference? A zygote also does not independently develop: it need nourishment from a person carrying it.

They are a small constituent part of a human being, the man or woman that produces them just as skin cells are produced by a human being that those skin cells are identified as part of.

And again, there is a big difference between somatic cells (like skin, liver, etc) and gametes (like sperm and eggs). The gametes are NOT simply a 'constituent part': they are genetically distinct in a way that no somatic cell is. That is the science.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Apologies for butting in....(sometimes I can't help myself :rolleyes:)

Don't you think it's rather convenient that we can't actually prove macroevolution to be true?
If by "macroevolution" we mean evolution above the species level (in contrast to "microevolution", which is evolution below the species level, such as antibiotic resistance), then it's directly observed reality. We've seen/documented the evolution of new species from all sorts of taxa.

You say some things are too slow or distant to be observed, however, the leaps that theorists have made to claim that one organism evolved in to a radically different organism by adding the sum of hundreds of thousands of years to the equation is to me laughable. I read articles like this: From Bambi to Moby Dick: how a small deer evolved into the whale | Evolution | The Guardian and I'm laughing all the way through. It's not science. It's something that belongs to a Disney production. I have no idea how people who consider themselves intelligent could believe such absurdity.
Have you ever considered that that's because you're not reading a science article, but instead are reading an article from a newspaper? If you truly are interested in the actual science behind the evolution of whales, why not read articles from the scientists themselves?

No amount of time will result in human beings evolving in to something else.
Sorry, but things aren't so just because you say they are.

What about Mendel's laws?
A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations also confirm these boundaries.
From one generation to the next, yes. But across millions of generations is a very different scenario.

Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes.
That's not true at all. Would you like to see an example of the evolution of a "different gene"?

The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.
How did you determine that the "dog family" is a "kind"?

Let's start with the DNA record. Natural processes cannot produce large amounts of information.
Again, things aren't so just because you say they are.

Even if matter and life somehow arose—perhaps only a bacterium—the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero. To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10 to the power of 40,000 trials.i (To begin to understand how large 10 to the power of 40,000 is, realize that the visible universe contains fewer than 10 to the power of 80 atoms.)
Let's see your math.

What about "junk" DNA? Evolutionists out of ignorance began to call huge chunks of DNA they considered to be irrelevant and redundant aspects of our evolutionary past, yet this so called "junk" DNA was shown to contain millions of switches that regulate gene activity at specific times and in unique ways for each of thousands of different types of cells.
In some cases, yes. But there are still large regions of the human genome that are most definitely non-functional. I can provide some reading material on that if you'd like.

What about fossils you might ask? Fossils are proof of a global flood. If that much water sloshed over the earth for a year, many dead animals and plants would have been buried in vast amounts of mud and other sediments. This could explain how almost all fossils formed, especially those on the highest mountains.
Interesting....can you walk me through the process by which a global flood results in fossils on the tops of mountains?

Further, in-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species.
Sure they are...lots of them. Would you like to see some examples?

Finally, I would recommend that if you're going to discuss science, you not rely on sources like creation.com that describe themselves as a "non-profit ministry", and instead rely on actual scientific sources. After all, you wouldn't recommend someone go to an atheist website for information about the Bible, right?
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
As I have said, human life continues through conception and started about 1-200,000 years ago.
Which is an irrelevant conflating of different ideas. This discussion isn't about the flowing river of life. It's also not about the philosophy. It's about the scientific question of when a new homo sapiens, a human organism, begins its specific lifespan.

Yes, an in humans, the constituent parts are our various organs and organ systems.
When they have reached a developmental stage to have those organs, they aren't the constituent parts of humans who haven't reached the stage to develop them.

Human being. This is usually reserved for living diploid humans that have been born
According to whom? I've brought sources that place this point at the formation of a zygote. And all humans are diploids, as I've previously shown with multiple attestations.

But you are essentially making the same claim when you point to a zygote as opposed to an unfertilized egg.
That's incorrect. I am not arguing for moral value in this discussion. I was specifically asking, given the weight of what has been presented, if there was justification for the idea that zygotes are not human beings. So far the answer remains that there is not any.

The reason you give it moral standing isn't because of the science, but because of a moral philosophy.
Of course, I've never said otherwise, what I do is use the science to inform. Since I believe in universal human rights, I look to the sciences to inform when the human lifespan begins. It is, insofar as it had been presented, the consensus that it begins at fertilization.

Just as the formation of a sperm and egg start individuals of our haploid stage.
You steadfastly refuse to place this stage in the lifespan of any human being. So excuse me if I understand "our haploid stage" to mean the stage where humans produce haploid cells for sexual reproduction and not a stage where haploid cells are identified as human beings. "Haploidy is not observed in vertebrates".

