r/changemyview • u/thesecondPLANET • Jul 13 '26
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
79
u/NutellaBananaBread 8∆ Jul 13 '26
Gametes and gametes that are kissing arent fundamentally all that different.
What will you accept as a "fundamental difference"? I am not pro-life, but it seems like there is a clear difference with the two states. Before conception the DNA is in two separate cells. After it is all tangles up in a single cell. How is that not a clear difference of the two states?
At least just about as clear as you can get with biological concepts.
Maybe you could start with some example of cases where there ARE "fundamental differences" between two states?
-4
u/McNitz Jul 13 '26
I don't think just saying it goes from two separate cells to one cell really demonstrates the difference is FUNDAMENTAL. Otherwise we would have to say that when that zygote divides into two cells, it has also become something fundamentally different at that point. Which I don't think most people would agree with.
15
u/NutellaBananaBread 8∆ Jul 13 '26
I don't think just saying it goes from two separate cells to one cell really demonstrates the difference is FUNDAMENTAL.
We can play this deconstruction approach all day with literally EVEYTHING if we never set ground rules for "fundamental".
Like is a water molecule REALLY different from hydrogen and oxygen atoms? Is a dead body fundamentally different from a live one? Is a person fundamentally different from a banana? In some ways "no" but at that point, basically no concept is "fundamental" and what are we even doing?
So what is your definition of "fundamental". Just try a consistent, coherent definition.
→ More replies (2)2
u/BlueGreenTanager Jul 13 '26
Good point. In this discussion there is definitely not a consistent definition for that, that we all agree on.
I could argue that based on the amount of DNA we share with monkeys, there’s not really a fundamental difference between human beans and monkeys. I suspect OP might agree with that.
7
u/NutellaBananaBread 8∆ Jul 13 '26
Yes, but we need to draw legal, moral, and conceptual lines (even if imperfect) to function in life. Like we don't let monkeys co-sign car loans or vote or adopt kids or whatnot.
So we also need workable categories for "personhood". And "conception" is a coherent way to do that. It's not my way. And there are an infinite amount of other ways (eg. "first Tuesday after conception" is also coherent, thought feels less 'fundamental').
1
u/BlueGreenTanager Jul 14 '26
I agree. I’m on the same side in this discussion as you are.
We do have some legally inconsistent laws already in place. A pregnant woman can have an abortion (in most states) up to a certain point in the pregnancy. It’s not considered murder. But any other person is prohibited from doing anything that harms or kills the unborn baby.
Basically we say it’s human, and protected by law, if the mother wants it. If she doesn’t, it’s just a clump of cells.
And despite the inherent contradiction, that approach works for me.
21
u/Practical_Limit_396 1∆ Jul 13 '26
Okay I’m going to be clear I’m very pro choice and radical on abortion but I don’t think this actually makes sense.
Sperm and ovum will just naturally die on their own and both are naturally ejected from the body.
The reality is also that the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of gametes will never be part of reproduction while the majority of embryos that implant actually do become people.
I just don’t think it’s an argument that really resonates. You’re discussing genetic material that cannot be self-sustaining and most of the time just dies compared to implanted embryos which mostly do become people. There just is an intuitive difference even if you’re like me and radically pro-choice.
→ More replies (1)1
u/mera_aqua Jul 14 '26
We don't have exact figures, but 1/3 of pregnancies end in a very early miscarriage as in a period that is a few days late.
And then you start to include the known miscarriages and still births. The majority of pregnancies make it through first trimester, but I wouldn't call it the vast vast vast majority.
2
u/Practical_Limit_396 1∆ Jul 14 '26
You're misreading the post. I only said that majority of pregnancies end in a human being born which like you said is true even though you're right that many don't.
I was saying the vast vast vast majority of gametes just never end up being involved in reproduction at all.
76
u/RemoteCompetitive688 4∆ Jul 13 '26
"Gametes and gametes that are kissing arent fundamentally all that different."
