That's a great question, but I'm not pondering that deeply at this point. What I'm interested in is if the Law of Biogenesis aids in proving that abortion is murder. Believe it or not, I heard this from Kathy Ireland, of all people, and it is a rock solid arguement.
At the moment of conception, DNA, the genetic blueprint of human life, is there. The sex of the unborn child is determined at conception. Blood type is determined at conception.
People arguing against life beginning at conception will say it's just a clump of cells...that it's not really a baby yet. But as Mrs. Ireland asked, aren't we all just clumps of cells?
You and I are clumps of cells. We look like what adult humans are supposed to look like. At conception, that "clump of cells" looks like what humans are supposed to look like after conception. We know it is life because it continually grows and changes.
But why do we scientifically know it's human? Because of the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life comes from preexisting life and that each species reproduces only its own kind or type.
Now some argue that if, scientifically, all life comes from preexisting life, then there must have been a Creator to create the first life. But again, I've not explored my thoughts on that enough here.
My concern is as it relates to abortion. If, according to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, all life comes from preexisting life, and each species only produces its own kind, and things such as DNA, Blood type, and sex are determined at conception...then it sounds absolutely reasonable that aborting anything after conception, which by scientific law is human, is murder of a human.
Again, the argument that if it is done early enough it's ok because it is just a "clump of cells" that doesn't even look like a human just doesn't hold water. Just as a fetus doesn't look like an infant and an infant doesn't look like a teenager and a teenager doesn't look like a senior...they all look exactly how they are supposed to look at that particular stage of development.
Neither does the argument that it can't live and breathe on it's own hold water. A newborn can't take care of itself either, aside from breathing. It can't feed itself, bathe itself, etc. It's dependent...just as all humans are from the moment of conception, scientifically speaking of course, until they can venture out into the world on their own. Even then humans are largely dependent on others for much of their life, and indeed even into death.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
People arguing against life beginning at conception will say it's just a clump of cells...that it's not really a baby yet. But as Mrs. Ireland asked, aren't we all just clumps of cells?
--- A potential human being does begin at conception but a clump of cells is not a human being in my eyes, it is a human being in the making. To me the embryo becomes a separate human being once that embryo is able to survive WITHOUT the life of the mother. Once that embryo is a viable being on it’s own, I can say that it is now a human being, until then, it is still an appendage to the mother as if we take the mothers life, the embryo’s life ends as well as it is not a separate life yet.
--- A question, if there was a fire in a building and there was a seven year old child in the corner and a dish with 100 fertilized embryo’s in it, which would you save if you could only save one of them? If an embryo is the same a any other life you should save the petri dish, would you?
You and I are clumps of cells. We look like what adult humans are supposed to look like. At conception, that "clump of cells" looks like what humans are supposed to look like after conception. We know it is life because it continually grows and changes.
--- It is a living organism within the mother, not a separate living organism.
But why do we scientifically know it's human? Because of the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life comes from preexisting life and that each species reproduces only its own kind or type. Now some argue that if, scientifically, all life comes from preexisting life, then there must have been a Creator to create the first life. But again, I've not explored my thoughts on that enough here.
-- You should do some research into Abiogenisis as well. We have created amino acids (the building blocks of life) in the laboratory the first being the Miller-Urey experiments.
Neither does the argument that it can't live and breathe on it's own hold water. A newborn can't take care of itself either, aside from breathing. It can't feed itself, bathe itself, etc. It's dependent...just as all humans are from the moment of conception, scientifically speaking of course, until they can venture out into the world on their own. Even then humans are largely dependent on others for much of their life, and indeed even into death.
--- You are missing one critical point here in my opinion. A newborn baby is not dependant on the MOTHERS life. It may be dependant on other humans for it’s survival but it’s life is not directly tied to the mothers existence. When the embryo is not dependant upon the mothers existence, it is a separate organism. At 3 months old, you kill the mother, the embryo dies as well as it is not yet a separate organism. So if per medical technology embryo’s at conception are viable without the mothers life, then I agree with you but until that time it is part of the mother and the mother can do with it as she sees fit. I am not in favor of late term abortions unless the mothers life is in danger or the embryo is not going to be a viable human being.
---it is still an appendage to the mother
That's a sick and sad way to describe life. If that's your actual stance, there's not much more to discuss on the subject, as it's clearly an extremist view.
It's strange how you consistently tout science as the end all be all of evidentary conclusion, yet easily throw away the scientific and non-disprovable fact of the Law of Biogenesis.
---it is still an appendage to the mother
That's a sick and sad way to describe life. If that's your actual stance, there's not much more to discuss on the subject, as it's clearly an extremist view.
--- It’s not sick if you understand that the embryo is NOT a separate life as it is 100% dependant on the existence of the mother. An extremist view? It’s a view that uses logic and reason. An embryo is not a separate being until it is. Until it is a separate entity not 100% dependant on another entitiy for its exostemnce, it remains a part of the base entity.
It's strange how you consistently tout science as the end all be all of evidentiary conclusion, yet easily throw away the scientific and non-disprovable fact of the Law of Biogenesis.
--- For one, I never throw away science my dear sir, that is blasphemous!! ;o) . The only science that biogenesis has proven is that life forms can and do produce other life forms. It has not made the case with evidence that life forms can not be produced without life forms. You see, that is the great thing about science. Science is based on evidence and over time humans can come upon additional evidence that shows that a certain hypothesis or theory is wrong and science then CHANGES. You need to refrain from using “non-disprovable” as an argument FOR something. You can’t disprove that a green leprechaun created the universe. You need to use evidence to prove something, not the fact that one cannot disprove something as the evidence of something.
Abiogenesis has proved that we can create life from existing Earthly chemicals, as I previously stated.
Are you not going to answer my question on the petri dish? ;o) Who would you save and why? I would save the 7 year old child.
This is an argument I will treat like my ex....and ignore it because no matter what one says nothing good will come out of this argument.
Post a Comment