They are human and alive. Whether that makes them 'human beings' isn't a scientific question
Whether they constitute a human organism is precisely a question of biology, not philosophy.

They are 'new human life' if not 'new human beings'. Do you understand the difference?
No. They are part of an already existing human life. They are new in the same way that any cell produced by a human is new. That is they are part of the already ongoing life, that is the human being, that produces them. Only when you have a new human organism do you have new human life.

The gametes are NOT simply a 'constituent part': they are genetically distinct in a way that no somatic cell is. That is the science.
They are a constituent part. You already acknowledged that they are not themselves human beings, so that only leaves being part of an already existing human.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Which is an irrelevant conflating of different ideas. This discussion isn't about the flowing river of life. It's also not about the philosophy. It's about the scientific question of when a new homo sapiens, a human organism, begins its specific lifespan.

And if that is not a scientific question. What do you consider a 'human organism' to be? What do you consider a 'lifespan' to be? According to standard usage, the human lifespan begins at birth. But, again, that is NOT a scientific question.

When they have reached a developmental stage to have those organs, they aren't the constituent parts of humans who haven't reached the stage to develop them.

And, again, that depends on what, precisely, you mean by the term 'human'. Sperm and egg cells are certainly human cells. The parts for a fertilized egg cell are not very different than those for an unfertilized one: only a few extra chromosomes.

According to whom? I've brought sources that place this point at the formation of a zygote. And all humans are diploids, as I've previously shown with multiple attestations.

Yes, most cells in humans are diploid. The gametes are not.

That's incorrect. I am not arguing for moral value in this discussion. I was specifically asking, given the weight of what has been presented, if there was justification for the idea that zygotes are not human beings. So far the answer remains that there is not any.

Please define what you mean by the term 'human being'. because I mean a multicellular individual past the 6th month of pregnancy.

Of course, I've never said otherwise, what I do is use the science to inform. Since I believe in universal human rights, I look to the sciences to inform when the human lifespan begins. It is, insofar as it had been presented, the consensus that it begins at fertilization.

Except for those that say it begins at birth or at quickening, or when the brain develops to a certain point. It is a *moral* question, not a scientific one. Usually, the human 'lifespan' is defined by *birth*. So, when you say you are 40 years old, you mean that you were born 40 years ago, not that you were conceived 40 years ago. We celebrate birthdays, not conception days.

You steadfastly refuse to place this stage in the lifespan of any human being. So excuse me if I understand "our haploid stage" to mean the stage where humans produce haploid cells for sexual reproduction and not a stage where haploid cells are identified as human beings. "Haploidy is not observed in vertebrates".

And clearly that is wrong. Sperm and eggs *are* haploid. So haploidy *is* observed in vertebrates. That article was talking about the existence of a multicellular haploid phase, which is NOT observed in vertebrates.

Whether they constitute a human organism is precisely a question of biology, not philosophy.

See:
Eukaryotic Life Cycles

No. They are part of an already existing human life. They are new in the same way that any cell produced by a human is new. That is they are part of the already ongoing life, that is the human being, that produces them. Only when you have a new human organism do you have new human life.

WRONG, scientifically. The sperm and the egg cells are NOT new in the same way any new somatic cell is. They are genetically distinct from each other and from the organism that produced them.

Do you dispute this?

They are a constituent part. You already acknowledged that they are not themselves human beings, so that only leaves being part of an already existing human.

I make a distinction between human cells and human beings and simply being human. All human cells are human. All human being are composed of human cells (plural). But all somatic cells are also human, although they are not human beings. You seem to conflate these distinct ideas.

The term 'human' classifies the species that the cells belong to. So sperm and egg cells are human. So are skin, liver, hearth and other somatic cells. But they are not all individuals. The sperm and egg cells *are* genetic human individuals. But I don't consider them human beings because I limit that term to being after the stage of development when the brain has formed more than a certain amount at which point there are moral issues involved.

They are not human beings for the exact same reasons the zygote is not a human being: they do not have the multicellular structures characteristic of a human being. They are, however, genetically distinct and are organisms if you stretch the definition to include zygotes(which I do not). They are individual with constituent parts (nuclei, mitochondria, etc)
 
Last edited:

DNB

Christian
Are you saying all morality is man-made?
Most people are good because they're unconsciously enculturated withthe values of the community, not because they've critically analyzed the underlying principles. They're conventional, because it's the best way to fit in and get along. I was speaking about mankind in general, the big picture.
Yes, we're clever. So what? Yes, an intense sense of band loyalty and altruism evolved during our millions of years as obligate social animals. These were selective.
Altruism and moral obligation outside the band, however, is mostly learned -- and a thin, easily stripped veneer.
...for cryin' out loud, are you not repulsed by rape, kidnapping, torture, genocide, racism, abuse, etc...?
...no, you say, that's just indoctrination or a cultural imposition.