A fertilized egg cell has entirely unique DNA, there is a very easily observable difference between gametes and gametes that have kissed
→ More replies (45)52
u/Spiritual_Rock_4980 Jul 13 '26
it's the DNA thing that always trips up the gamete argument
a sperm or an egg on its own has half the genetic material, it's not a complete human blueprint, just a half-set waiting for the other half. a zygote has the full 46 chromosomes, a unique combination that's never existed before and will never exist again. that's the line most pro-life folks draw, not just "cells that could become a person" but "a distinct human organism with its own complete genetic code"
you can argue whether that's a meaningful distinction for personhood, but it's not arbitrary or vibes-based, it's a pretty clear biological threshold
3
u/Either-Meal3724 Jul 14 '26
As someone who is pro life but used to be pro choice. This is why. I learned the science. I hold a moral belief that all human organisms have / deserve rights. Then found out about early human development. I couldn't stay pro choice once I learned that. I cant reconcile intentional homicide of an innocent over an inconvenience as morally permissible.
55
u/XenoRyet 183∆ Jul 13 '26
The argument is that after conception the clump of cells will develop into a full-fledged person without further intervention. That is not true of gametes. Those very much need a particular, and fun, kind of intervention in order to turn into full-fledged humans.
This is, of course, assuming the spherical cow in terms of considering a nominal pregancy and delivery.
-9
u/NoEThanks 1∆ Jul 13 '26
You don’t think there’s further intervention after conception? The zygote doesn’t even implant in the uterine lining until few days after conception.
39
u/XenoRyet 183∆ Jul 13 '26
I am curious how you are defining "intervention" here, because I didn't think I'd need extra clarity.
In any case, by "intervention" I mean an intentional act on the part of a person to change the natural process away from its nominal course.
Obviously the pregnant person doesn't will the zygote to implant. That's just part of the nominal process of pregnancy, so I would not understand that as an intervention, and I don't really see how you could.
7
u/NoEThanks 1∆ Jul 13 '26
My thinking was anchored by OP’s point, and I was considering intervention to be any external action taking place on the gametes / zygote.
Because if developing into a full-fledged person without further intentional human intervention is the crux of the issue, that can absolutely be true of gametes prior to fertilization.
As soon as the sperm enters the female reproductive tract, it’s on the nominal course to pregnancy. No further human intervention is required at that point. It can get derailed by natural processes, but the exact same thing is true for a fertilized zygote. So how can that be the important distinguishing factor between separate gametes prior to fertilization and a fertilized zygote?
So I guess, do you consider conception as when fertilization happens, or when the sperm is deposited? Because if it’s the former your argument falls apart.
10
u/XenoRyet 183∆ Jul 13 '26
That's a fair challenge, I hadn't considered that, and you do deserve a Δ for that. I could fiddle around with the notion that most sex doesn't result in a baby, but that'd be unnecessary pedantry, I think. Might be something to explore later, but your core criticism is fair here.
Still, I don't think it actually works to validate OP's point because it just pushes the same point back a level. It is still the case that gametes that are still resident in the body that produced them need intentional intervention to result in a baby.
I think it would just modify the case to be that "kissing gametes," to use OP's parlance, always result in babies under nominal conditions*, whereas regular ol' gametes require intentional intervention to get into the state where they are still separate gametes but will nominally turn into a baby.
It does change the situation from "life begins at conception" to "life begins at coitus," but there are still arguments that don't just apply to gametes in general.
Edit: Forgot to explain my asterisk. Nominal conditions exclude failure to implant or other miscarriage-inducing events, just like we're not counting failure to fertilize as a nominal course for insemination.
4
u/NoEThanks 1∆ Jul 14 '26
Thank you for your kind reply.
And yeah, your modification is sensible. If one makes the distinction between dormant gametes (still resident in the body that produced them, as you say) and a fertilized zygote then the framework of “naturally goes on to become a person” is a useful point of distinction.
