Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Life Doesn't Begin at Conception?

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 30 2006,21:26

We've been having a lively debate about when life begins.

I made the statement that "life begins at conception" and several forumites disagreed and declared the opposite. They stated that "life does not begin at conception."

Since we were speaking in the context of abortion, both constrasting statements can be further defined as;

Human life begins at conception.

and

Human life does not begin at conception.

But we also need to go further and define "conception." The general meaning of conception is a "beginning." The opposing statements would then read;

Human life begins at the beginning.

and

Human life does not begin at the beginning.

The more specified meaning of conception in the context of abortion is the fusion of the egg and sperm cell to form a new human organism.

I will assume this second definition as the one that is being used as it is clear that the first definition makes the statement "human life does not begin at the beginning" self-evidently false.

Unfortunately, the second definition of "conception" leads one to make very unusual assumptions and once we get through all the silliness about fundies and wing-nuts, it's seem only logical to assume that human life does indeed begin at conception.

Human life does not begin a conception (doesn't begin with the fusion of egg and sperm to form a new human organism).

This can mean only 3 things:

1. Human life began before conception.

2. Human life began after conception.

3. Or, human life had no beginning.

------------

No. 3 can most easily be discarded because it leaves us with only 2 possibilities;

Human life is eternal,

or

Human life came from non-life,

Hence, human life is either the very concept that many scientists seek to extinguish, namely, a supernatural being,

OR

Human life did not begin with the fusion of a egg and sperm because both sperm and egg are "alive" and human life began from non-life.

The is ZERO evidence for either of these stances.

------------

No. 1 also poses problems. If the argument states that human life began before conception then consciousness no longer becomes a defining feature of human life because no one suggests a sperm or egg has consciouness.

Next, if the argument is that "life comes from life" (hence, life began before conception) and therefore "conception" merely represents a continuation of ordinary life (but not the beginning of human life) then one must trace his/her beginning all the way back to the OOL. Essentially, this "conception" that brings forth a new human organism is nothing more than an outgrowth of one very old entity. We only have the illusion of individuality and independence. Our "life that came from life" came from the OOL. To discard a zygote or to die an early death is nothing more than the equivalent of this billion-year-old living entity shaving his beard or cutting his toenails.

Clearly these ideas seem ludicrous because we never become human life under this scenario because only one liveform exists and it's the one to be found at the OOL.

------------

No. 2 seems the mostly likely conclusion given by those that state "life does not begin at conception."

So does human life begin after conception? Well, if one discounts No. 1 and 3 and believes "human life does not begin at conception" then No. 2 is the only possible conclusion. But what is the evidence?

What makes something a human life if not "conception" itself?

A. Some suggest the emergence of consciousness as that which defines human life after conception.

B. Some suggest that a CNS helps define a human life after conception.

C. Some suggest the birth itself defines human life after conception.

As for A, there is no evidence of when consciousness emerges and therefore no need to assume it emerges anywhere other than at conception.

As for B, there is no evidence that the CNS spontaneously develops or that consciousness spontaneously emerges. It seems reasonable that as the CNS develops so does a greater degree of consciousness. This is clearly evident in constrasting the consciousness between a zygote versus a newborn versus an adult. Again, there seems no reason to assume that the development of the CNS and the associative degree of consciousness that goes with it began anywhere other than at conception.

As for C, the best we can say is that a newborn has a developing CNS. But, we have no reason to assume that the CNS began developing at any time other than at conception. With this information the best we can say is that the newborn either has NO consciouness or a very low degree of consciousness that corresponds with its developing CNS. But the actual birth TELLS US NOTHING about whether this newborn in fact represents human life after conception.

In fact, no DIRECT evidence exists for a conscious newborn. No newborn has ever asserted his/her consciouness. Again, we ONLY assume a conscious newborn lest we treat is like a disposable zygote. The evidence is inconclusive at best and non-existent at worst.

In conclusion, I see no rationale and no evidence to assume that human life begins anywhere other that at its conception.

hehe

Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution