When does human life begin?

[polonius]

There was an interesting article in a January issue of Newsweek describing the successful cloning of chimpanzees.

This might raise the question of human cloning.

The immediate issues involved involve birth control, the use of the "morning after pill," and embryonic cell treatment of diseases.

The key concept is when human life begins.

Opinions?

[polonius]

2 Timothy 316 posted

Again, you are not who I listen to to tell me when a human life begins.

Jehovah 'saw' David while he was formless. Before he had a brain, a heart, lungs, hands, feet etc. Jehovah recognized David as a person before he had all of those things. If God does then so do I. Your 'many years in molecular biology' pale in comparison to the Person that made that biology. Jehovah the one that measures the span of our whole universe with the span of his hand.

"Who is this who is obscuring my counsel And speaking without knowledge?...Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand." - Job 38:1-4

RESPONSE:

Again, you are not who I listen to to tell me when a human life begins.

You should listen to someone who can tell you the facts.

Jehovah 'saw' David while he was formless. Before he had a brain, a heart, lungs, hands, feet etc. Jehovah recognized David as a person before he had all of those things. If God does then so do I. Your 'many years in molecular biology' pale in comparison to the Person that made that biology. Jehovah the one that measures the span of our whole universe with the span of his hand.

RESPONSE: Isn't this the same book that tells you that the earth will not be moved (Ps 104) and was used until about 1700 to claim to be proof that the sun revolved around the earth?

The world's major religions have about ten Holy Books that tell quite a number of conflicting things. They contain many errors and contradictions proving that they are not inspired by God (unless, of course, He made the errors). I prefer to base my beliefs on factual information.

"Who is this who is obscuring my counsel And speaking without knowledge?...Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand." - Job 38:1-4

Yes. Fundamentalist try to claim God said quite a variety of things which some use to try to prove their point. Have you ever examined the New Testament for obvious contradictions and errors? Keep in mind, those who actually wrote it knew nothing of today's scientific findings.

I think it has been scientifically established that the earth revolves around the sun!

[2timothy316]

I think it has been scientifically established that the earth revolves around the sun!

Are you changing the subject? Are we done talking bout 'when does human life begin'? If you didn't want a Biblical answer why post in this forum? Is it time to attack the book that is said to have the final say on this forum? You don't have to agree with the Bible having the final say, but I have no obligation to reply to someone who doesn't see the Bible as having the final authority.

I gave you Biblical answers. Which shouldn't be a surprise in the TDD forum where the Bible has the final authority. If you don't want Biblical answers the perhaps the CA forum is better suited to your arguments. My life long goal is not to have my beliefs about the start of human life determined by a molecular biologist. When Jehovah God knows so much more and who's thoughts are higher than all others. Have a nice day!

[polonius]

I think it has been scientifically established that the earth revolves around the sun!

Are you changing the subject? Are we done talking bout 'when does human life begin'? If you didn't want a Biblical answer why post in this forum? Is it time to attack the book that is said to have the final say on this forum? You don't have to agree with the Bible having the final say, but I have no obligation to reply to someone who doesn't see the Bible as having the final authority.

I gave you Biblical answers. Which shouldn't be a surprise in the TDD forum where the Bible has the final authority. If you don't want Biblical answers the perhaps the CA forum is better suited to your arguments. My life long goal is not to have my beliefs about the start of human life determined by a molecular biologist. When Jehovah God knows so much more and who's thoughts are higher than all others. Have a nice day!

RESPONSE: No. We are talking about the Bible being divinely inspired and correct on this point.
Continuing to provide quotation from a book written 2000 years ago requires you to verify the information is correct.

For example, science now tells us that the earth moves (and thus revolves around the sun) in spite of biblical claims to the contrary.

You may have heard of the Galileo heresy trial for a contrary belief.

Obviously, the Bible doesn't have "final authority."

[bluethread]

RESPONSE: Actually I think that there are up to 24 nuclei in a blastocyst which theoretically can result in separate births. But the highest number of offspring from a single pregnancy is eight. Of course, all might be reabsorbed and hence not even on person result.

Reread the article :Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo. - NCBI
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11656166

Thomas A. Shannon and Allan B. Wolter, OFM, "Reflections on the Moral Status of the Pre-Embryo, Theological Studies 51 (1990) 603-626.

“Given the findings of modern biology, there is no evidence for the presence of a separate ontological individual until the completion of either restriction or gastrulation, which occurs around three weeks after fertilization. Therefore there is no reasonable basis for arguing that the pre-embryo is morally equivalent to a person or is a person as a basis for prohibiting abortion. That is, there is no biological support for the position that the fertilized egg is from the beginning of the process of fertilization a distinct individual needing no outside agency to develop into a person.�

CONCLUSION: Until there is a individual, there cannot be a person. You will also find this concept in theology textbooks.