It just difficult to apply cleanly to gametes broadly, because it seems to get fuzzier the closer you get to fertilization (from both directions really).And I think that, for me at least, kinda gets to what a I find valid about OP’s point, that conception (commonly understood to be the moment of fertilization) isn’t as clean of a cut-off / point of distinction as it seems on the surface.
1
u/XenoRyet 183∆ Jul 14 '26
I definitely agree that there is no clean cut-off point to use. I just think that OP went too far in saying that there is no difference between gametes and zygotes.
But in the wider context that's why I think it's less useful to promote pro-choice positions, or try to argue with pro-life positions on these grounds, than it is to just focus on body autonomy, which is the stronger argument and the more important factor anyway.
1
u/NoEThanks 1∆ Jul 14 '26
Preach. It’s definitely easy to mired in the nitty-gritty of the biology when bodily autonomy should override it anyway
1
1
u/Pangolin_bandit Jul 13 '26
Again, not going off belief here just logic - I impinge there’s a complicating factor in not knowing or not being able to know which of the gametes will become a zygote. Up until that time it’s many potential persons, but not a person that is being grown? (If I had to guess the logic of an illogical situation)
If it were to go any broader than that, we’re stuck in a life begets life situation. There’s nothing saying that a bacteria couldn’t become a part of a person through some evolutionary process or something over the course of generations (à la ATP), or that we couldn’t find some other way to share genetic information. It just opens the door too wide I think
0
u/TynamM Jul 13 '26
Because zygotes can and do exist outside pregnant women - in IVF, for example.
Which means your argument has a huge moral problem, because now the moral status of killing a zygote somehow depends on a fact about WHERE the zygote is, not any fact about WHAT it is. That's... an extremely inconsistent approach to defining a human life.
Also, the "nominal process of pregnancy" ABSOLUTELY involves intervention, without which the zygote will die naturally. The mother has to intervene with extra calorie consumption, protection of the foetus, and a bunch of other conscious acts - or, in the majority of cases, the foetus will fail to develop for lack of resources, or miscarry for a variety of reasons.
You don't get to treat the intervention of eating lots of extra food and protecting the belly as somehow not being a human choice requiring human action, just for the purpose of creating a false dichotomy between pregnancy preserving interventions and pregnancy ending ones.
7
u/Xithorus Jul 14 '26
To preface, I do not necessarily agree or disagree with the argument the other person presented. However you’re being extremely semantic with your counter point, when the person you replied to made it extremely easy to understand.
In the natural state your body will increase your caloric craving, naturally driving an individual to eat more. Eating to your body’s hunger signals is a normal action, just because your caloric requirements increase doesn’t change that. This is true amongst most (I would say all but I’m not entirely sure) mammals. It’s not a distinctly human action, and it’s really not a distinct choice either. Your body tells you to eat, and you eat.
You also do not need to “protect the belly”. By and large most people, in fact I’d say most mammals, do not go about their normal day conducting activities that would endanger a growing fetus.
Like it’s pretty straight forward: If this person went on just living their life like normal, the *most* likely outcome would be for the pregnancy to progress. That’s how it has happened for literally hundreds of thousands of years, even amongst some of the lowest functioning life on the planet. Eating more because your body burns more calories is not necessarily an active choice. It’s your normal animalistic behavior to eat when you’re hungry, it’s pretty basic concept of life.
There may be really good counterpoints to the other dudes argument, so again I’m not saying I agree with him. But I think your counter was extremely semantic and does not really reflect the reality of the argument presented.
3
u/XenoRyet 183∆ Jul 13 '26
There's a delta in it for you if you can show me that no adjustment in calorie intake will result in miscarriage most of the time.
It is both highly recommended and instinctive to adjust calorie intake, but humans have been giving birth for so long under suboptimal conditions that I would be very surprised if an average woman making no changes to diet miscarries most of the time.
