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?

[bluethread]

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)?

Those things do speak to inconsistencies, but what do they have to do with when human life begins?

[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)?

Those things do speak to inconsistencies, but what do they have to do with when human life begins?

RESPONSE It has to do with your claim about Bible "final authority" and the belief regarding authority "with me it does."

[polonius]

Case 1.
Once upon a time a ferry was crossing a large body of water. This ferry conveyed a number of the passengers' automobiles too. They could ride inside or walk out on deck.

At the front of the boat there was a large crane with a hook which could be used to retrieve or move large objects.

During a storm, the first car, this one clearly with a passenger inside, skidded off the deck into the water. The second car did also, but no one could see if anyone was inside.

Question: Since only one could be saved, which had the best case for rescue by the crane?

Case 2.
A man was dying of cancer. His only chance of surviving involved a fetal cell transplant. The transplant would involve a cell mass not yet an embryo.

Who had the most reasonable claim for the use of this cell mass, the mass itself which was almost assuredly not yet a person, or the man dying of cancer?

[bluethread]

Those things do speak to inconsistencies, but what do they have to do with when human life begins?

RESPONSE It has to do with your claim about Bible "final authority" and the belief regarding authority "with me it does."

That isn't my claim, I am just addressing the issue. On this forum, one can accept or reject something as being a "final authority", but one can not question whether that should be someone else's "final authority". If one can not agree with another person regarding a given "final authority", at least for argument sake, then there is no possibility of further discussion, on this forum. However, if one is willing to accept the "final authority" of another, at least for argument sake, then that "final authority" is a valid source for supporting the issue under discussion, even if that "final authority" is invalid on other issues. So, on this thread, on this forum, one is limited to arguing when life begins based on whatever "final authority" the poster chooses. That is why I limited my responses to microbiology and medical ethics, given that your "final authority" appears to be scientific humanism.

[polonius]

Those things do speak to inconsistencies, but what do they have to do with when human life begins?

RESPONSE It has to do with your claim about Bible "final authority" and the belief regarding authority "with me it does."

That isn't my claim, I am just addressing the issue. On this forum, one can accept or reject something as being a "final authority", but one can not question whether that should be someone else's "final authority". If one can not agree with another person regarding a given "final authority", at least for argument sake, then there is no possibility of further discussion, on this forum. However, if one is willing to accept the "final authority" of another, at least for argument sake, then that "final authority" is a valid source for supporting the issue under discussion, even if that "final authority" is invalid on other issues. So, on this thread, on this forum, one is limited to arguing when life begins based on whatever "final authority" the poster chooses. That is why I limited my responses to microbiology and medical ethics, given that your "final authority" appears to be scientific humanism.

RESPONSE:

Perhaps instead you might want to base your view on the preponderance of the evidence.

You are entitled to avoid the facts of history, the medical evidence, or logic all together.

Some of us don't do that however.

" appears to be scientific humanism" but is demonstrated to be scientific fact.

Deal with the evidence, not how it makes you feel.

[bluethread]

Case 1.
Once upon a time a ferry was crossing a large body of water. This ferry conveyed a number of the passengers' automobiles too. They could ride inside or walk out on deck.

At the front of the boat there was a large crane with a hook which could be used to retrieve or move large objects.

During a storm, the first car, this one clearly with a passenger inside, skidded off the deck into the water. The second car did also, but no one could see if anyone was inside.

Question: Since only one could be saved, which had the best case for rescue by the crane?

Well, since the second car is not being destroyed as a means of rescuing the first, one would go with the first car, unless it was too far away due to the current and the storm. In that case, the second one would be the better choice.

Case 2.
A man was dying of cancer. His only chance of surviving involved a fetal cell transplant. The transplant would involve a cell mass not yet an embryo.

Who had the most reasonable claim for the use of this cell mass, the mass itself which was almost assuredly not yet a person, or the man dying of cancer?

The cell mass, because it's destruction is a necessary part of the process and the man dying of cancer has no right, personal or property, to the cell mass. There is a much better comparison. Does the dying man have a reasonable claim on the organs of a terminal comatose man? The answer is no. If the terminal comatose man dictated that his organs be donated beforehand, the organs could be gifted to the dying man, but even then the dying man has no claim, it is a gift.

[bluethread]

RESPONSE:

Perhaps instead you might want to base your view on the preponderance of the evidence.

You are entitled to avoid the facts of history, the medical evidence, or logic all together.

Some of us don't do that however.

" appears to be scientific humanism" but is demonstrated to be scientific fact.

Deal with the evidence, not how it makes you feel.

You don't seem to get the point. That is not relevant on this forum. The poster gets to set the parameters. If the poster says that the standard is scientif fact, all arguments must be based on scientific fact. If the poster says that the standard is the art works of Salvador Dali, then all arguments must be based on the art works of Salvador Dali. If your standard is scientific fact rather than scientific humanism, then it is errelevant what one does, because value is not a scientific fact, it is a personal judgment. Once one establishes value, one can then look at science for direction on how to best impliment that valuation.

[2timothy316]

So here is a scientific view for the discussion.

From:
A Scientific View of When Life Begins
Maureen Condic, Ph.D. | June 11, 2014
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientifi ... fe-begins/

"The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,� a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings."

Yet, will the this be accepted for the scientific fact that it is or will some 'feel' different?

The article says, "this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development?" Isn't this really the question we are trying to answer in this thread?

Now to answer the question posed in the article, for me personally the value of a human life begins at conception. This is the view of the Bible, thus I feel the Bible is the Word of God and His opinion matters a great deal to me. Scientific fact doesn't answer 'when doesn't human life become valuable'. However, just as clear as day the good doctor spells it out that according to science a human life begins at the 'one-cell stage forward'. I agree with this.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 58 by 2timothy316]

From:
A Scientific View of When Life Begins
Maureen Condic, Ph.D. | June 11, 2014
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientifi ... fe-begins/

"The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

RESPONSE: You need to observe what the words mean. We are talking about human personhood, not human cell life. Human life also begins when any cell in my body develops from preexisting cells.

This also happens when one cultures any human cell in a petri dish. But, of course, this isn’t a person. They are human cells but are not persons.

I think she has a site on-line. Why don't you ask about when a person begins to exist? Also ask for her evidence.

[2timothy316]

I think she has a site on-line. Why don't you ask about when a person begins to exist? Also ask for her evidence.

Merriam-Webster defines a person as: 'human, individual'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

The doctors says, "human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals".

So if MW says a person is an 'individual' and the doctor says that a one-cell stage embryo is an 'individual' then a 'person' begins to exist at the one-cell stage of an embryo.

*Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. Is this not enough for you?


How about the The American College of Pediatricians?
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-spea ... ife-begins

"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created."

I like that term 'a unique human life'. If that is not a person...what is a person?