Man perceives the spiritual, and acts accordingly - for both better and for worse. In other words, if you don't believe that there's a God, you are obligated to believe that there's a devil, for the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, the spiritual realm exists, and this was not created neither by man's imagination, nor stardust or protoplasm.

Killing an innocent human is immoral - a zygote is a human, but in an extremely early stage of development. For, it is neither a rock, a fish, a tree, or anything other than a human zygote.
 

DNB

Christian
If someone decides to live *inside of your body*, demanding energy and resources that you provide, then you have the right to evict them. That would be true of an adult as well.
'decides' , are you serious - who the heck decided what?
It was the irresponsible mother who made any decisions on this matter, obviously. And now, to get out of the mess that she created, she claims that the living creature inside her belly is not a life form, a person, nor human - her stupidity and incompetence is incontrovertible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
'decides' , are you serious - who the heck decided what?
It was the irresponsible mother who made any decisions on this matter, obviously. And now, to get out of the mess that she created, she claims that the living creature inside her belly is not a life form, a person, nor human - her stupidity and incompetence is incontrovertible.


How would you know that? Do you know all of the details of the woman's life?

In this country birth control is not always easy to get or affordable. In fact one of the ways to see if someone is truly prolife or just antichoice is to see if they support Planned Parenthood or not. If one opposes Planned Parenthood one cannot really claim to be prolife or even ahtiabortion. One is simply antichoice if that is the case.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
With all of the Roe v Wade hullabaloo, what I believe to be a pernicious superstition is rearing it's head. Namely that conceived human lives are in some way qualitatively lacking such that they cannot be called humans.

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief. It appears to fly in the face of all science I have ever read on the topic of human life and its beginning for each individual, such that I chalk it up with flat-earth and vaccine conspiracy, or maybe Jew space lasers.

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.
I began my human life when I was 31, so I can't really comment.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
And if that is not a scientific question.
But it is, we have a science that is the study of life. That science has given us a definitive answer insofar as I have seen anything presented.

And, again, that depends on what, precisely, you mean by the term 'human'.
Going over this once is worthwhile, going over it every single post is getting tiresome.

Please define what you mean by the term 'human being'.
Human Being (disambiguation) - Wikipedia
A human being is a member of the species classified as Homo sapiens.

because I mean a multicellular individual past the 6th month of pregnancy.
So, instead of a convenient definition of personhood, which at least is a philosophical question; you've decided to have a convenient definition of human being, that is at cross purposes with the biological definition of the term.

Except for those that say it begins at birth or at quickening
Show me.

And clearly that is wrong.
Except it isn't. First, in a dispute about correctness, the assumption is going to be that the peer reviewed scientific literature is accurate and the ad hoc rationalization incorrect.

Second, we know that in the sciences, which again is the specific domain of the discussion, human beings begin as single-celled zygotes (see previous citations that no one has challenged or provided counter-sourcing to), which are diploid, and that they are never multi-cellular haploids either. There is no room for this mythical haploid stage of human existence. Haploidy is not observed in humans, or any other vertebrate, because at no time is there a haploid human being. There are only human beings that produce haploids as constituent parts of the greater whole.

WRONG, scientifically
CORRECT, scientifically. They are both produced by a human being's cell creation processes.

You seem to conflate these distinct ideas.
Are you kidding me? You who have been conflating this concepts for the majority of the discussion are saying this?
See:
That seems to conflate living material with having a new human life. Those are different concepts.
Really? Precisely what is the difference?
and:
A sperm is not a homo sapiens. An ovum is not a homo sapiens.
WRONG. The sperm and egg *are* homo sapiens!

If you're going to cease to continue such conflation, that's great and I welcome it.

They are, however, genetically distinct and are organisms if you stretch the definition to include zygotes(which I do not).
If you want me to accept something in the face of the consensus of scientific literature, I need substantiation more compelling than opinion.

Sperm and Ova are not human organisms because they are products of the cell creation processes of the human they are part of, neither do they develop independently of the human they are part of, nor do they produce more cells either through meiosis or mitosis. Zygotes, the product of fertilization and not a cell creation process, develop independently through the human stages of life and have their own independent cell creation processes, are organisms.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
'decides' , are you serious - who the heck decided what?
It was the irresponsible mother who made any decisions on this matter, obviously. And now, to get out of the mess that she created, she claims that the living creature inside her belly is not a life form, a person, nor human - her stupidity and incompetence is incontrovertible.