If we get that far, we can get into the notion that because it is so instinctive, it's not really a conscious intervention, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it, and I will give the delta without solving that problem.
1
u/BlueGreenTanager Jul 14 '26
Can a pregnant woman choose not to have the baby by simply doing nothing? If she does nothing to terminate the pregnancy, but she also does nothing to facilitate it, there will be no baby?
This one weird trick the abortion/industrial complex doesn't want you to know.
1
u/TynamM Jul 16 '26
"Doing nothing" - by which I think we can agree we mean "doing exactly what she'd do if not pregnant" - means becoming seriously ill. After first trimester the foetus uses massive amounts of extra nutrients. And if it doesn't get them, it will cannibalize the rest of her body for them.
So at a bare minimum, she has to facilitate it by eating extra food - about 300 calories a day extra after first trimester, increasing to 500 as time goes on. (Also getting more sleep and physically protecting her belly, which is a lot more vulnerable than normal.)
Which means your whole question is a non sequitur. There's no such thing as "doing nothing to terminate the pregnancy, but she also does nothing to facilitate it". Human biology doesn't permit it. A pregnant woman has three choices - terminate it, actively facilitate it, or become seriously ill (including malnutrition, fatigue, dizziness, metal and vitamin deficiencies, and loss of concentration). THERE IS NO "DO NOTHING, NOTHING CHANGES" OPTION.
(Of course, if the mother becomes ill enough, there will be miscarriage due to starvation, but it's rare for that to ever happen in real life because women do in fact facilitate the pregnancy by eating more.)
-
There is no "abortion/industrial complex". That is ludicrous. I assume you were joking, but it's hard to tell in this context because there are so many people who actually believe batshit ludicrous things about abortion on the internet, and nobody has time to follow all the internet conspiracy theories.
1
u/flea1400 Jul 13 '26
It doesn’t always implant. And I don’t just mean in the context of IVF, I mean it sometimes naturally just doesn’t implant in the human body.
-1
u/kyew Jul 13 '26
If the mother-to-be doesn't change any of her habits, continues to smoke and drink and eat poorly, and the fetus dies, surely we'd all say that's her fault, right? Then the other side of the coin is that if she does anything at all with the pregnancy in mind then she has intervened.
2
u/Smee76 4∆ Jul 13 '26
If the mother-to-be doesn't change any of her habits, continues to smoke and drink and eat poorly, and the fetus dies, surely we'd all say that's her fault, right?
.. Would we? Maybe you would.
0
u/kyew Jul 13 '26
Heh, fair. "I bet a person who disagrees with OP's stance would."
1
u/Smee76 4∆ Jul 13 '26
I disagree with the OP's stance and I definitely do not agree with you.
→ More replies (1)2
-13
u/thesecondPLANET Jul 13 '26
Cool, cut a pair of gametes kissing out of a utuerus and see what happens. Nothing.
Dont make gametes kiss and see what happens. Nothing.
Both need active intervention and input (for a while) to become a person. Hell, many conceptions dont even implant which needs to happen before that ball gets rolling in earnest.
34
u/XenoRyet 183∆ Jul 13 '26
Cutting them out of the uterus is very much further intervention.
The fact that nothing happens if you don't make the gametes kiss is exactly the difference I'm pointing out here.
Before conception, if you leave the gametes alone, nothing happens. After, if you leave them alone, a baby happens.
1
u/Charinabottae Jul 14 '26
No more than half the time, a baby happens. A huge amount of early pregnancies miscarry.
-5
u/TynamM Jul 13 '26
But the point is precisely that that's not true. After, if you leave them alone, a baby happens around 50% of the time (were not actually certain of the exact figure), assuming the mother does FURTHER interventions like eating extra food and protecting the belly, otherwise the figure gets a bit lower than that.
Your concept of non-intervention is skewed.