So, there are two arguments here. Not only do we do not grant personhood, because we might be talking about more than one person, we are doing so because there is the possibility of some two dozen persons. So, on that basis, couldn't genocide be justified, as long as we can not identify a particular individual? The second argument is that since up to two thirds of them would die naturally, it is acceptable to kill all of them. Could this not also apply to starving people. Most of them are going to die anyway, so what is wrong with killing them all.

So you want us to presume the conclusion, by refering to one human life form as "pre-embryotic tissue" that "does not yet exist" and the other as "the dying patient". Why don't we ask if we should kill a human life form that has the potential for living another hundred years to provide another human life form with the possibility of living a few more years? One could just as easily argue that we should harvest the organs of one terminally ill patient to provide for another less terminal "dying" patient. What this amounts to is nothing more than an elitist ethic.

RESPONSE: Because we are not talking about a certainly existing human person. No individual, no person. Only a cell collection that might eventually (if given the right conditions might become a person at some point. A simple concept.

That presumes the conclusion. You also declare the one life form to be "only a cell collection". That is the issue under consideration, so a declaration is not sufficient. You are also declaring a lack of personhood based on survivability. Well, the survivability of the "dying patient" is not certain either. In fact, it is subject to "the right conditions" also, specifically the killing of the other life form. The "right conditions" for the "cell collection" does not depend on the killing of another life form. Therefore, the protection of the "cell collection" can be seen as more ethical than the treatment of the "dying patient".

But if it only might be possible ,again, which would have the greater claim? A person certainly in existence, or a person not certainly existing?

The life form has the greater claim on it's existance. If the one life form is not a person, it could be seen as livestock, but declaring it so is no more than dogma. In fact, your claim is based not on fact, but the probability of continuity. If probability of continuity is the basis of declaring a human life form a person, a terminal patient can be involutarily declared a nonperson based on the uncertanty of continuity and terminated.

[2timothy316]

Obviously, the Bible doesn't have "final authority."

With me it does.
Anything else?

[bluethread]

Obviously, the Bible doesn't have "final authority."

With me it does.
Anything else?

To the best of my knowledge, in this forum, everyone is permitted to claim their own "final authority". The only legitimate test of any claimed authority is consistency, or how it lines up with a mutually agreed upon statndard. P.A appears to be declaring scientific humanism as the "final authority". That is why I am testing the consistency of that view and not making any biblical claims. If one wishes to make biblical claims, one is free to do so, as long as that one is able to show that one's views are consistent. Even then, in this forum, one can hold inconsitent dogma, if one wishes. One merely has to admit to such inconsistencies.

[2timothy316]

Obviously, the Bible doesn't have "final authority."

With me it does.
Anything else?

To the best of my knowledge, in this forum, everyone is permitted to claim their own "final authority". The only legitimate test of any claimed authority is consistencey, or how it lines up with a mutually agreed upon statndard. P.A appears to be declaring scientific humanism as the "final authority". That is why I am testing the consistency of that view and not making any biblical claims. If one wishes to make biblical claims, one is free to do so, as long as that one is able to show that one's views are consistent. Even then, in this forum, one can hold inconsitent dogma, if one wishes. One merely has to admit to such inconsistencies.

P.A. is questioning the Bible's authority, which according to the 'purpose of this sub-forum' is "the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority." So when a person attacks the Bible as not being true then they are missing the point of this sub-forum. I don't know why those that don't view the Bible as true post threads here and expect people debate if the Bible is true or not. It's not allowed here.
viewtopic.php?t=3168

[bluethread]

P.A. is questioning the Bible's authority, which according to the 'purpose of this sub-forum' is "the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority." So when a person attacks the Bible as not being true then they are missing the point of this sub-forum. I don't know why those that don't view the Bible as true post threads here and expect people debate if the Bible is true or not. It's not allowed here.
viewtopic.php?t=3168

He can choose to reject your "final authority", but he can not fault your view in that regard without your consent to another "final authority".

[polonius]

Obviously, the Bible doesn't have "final authority."

With me it does.
Anything else?

RESPONSE: Which story or version. Did Jesus sent for and ride one animal Matt, Mark, Luke)or two animals (Matthew) to fulfill a prophecy when entering Jerusalem? Was he crucified on the Day of Preparation (John) or the Passover (Matt, Mark, Luke)?

[polonius]

Obviously, the Bible doesn't have "final authority."

With me it does.
Anything else?

RESPONSE: Which story or version. Did Jesus sent for and ride one animal Matt, Mark, Luke)or two animals (Matthew) to fulfill a prophecy when entering Jerusalem? Was he crucified on the Day of Preparation (John) or the Passover (Matt, Mark, Luke)?