Why are you assuming the woman was irresponsible? Because she had sex?

Birth control can fail. Women can be raped. Medical problems can arise. Couples who are married may not want kids (or more kids right now). That are NOT being irresponsible.

In many cases, continuing with the pregnancy is the irresponsible thing.

Even if the embryo, fetus, is a person growing inside of her body, she has an absolute right to demand it be taken out if she so desires. Otherwise, she has no bodily autonomy and is nothing more than a slave.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
Why are you assuming the woman was irresponsible? Because she had sex?

Birth control can fail. Women can be raped. Medical problems can arise. Couples who are married may not want kids (or more kids right now). That are NOT being irresponsible.

In many cases, continuing with the pregnancy is the irresponsible thing.

Even if the embryo, fetus, is a person growing inside of her body, she has an absolute right to demand it be taken out if she so desires. Otherwise, she has no bodily autonomy and is nothing more than a slave.

Hi Polymath257. Good afternoon. I'll add my two cents worth. It's not the choice of the parent to destroy their offspring. It's the choice to have sex in the first place. When we have sex we have to be responsible and recognise that there is a likelihood that it will result in a pregnancy. Once that happens, one cannot be inclined to destroy that fetus. Millions of babies are being aborted each year and this is a travesty. Babies that could have grown up in to valuable members of society.

Jeremiah 9:20-21 says:
"20 Yet hear the word of Yahweh, O ye women, and let your ear receive the word of his mouth; and teach your daughters wailing, and every one her neighbor lamentation. 21 For death is come up into our windows, it is entered into our palaces; to cut off the children from without, and the young men from the streets."

This evil is happening I'm convinced because people have rejected a Creator. And Yahweh will judge.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Except it isn't. First, in a dispute about correctness, the assumption is going to be that the peer reviewed scientific literature is accurate and the ad hoc rationalization incorrect.

Second, we know that in the sciences, which again is the specific domain of the discussion, human beings begin as single-celled zygotes (see previous citations that no one has challenged or provided counter-sourcing to), which are diploid, and that they are never multi-cellular haploids either. There is no room for this mythical haploid stage of human existence. Haploidy is not observed in humans, or any other vertebrate, because at no time is there a haploid human being. There are only human beings that produce haploids as constituent parts of the greater whole.

The haploid stage is single celled: the eggs and sperm. There is no multicellular haploid stage, that is true. But there is a haploid stage in ALL multicellular organisms. I even gave a link to the National Genome Research Institute, to an introductory biology text, etc.

CORRECT, scientifically. They are both produced by a human being's cell creation processes.

There is a difference between mitosis (the process that produces somatic cells) and meiosis (the process that produces sperm and egg cells--the haploid cells of our life cycle).

The cell cycle of all multicullular organisms alternates between haploid and diploid phases. In some species (usually fungi and plants), the haploid stage is dominant. In animals, the diploid stage tends to be dominant. In particular, in vertebrates, the haploid stage is reduced to single celled organisms.

That is basic biology.

Are you kidding me? You who have been conflating this concepts for the majority of the discussion are saying this?
Really? Precisely what is the difference?

and:
Mister Emu said:
A sperm is not a homo sapiens. An ovum is not a homo sapiens.
Polymath257 said:
WRONG. The sperm and egg *are* homo sapiens!

Yes, sperm and egg are Homo sapiens. They are of the human species. If you have a biologist look at them, they would say they are *human* sperm and egg cells. They are of the species Homo sapiens.

Furthermore, they are genetically distinct from the individual in which they are made. So, the sperm produced by a man has different genetics than that man. The eggs produced by a woman have different genetics than that woman. Also, each sperm and egg cell are distinct genetically from all the others. So they are genetically individuals.

If you're going to cease to continue such conflation, that's great and I welcome it.

If you want me to accept something in the face of the consensus of scientific literature, I need substantiation more compelling than opinion.

Sperm and Ova are not human organisms because they are products of the cell creation processes of the human they are part of, neither do they develop independently of the human they are part of, nor do they produce more cells either through meiosis or mitosis.

True. They are short lived organisms that are of the species Homo sapiens, are genetically distinct, and alive. They do not develop because they are complete for what they do.

Zygotes, the product of fertilization and not a cell creation process, develop independently through the human stages of life and have their own independent cell creation processes, are organisms.

Not independently. Dependently.

