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?

[JehovahsWitness]

The key concept is when human life begins.

Opinions?

I believe life begins at conception , the moment a sperm ferilizes a human egg and the cells begin to divide in a process that will eventually lead (if uninteruped) to the birth of a new individual, separate and distinct from his or her parents.


JW

Further Reading: Is it wrong to have an abortion?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... ible-view/






RELATED POSTS

What is a "soul"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 342#875342

Why does the bible say God "caused"/made Eve's childbirth pains?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 758#801758[/quote]

[polonius]

The key concept is when human life begins.

Opinions?

I believe life begins at conception , the moment a sperm ferilizes a human egg and the cells begin to divide in a process that will eventually lead (if uninteruped) to the birth of a new individual, separate and distinct from his or her parents.


JW

Questions: Then as soon as there is a combination of male and female genes there is automatically a "person"? I assume you know this can happen equally as well, in a petri dish (in vitro fertilization).

These will continue to multiply forming a new cell about every 20 minutes and can be used to inoculate other petri dishes with clones of the original pair much as in the case of Dolly the Sheep or the more recent chimpanzees.

If implanted in a uterus, they will attach and begin along biological processes to eventually become embroyos.

But when is an embryo a person?

Or are you claiming these are already human persons???

[bluethread]

Questions: Then as soon as there is a combination of male and female genes there is automatically a "person"? I assume you know this can happen equally as well, in a petri dish (in vitro fertilization).

Maybe not equally as well, but why should that matter? If that is not where one draws the line, where should the line be drawn?

[JehovahsWitness]

But when is an embryo a person?

In my opinion an embryo doesn't become a person, an embryo *IS* a person; an undeveloped one sure, but just as much a person as you or I, with just as much right to be given the time and opportunity to develop to his or her full potential as we have.




JW

[polonius]

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.�

Introduction The essay by Thomas A. Shannon and Allan Wolter, OFM, in the December, 1990 issue of Theological Studies provides a good summary of the kinds of arguments used to support the position that the preimplantation human embryo cannot rightly be regarded as a person. It can thus serve as an introduction to our inquiry. The major claims advanced by Shannon and Wolter are the following: 1. The zygote does not possess sufficient genetic information to develop into an embryo; for this development to occur, essential information must be supplied from the mother, and this can be done only after implantation. 2. Although the zygote is the beginning of genetically distinct life, it is neither an "ontological" individual nor necessarily the precursor of one….

[bluethread]

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.�

Introduction The essay by Thomas A. Shannon and Allan Wolter, OFM, in the December, 1990 issue of Theological Studies provides a good summary of the kinds of arguments used to support the position that the preimplantation human embryo cannot rightly be regarded as a person. It can thus serve as an introduction to our inquiry. The major claims advanced by Shannon and Wolter are the following: 1. The zygote does not possess sufficient genetic information to develop into an embryo; for this development to occur, essential information must be supplied from the mother, and this can be done only after implantation. 2. Although the zygote is the beginning of genetically distinct life, it is neither an "ontological" individual nor necessarily the precursor of one….

It is fitting that this expalnation is in the TD&D forum, bcause it shows where science can not answer questions of the nature of being. The presumption of the this standard is the distiction between genetically distinct life and an "ontological" individual. Though science can determine what constitutes genetically distinct life, it can not establish what constitutes the "ontological" individual. It must be provided with criteria that define the "ontological" individual. Thus, we are back to square one, the establishment of value. So, what are the criteria that constitute an "ontological" individual?

[imhereforyou]

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?

You won't get an universal answer on which everyone can agree. Best you can hope for is a legal definition, especially for cloning. Seems that would be birth (though I'm not a legal expert).
If we're energy, we've always been alive and always will so the question could ultimately be moot.

[2timothy316]

But when is an embryo a person?

In my opinion an embryo doesn't become a person, an embryo *IS* a person; an undeveloped one sure, but just as much a person as you or I, with just as much right to be given the time and opportunity to develop to his or her full potential as we have.




JW

I agree with JW. Let say that Jesus was aborted right after his conception. If another woman wasn't impregnated, would there have ever been a man called Jesus Christ? No. The life would have been ended right after it started. If we found a single celled organism capable of using energy to reproduce on another planet would we call that life on another planet or not?

[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?

You won't get an universal answer on which everyone can agree. Best you can hope for is a legal definition, especially for cloning. Seems that would be birth (though I'm not a legal expert).
If we're energy, we've always been alive and always will so the question could ultimately be moot.

RESPONSE: Actually no. We have both a scientific and a theological definition as has been shown.