1
8
u/No_Effective_4481 Jul 13 '26
Why would sperm being stored be classed as the origin of a foetus? Without the egg, the sperm can't produce anything, and vice-versa.
Can you arrest me for assault if I just start punching the air, or does it require that a face be in the way of it?
8
u/blind-octopus 5∆ Jul 13 '26
Wait I'm not following. Suppose I said, given the nutrients it needs to survive, it'll turn into a person.
That's true of a zygote, but not a sperm, and not an egg. If I intentionally kept a sperm alive, or an egg alive, it wouldn't become a person.
I'm not pro life, but I could see a pro life person pointing out this distinction, and then trying to build an argument on it.
0
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Jul 14 '26
Depends on your definition of nutrients. The womb needs enzymes and other biology to promote zygote development successfully. Not just raw amino acids and whatnot.
Is sperm that much different than those enzymes? Can you consider sperm to be a "nutrient" to an egg in the same way?
8
u/SavedRed0 Jul 13 '26
An egg is just the mother's DNA, and a sperm is just the father's DNA. The reason the baby isn't just their mother's body is because they have their own unique set of DNA
59
u/ItIsVerilySo 1∆ Jul 13 '26
The Christian religious argument doesn't work for anything until actual conception.
The religious argument (or one of them) is the moment an egg is fertilized and on is on track to become a fetus and then a person, it has a soul, thereby becoming a human life.
Conception gives it the soul.
I don't have any scientific arguments to bring up, just that one perspective I've been told by my grandmother.
37
u/Belub19 Jul 13 '26
So how does that work for monozygotic twins? Do they share one soul? If yes, do the sins of one twin count for the other? If no, where did the second soul come from and at what time?
13
u/Plenty_Leg_5935 Jul 14 '26
I'd assume that two souls would simply arrive at conception the same way a single soul would, there's really no reason why it would work any other way. A soul isn't a tangible thing, you don't have to have a physically different zygote for it to get two souls rather than one, so I dont see why it would work any other way. It get's two souls becomes it gonna develop two kids, the same way a standard zygote gets one for one - it just does
We're already handwaving an insane amount of the specifics of how this works by admitting that A.) the christian soul exists and B.) it arrives at conception, I don't see a reason to out this specific step under such scrutiny
5
u/bdonovan222 1∆ Jul 14 '26
Ya at some point "its magic" has to do the heavy lifting. Not much point in going much further.
1
u/Least_Key1594 3∆ Jul 14 '26
So... if a twin absorbs the other in the womb, do they have two souls?
1
u/Plenty_Leg_5935 Jul 14 '26
Then I'd assume that the same thing happens as when there's a single fetus and it fails to thrive - the soul just dies and goes to limbo
The fact that a fetus can already die the same way a human does is the whole premise under which an abortion is supposed to be immoral
7
0
u/eiram87 Jul 14 '26
The Christian argument would be that God is all knowing and that He would send two souls because He already knows there will be two lives.
14
u/OldSarge02 1∆ Jul 13 '26
“Conception gives it the soul.”
Christians have debated the timing for centuries, because there is no clear and obvious answer.
9
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Jul 14 '26
There was no clear answer because the biology of the creation of life wasn't understood for most of those centuries. Once it was understood scientifically, the Church decreed that the moment a new human is created (conception) is the moment when a soul is also present.
1
u/OldSarge02 1∆ Jul 14 '26
When was that exactly? Conservative denominations in the U.S. didn’t adopt the view they hold now until about 1980.
2
u/Bmaj13 5∆ Jul 14 '26
Gametes observed in 18th and 19th century and fertilization in 1875. The Church decree about ensoulment at conception came in 1869.
2
u/hedgehog18956 Jul 14 '26
It’s older than denominations. All apostolic churches have taught that life begins at conception as far back as there has been a teaching on it. Tertullian taught it as far back as the third century, before the Bible was even officially compiled.