I notice that you didn't address the question of identical twins. These come from a single zygote that divides, producing two different people. So are they one individual (because only a single zygote) or two (we see two people in front of us). Was the zygote an individual (even though it split into two)?
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Hi Polymath257. Good afternoon. I'll add my two cents worth. It's not the choice of the parent to destroy their offspring. It's the choice to have sex in the first place. When we have sex we have to be responsible and recognise that there is a likelihood that it will result in a pregnancy. Once that happens, one cannot be inclined to destroy that fetus. Millions of babies are being aborted each year and this is a travesty. Babies that could have grown up in to valuable members of society.

I disagree. Sex is an important and natural part of adulthood. Choosing to have sex is NOT the same as choosing to have a child. In fact, most people use birth control for this very reason. When birth control fails, abortion is a good alternative.

Jeremiah 9:20-21 says:
"20 Yet hear the word of Yahweh, O ye women, and let your ear receive the word of his mouth; and teach your daughters wailing, and every one her neighbor lamentation. 21 For death is come up into our windows, it is entered into our palaces; to cut off the children from without, and the young men from the streets."

This evil is happening I'm convinced because people have rejected a Creator. And Yahweh will judge.

Quotes from your religion are irrelevant to me and should be irrelevant to the legal processes of a secular society. Please keep your religion to yourself. You are free to obey its rules, but don't expect others with different beliefs to do the same.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
I disagree. Sex is an important and natural part of adulthood. Choosing to have sex is NOT the same as choosing to have a child. In fact, most people use birth control for this very reason. When birth control fails, abortion is a good alternative.



Quotes from your religion are irrelevant to me and should be irrelevant to the legal processes of a secular society. Please keep your religion to yourself. You are free to obey its rules, but don't expect others with different beliefs to do the same.

Hi Polymath257. Good afternoon. Um. I'm not quoting quotes from my religion. I'm quoting from the Bible which is the Word of Yahweh. For the sake of debate, even if I was quoting from my religion, which I'm not, this is a religious forum and I think I would be entitled to. You are defending the right to kill innocent babies. So perhaps it is you that should keep your views to yourself.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's the choice to have sex in the first place. When we have sex we have to be responsible and recognise that there is a likelihood that it will result in a pregnancy.
Let's set aside for the moment that sex isn't always
voluntary, eg, rape, lack of mental capacity....
Many choices we make daily have foreseeable
potential deleterious consequences, eg, sex, riding
a bicycle on public roads. Most sex acts don't result
in pregnancy. Most bike rides don't result in injury.
So we don't perceive such choices as intending
the consequences that are merely possible.

Many would say that one made one's bed, therefore
one must lie in it. Nah. We don't commit to adverse
results simply because of such choices. We may
choose to correct consequent problems. Abortion is
one means to do that.
Once that happens, one cannot be inclined to destroy that fetus.
It certainly can be a choice...not one
you'd make, but others see it differently.
Millions of babies are being aborted each year and this is a travesty. Babies that could have grown up in to valuable members of society.
A choice to not have sex could also be seen as
a life of some valued person that was snuffed out.
I don't see that government or religion should
enforce laws to maximize population
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hi Polymath257. Good afternoon. Um. I'm not quoting quotes from my religion. I'm quoting from the Bible which is the Word of Yahweh. For the sake of debate, even if I was quoting from my religion, which I'm not, this is a religious forum and I think I would be entitled to. You are defending the right to kill innocent babies. So perhaps it is you that should keep your views to yourself.
No, the Bible is just another holy book and no more the "word of God" than the words of any other holy book. How would you even begin to prove that it is God's word? I can tell you many facts about it that tells us that is not the case.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Hi Polymath257. Good afternoon. Um. I'm not quoting quotes from my religion. I'm quoting from the Bible which is the Word of Yahweh. For the sake of debate, even if I was quoting from my religion, which I'm not, this is a religious forum and I think I would be entitled to. You are defending the right to kill innocent babies. So perhaps it is you that should keep your views to yourself.
The Bible is a religious text last time I looked, so you are indeed quoting from your religion.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
No, the Bible is just another holy book and no more the "word of God" than the words of any other holy book. How would you even begin to prove that it is God's word? I can tell you many facts about it that tells us that is not the case.
Aye, let him live by the words of his particular
book, but without imposing it upon others.
I abhor Christianity, but so long as they don't
swing their arms into my nose, I'll live & let live.
They must show the same tolerance.

Besides, I've yet to even hear a biblically based
argument that abortion is wrong. it's typically
just plucking weak snippets to confirm a bias.
 
Last edited:
Top