Life from non life?

[Saber Truth Tiger]

New member, hi to everyone. Many people believe life begins at conception. I was asked the other day how can life begins at conception when life cannot come from non-life? The sperm must be alive before conception. If that is so, then the Catholic church is right when it tells its members to abstain from sex except for procreation. Recreational sex should not be done because it kills pre-human life forms in the man's sperm. Masturbation is definitely forbidden because it kills millions of living sperm, potential human lives. How can I reason with that kind of logic?

 

[mikeT]

New member, hi to everyone. Many people believe life begins at conception.

Hi SaberTruthTiger.

Nearly all of the people you're referring to are unable to define the word "life" in the above context.

I was asked the other day how can life begins at conception when life cannot come from non-life? The sperm must be alive before conception.

If you consider sperm to be a form of human life, then you must consider human skin cells to be the same thing.

And yet.... most of us routinely scratch our skin. This practice exfoliates dead cells, but it also kills a few living ones in the process. By the logic you're employing here, scratching your skin is as bad as abortion.

We know most pro-life advocates wont agree with this - but that's the conclusion to the logic you're using above. If killing human cells containing DNA is bad (aka. immoral, murder, etc), then all of us at the end of our lives are guilty of perpetrating a holocaust.

 

[BMS]

Hi SaberTruthTiger.

Nearly all of the people you're referring to are unable to define the word "life" in the above context.


If you consider sperm to be a form of human life, then you must consider human skin cells to be the same thing.

And yet.... most of us routinely scratch our skin. This practice exfoliates dead cells, but it also kills a few living ones in the process. By the logic you're employing here, scratching your skin is as bad as abortion.

We know most pro-life advocates wont agree with this - but that's the conclusion to the logic you're using above. If killing human cells containing DNA is bad (aka. immoral, murder, etc), then all of us at the end of our lives are guilty of perpetrating a holocaust.

Most people here are able to define life, that is false conjecture on your part.
Whilst I disagree that sperm are life, I think it needs to be fertilized conception, your skin analogy doesnt quite work, the sperm does produce life with the egg, skin doesnt.

 

[Temujin]

New member, hi to everyone. Many people believe life begins at conception. I was asked the other day how can life begins at conception when life cannot come from non-life? The sperm must be alive before conception. If that is so, then the Catholic church is right when it tells its members to abstain from sex except for procreation. Recreational sex should not be done because it kills pre-human life forms in the man's sperm. Masturbation is definitely forbidden because it kills millions of living sperm, potential human lives. How can I reason with that kind of logic?

Welcome to the boards. Those who claim that life begins at conception would argue that it is that moment of fusion that forms a new , unique individual, quite distinctly alive in a different way from the way that a liver awaiting transfer is alive. They would say that DNA from blood or sperm or egg cells can be traced to an individual person, but that DNA from the fertilised egg shows a different and unique individual. And they are right. Up to a point.

I for one would never dispute that the developing embryo of foetus is alive, and a unique individual. (Leaving aside the issue of identical twins.). That's not the reason that I support abortion rights.

 

[BMS]

Welcome to the boards. Those who claim that life begins at conception would argue that it is that moment of fusion that forms a new , unique individual, quite distinctly alive in a different way from the way that a liver awaiting transfer is alive. They would say that DNA from blood or sperm or egg cells can be traced to an individual person, but that DNA from the fertilised egg shows a different and unique individual. And they are right. Up to a point.

they are right completely. Where was the point you thought they werent?

I for one would never dispute that the developing embryo of foetus is alive, and a unique individual. (Leaving aside the issue of identical twins.). That's not the reason that I support abortion rights.

This is waffle.. this remark doesnt tell us up to what point you didnt agree with the above.
Furthermore embryo and foetus are medical terms for different stages of the offspring, and foetus derives from 'offspring', so 'embryo of foetus' is nonsense.

 

[rossum]

New member, hi to everyone.

Welcome.

Many people believe life begins at conception. I was asked the other day how can life begins at conception when life cannot come from non-life? The sperm must be alive before conception.

Both sperm and egg are alive. At conception the number of living cells is reduced from two to one. Neither sperm nor egg is human since they only have half the DNA needed to make a human being.

Masturbation is definitely forbidden because it kills millions of living sperm, potential human lives.

So female masturbation does not matter? I suspect that the Catholic Church would not agree with you there. Similarly, normal intercourse also kills millions of living sperm, less one or two if there is conception. Whatever the case, the vast majority of sperm die without ever reaching an egg.

 

[BMS]

Welcome.


Both sperm and egg are alive. At conception the number of living cells is reduced from two to one. Neither sperm nor egg is human since they only have half the DNA needed to make a human being.


So female masturbation does not matter? I suspect that the Catholic Church would not agree with you there. Similarly, normal intercourse also kills millions of living sperm, less one or two if there is conception. Whatever the case, the vast majority of sperm die without ever reaching an egg.

