When Does Human Life Begin? (personhood initiative)

Well I was taught many things years ago about this subject, all of which I am not sure carry one shred of truth.

The bible is silent on how Adam was conceived if he (or Eve) had a bellybutton, whose DNA and mitochondria made them because Adam must of assuredly had both X and Y chromosomes.

Yet the bible is silent on Adam's conception. In fact the bible is erroneous on the conception of the first humans in general, being that the first humans evolved from primates.

Yet the bible is very clear on one thing. Whether if it is true or not, the bible stipulates that a person becomes a living soul when they breathe the first breath of life.

When a fetus is born it is "biblically" a dead soul until it breathes its first breath. Then the bible renders unto the fetus the title of being a living soul versus a dead soul.

Since the book of Genesis is silent on life at conception and speaks only of life at birth one needs to look in other places in the bible for this question to be answered.

The problem is that the whole idea of being created separates us from other life forms that seem to have just evolved. We were either all created whole or we evolved. If we evolved then theoretically every living cell is a potential human.

This is where the very essence of "life" itself needs to be defined.

What is life? Can we put life in a test tube? Can we re-inject this life into a dead human and bring them back from the dead? Life itself is a mystery. Life may not even exist in the way we believe, imagine or take for granted.

The very same life that is in a human being may very well be the exact same life that is in a cow... We do not know. We both have DNA and we both are alive and breathe. If we ever truly define what life actually is we may someday be able to tell when it began. The problem with even telling when life began is that life may rarely actually begin.

Life may be like a flame. A flame may begin many eons earlier and it lights from torch to torch and each torch carry's the flame further. Yet the flame itself does not really begin with the lighting of each new torch but the flame spreads.

Thus to says life begins when it merely is carried on can be a misnomer also.

The biblical definition of person-hood has evolved also.

Adam and Eve were only considered persons and citizens of the garden if they obeyed the rules. God said they would surely die if they did not. (they died spiritually)

So their person-hood was conditional.

After they were thrown out of the garden their person-hood was still conditional.

If they performed the sacrifices and gave of their first-fruits they were covered. The could live without guilt as persons worthy of life.

It is said God winked on these times because no formal laws had been written. That is a nice way of saying God put up with sin. Humans were in a more natural state.

Then the laws were written and the kings, priests, prophets and teachers came. They all has their own thing to add to what makes a good person.

And if you were not deemed a good person then you can ask Jesus what happens to you.

So then in the first century person-hood took on an even more radical evolution.

People became citizens of heaven. This is certainly not something that you get at conception it is not a thing you get when you take your first breath. It is something that you learn by instruction in a so called faith and then you believe and miraculously you are transformed into this new person... One is "born again"...

So according to christian doctrine a person is merely "flesh and blood" until they believe and receive the holy "spirit"...

It is perhaps just as much fantasy as trying to define life is when it is merely as illusive as the wind.

So person-hood is a gift from a christian deity and not a thing that can be earned. Given by grace and not works.

Thus person hood does take some type of cognitive recognition to receive it. it is not something that one is born with when this first birth is talked about as flesh and blood. The second birth is of spirit.

So why Christians are so distraught over embryos who can't even get down on their knees and praise Jesus is beyond comprehension.

You would think they would care about the second birth and not the first birth where there is no spirit involved in the first birth.

The spirit is a gift that is give at the moment of conversion. The first natural birth is completely devoid of spirit.

This is when it gets to the parents intention. They can by their belief "sanctify the child". That means their own spirit abides with the child until the child is presented with their own free will choice to believe.

This sanctification is what is broken when rape or incest is involved.

If the child is not sanctified it does not have any spiritual part. Thus it would be merely body and soul but not spirit and even animals have souls but they do not "theoretically" have spirits (according to christian doctrine).

Animals cannot believe in Jesus as the risen lord and savior and obtain this gift of holy spirit from God.

I am not preaching the doctrine I am just saying this is how the doctrine reads and this is how it stacks up against this person-hood thing.

That person-hood is not something we are born with but it is obtained by faith. The only thing that ever smacked of person-hood being a universal right is our declaration of independence and bill of rights.

Even the bible does not say all men are created equal. Even Jesus referred to some humans as "dogs"... That I am personally appalled by. Jesus could have taken that moment to say were are all born equal but he did not... Perhaps he was afraid they might kill him.

No Jesus said we could only enter heaven though him...

I do favor a generalized person-hood but extending it to eggs and embryos is too far.

Even the bible gives the parents the choice if they want to sanctify their child with person-hood. This is what christening is for. If they were born with spirit then no sanctification or christening would be necessary.

There is only one person mentioned in the bible who is attributed as having spirit from the womb and that is John the baptist. And look what the world did to him...

Then there is the issue of the Antichrist... Well Herod tried to kill the first Christ and failed. Perhaps these Christian repugs secretly yearn for this Antichrist...

This is the only reason I can think that they would be so worried about unborn fetuses. When they don't care about universal healthcare especially for children. They don't care about the middle class they don't care about the poor. They care only about the rich. They want to silence a woman's right to her own health and welfare. We see Jesus doing the very opposite by trying to give Mary Magdalene a voice of choice and liberty.

The republicans and their fear mongering could not be more detrimental to society.

Does your forehead feel warm?

Haha this was a difficult one...

I am not the one who made this issue complicated or heady. I have made an effort to explain it as I see it.

One level is to say scientifically such and such and biblically such and such.

For science may never be able to measure life itself and it may never even come close to measuring spirit. Just as we may never be able to see a black-hole or neutrinos that seem to travel faster than light.

The things we may never know we can only speculate about them now.

This is why I am an agnostic. I do not know if life exists or if there is an even greater spiritual life that exists also. Maybe we are nothing more than autonomous machines. No more living than an automobile.

What most refer to as life may not be life at all, it could be just chaos within DNA.

The feeling of person-hood may be only an illusion of the body and the feeling that there is a god an illusion of the mind.

Human life begins at birth!
I have no interest in any biblical explanations, although everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Fact is though, that human life only starts at birth when
the baby is able to breath on its own.

If it's a fact, and not just your opinion, you should be able to prove it.

Can you?

Your efforts have been feverish.

Is your purpose with this thread to stimulate a discussion on this topic or to catigate Republicans?

Yes, it's proven every day when a new human being is born and only then is the infant a full legal entity - not before. Otherwise abortion would be illegal.

As I said, your personal religious belief is yours, facts are another.

If you are going to base your answer strictly on the law then the appropriate point depends on viability not delivery.

Absent legal consideration, the question of when human life begins is not necessarily a religious one.

The law could change tomorrow and then the "fact" would be that human life begins at conception?

It won't! Life does not begin at conception, that' wishful thinking on your part.

I'm not saying it will, but the mere fact that what you consider to be a "fact" can change from day to day proves its not a true fact.

In the Church's cosomology--at least before Galileo, and then some--when geocentrism was all in vogue--under penalty of death if you disagreed--the soul of the child shot down from beyond the last crystal sphere--heaven, I suppose--into the physical body of the child as it was being born. This was consistent with astrology, which was the science of the day. The moment of birth was important because of the position of the planets, the moon, and the sun. The child's soul would pick up influences from the proximity of the orbs as it passed by. Each orb had characteristics assigned to it, such as a metal, a field of knowledge, a note on the diatonic scale--the music of the spheres--etc.

It took until 1992 for the Catholic church to admit they were wrong about Galileo--not exactly and apology--who was convicted of impiety--I think--better late than never. Of course the many Christian sects disagree on when life begins, so it's probably best to ignore all of them.

Aside from the legal facts (I just mentioned that additionally) there is a biological fact that a human being is considered a human being the minute it is breathing and living on its own.

Can you provide a link to proof that there is a "biological fact?"

That 's true; it is; however,
I can see a decent argument for the proposition that human life begins at conception,
but I remain steadfast in my support of every woman 's right to freedom of abortion, on a defensive basis.

Human or not: that being has no right to be in there
on an intrusive, unwanted basis, the same as a fly or a bee or a burglar
has no right to enter your house and it is morally proper to kill any that DO.

I can also see very decent arguments
that an embryo is NOT a human being, in that it is not conscious nor rational.
I expect arguments that I am not rational, either.





David

The internet is full of scientific explanations, Finn - knock yourself out.
Here is a small excerpt:



Finn, I think what you're mistaking here is the fact that from conception to
birth there is the process of human cell formation (zygote) to the embryonic development up to the time when birth that takes place and a human being is born. Human life begins at birth, conception initiates the process towards it.

What you've cited doesn't speak, at all, to when human life begins.

I understand that your opinion is that a fetus is not a human being until it is born and takes its first breath of air. I can find evidence of very many opinions that hold that human life begins with fertilization of the egg by the sperm, but I can find nothing that supports the idea that either of these opinions is a fact.

The Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v Casey held that states could restrict or or ban entirely abortion (except in the case of the life or health of the mother) based on the point of fetus viability - 22 or 23 weeks of gestation.

While this isn't specifically a decision as to when a fetus can be said to be a human life, you offered as proof of the fact that a human life doesn't begin until delivery that abortions are legal. Since an abortion can, constitutionally, be considered illegal well before the fetus takes it's first breath, the support you'e offered for considering your opinion a fact, falls apart.

With some restrictions, abortions are legal and it's unlikely that this will change in the forseeable future. In general the public prefers a sort of midway approach which allows abortion up until a point in the development of the fetus. That point is not birth.

The point at which human life begins is an opinion or a belief; not a fact.

I appreciate that it might make Pro-choice advocates more comfortable with their position if science told us the fetus is not a human being until it is born, but you just don't get that comfort.

This is not to judge you or anyone else for your position. You believe what you believe and so do I. The law has decided the issue for now and unlike Rex, I see no reason to challenge the good faith of either Pro-choice or Pro-life beliefs.

Actually, there are reports of life births at 22 weeks of gestation which
would eliminate an abortion. However, abortion is an entirely different
subject that was not asked here. Rex asked when human life begins,
and it begins at birth.