Of course the human egg and sperm are human. They combine to make a human being

 

[rossum]

Of course the human egg and sperm are human. They combine to make a human being

No, they are only half human. Or do you want the parents of teenage boys to have to pay for a few million funerals every week? After all, humans deserve a proper funeral. At least daughters only incur the expense of a funeral once or twice a month. Unless the family is prone to triplets.

At most, sperm and egg are part human, not full human. Each lacks necessary DNA.

Even theologically, they are not human. They lack a human soul, which is not present until fertilization; it is not present before that.

 

[Newbirth]

New member, hi to everyone.

Hi there

Many people believe life begins at conception.

Based on what poll?

I was asked the other day how can life begins at conception when life cannot come from non-life?

Who said that life came from non life?

The sperm must be alive before conception.

The egg is also alive, if no sperm meets the egg, the egg dies, and so do the sperms which are reabsorbed back into the body.

If that is so, then the Catholic church is right when it tells its members to abstain from sex except for procreation.

how does abstaining from sex help the eggs of a woman and the sperm of a man?

Recreational sex should not be done because it kills pre-human life forms in the man's sperm.

That is not true. A sperm is not a pre-human, nor is an egg.

Masturbation is definitely forbidden because it kills millions of living sperm, potential human lives.

what makes you think that sperms are human. Unused sperm are reused by the body.

How can I reason with that kind of logic?

There isn't any logic in those claims.

 

[BMS]

No, they are only half human.

impossible. Of course they are human, together they make a human being

Or do you want the parents of teenage boys to have to pay for a few million funerals every week?

nonsense funerals are for human beings not human parts.

At most, sperm and egg are part human, not full human.

no they are fully human. You are confusing them with human beings

Each lacks necessary DNA.

no, each have all the DNA. You are confusing human with human being.

Even theologically, they are not human. They lack a human soul, which is not present until fertilization; it is not present before that.

again you are confusing 'human' with 'human being'

 

[Newbirth]

Of course the human egg and sperm are human. They combine to make a human being

then your crap is human...

 

[BMS]

then your crap is human...

Human crap is human. Its not reptile crap
Unless you are referring to what I wrote, in which case you would need to explain

 

[Newbirth]

Human crap is human. Its not reptile crap

"Human" refers to a human being. Human crap is waste. A reptile's crap is waste.

Unless you are referring to what I wrote,

I was not referring to what you wrote. I was referring to your crap. You believe that your crap is human. That is plain silly.

in which case you would need to explain

You are the one who needs to explain how a sperm is human. You should look up the word human.

 

[BMS]

"Human" refers to a human being.

Not for me. I as a human being have human skin for example. There is a distinction

 

[rossum]

Of course they are human, together they make a human being

No, they are human parts.

nonsense funerals are for human beings not human parts.

Thank you for agreeing that sperm and eggs are not human beings.

no, each have all the DNA.

False. Absurdly false. You need to learn the difference between meisosis and mitosis. Sperm and egg cells are formed by meiosis, which results in each sperm or egg having only half the DNA of the parent, 23 chromosomes instead of 46. When the two combine the new zygote has the full 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent.

 

[BMS]

No, they are human parts.

Yes they are human parts

Thank you for agreeing that sperm and eggs are not human beings.

of course they aren't, but they are human. Do you get the distinction now?

False. Absurdly false. You need to learn the difference between meisosis and mitosis. Sperm and egg cells are formed by meiosis, which results in each sperm or egg having only half the DNA of the parent, 23 chromosomes instead of 46. When the two combine the new zygote has the full 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent.

Exactly, each human sperm and each human egg have all the DNA to combine and produce a new human being.

 

[Newbirth]

Not for me. I as a human being have human skin for example. There is a distinction

That is like playing word games.For example, a Ford car has car paint, and a Ford van has van paint. There is a distinction.
Before the 13th century, the word "human" did not exist. So for you, humans did not exist before the 13th century.

 

[rossum]

Exactly, each human sperm and each human egg have all the DNA to combine and produce a new human being.

A single sperm lacks 50% of human DNA. Similarly each egg lacks 50% of human DNA.

Be careful how you reply here; each chimpanzee lacks less than 5% of human DNA. Our DNA has a greater than 95% overlap with chimp DNA. I am sure you will not agree that chimps are human beings. Sperm and egg cells are even less human than chimps in terms of DNA.

 

[Temujin]

A single sperm lacks 50% of human DNA. Similarly each egg lacks 50% of human DNA.

Be careful how you reply here; each chimpanzee lacks less than 5% of human DNA. Our DNA has a greater than 95% overlap with chimp DNA. I am sure you will not agree that chimps are human beings. Sperm and egg cells are even less human than chimps in terms of DNA.

As a matter of interest, do you know if the mitochondrial DNA, which is exclusively in the egg, comes as a separate package or is it part of the female 50%?

 

[BMS]

That is like playing word games.For example, a Ford car has car paint, and a Ford van has van paint. There is a distinction.
Before the 13th century, the word "human" did not exist. So for you, humans did not exist before the 13th century.

Not for me. I as a human being have human skin for example. There is a distinction. I cant be any clearer than that
Can you distinguish between the ford and the paint>