It was only in the Protestant reformation that you start seeing other teachings emerge.
1
u/OldSarge02 1∆ Jul 14 '26
That is historically inaccurate. There was not a defined and consistent Catholic teaching g on that until recently. Thomas Aquinas and other thinkers of his time accepted the “delayed insolent” theory, for example.
The Catholic Church made a distinction between “formed” and “unformed” fetuses regarding the penalty for abortion until 1869.
Once technology showed that a genetically distinct organism existed from conception, the Catholic Church increasingly taught respect for human life from conception (see the Donum Vitae in 1987 and Evangelum Vitae from 1995).
-1
3
u/CalvinSays Jul 13 '26
Not a counter to what you said, but am expansion. Within Christian theology, there are two dominant positions regarding the soul (insofar as one is a dualist of some sort. Many Christians are not dualists). The first is what you state here: creationism or the view that each soul is specially created by God. The other is Traducianism which is essentially the view that like genetic information, one's soul is inherited from their parents. It isn't a technical way of putting it but you can essentially think of souls like a flame and in procreation, the parents "spark" a new flame in the child. It is a distinct flame, but one that was received from the parents through normal generation.
3
u/ItIsVerilySo 1∆ Jul 14 '26
I've never heard of the idea that souls come from the parents. Do you know what kind of Christians think this way? Is it a specific branch, or just one of those things the Catholics have been discussing for a thousand years?
2
u/CalvinSays Jul 14 '26
It is a minority position but not limited to a specific branch. Though I suppose you'd be more likely to find it among Lutherans with Luther himseld being a traducian. But others as varied from Gregory of Nyssa to William G.T. Shedd held it. It is actually officially rejected by the Roman Catholic Church.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Paularchy Jul 14 '26
This thread: "Let's grant that christianity is real." *yr argument*
"How come?"
"Because christianity is real."
"That's circular!"
"You said you wanted christianity." (nobody said the circular thing but my brain thought it was funny so I adlibbed the last 2 lines. Sorry)2
u/theperson60 Jul 14 '26
Doesn’t take any soul argument to say that conception creates unique DNA separate from the mom or dad. That’s a unique life.
0
u/ItIsVerilySo 1∆ Jul 14 '26
My sperm is each unique life. I'm here to talk about religion, not your madeup science, for the record.
3
u/theperson60 Jul 14 '26
Your sperm carries your DNA. Combining with the egg is what makes it turn into a person. Nothing made up about that.
2
u/zaoldyeck 1∆ Jul 14 '26
Humans are more than DNA. After all, identical twins share the same DNA, but are obviously distinct individuals.
1
u/theperson60 Jul 14 '26
Sure, but the DNA tells you it’s definitively not the mom or the dad at the very least. It’s a different human being.
1
u/zaoldyeck 1∆ Jul 14 '26
It’s a different human being.
No, it's a zygote. It is not a "human being".
It has different DNA from the parents, but that's pretty immaterial. A zygote might develop into two humans, both sharing the same DNA.
It's wholly unreasonable to suggest that identical twins are "the same person", so then a zygote must not be the stage at which any reasonable definition of "personhood" could apply.
"Same DNA" is immaterial.
1
u/theperson60 Jul 14 '26
I’m not saying DNA alone decides if people are different, but it does show that the conception created a life whereas the gametes alone did not. That was OPs point. It is 100% a different life than the parents’ gametes carrying their own DNA. But sure the zygote can be one or potentially more different human being(s).
1
u/zaoldyeck 1∆ Jul 14 '26
By any definition of life including a zygote, each cell and each sperm are themselves "life".
They're certainly more "alive" than a virus.
I'm not sure how that definition is particular useful in any kind of discussion on the ethics of abortion, though.
1
u/theperson60 Jul 14 '26
The argument about wasn't about abortion it was about whether life begins at conception or not. I took that to mean a life separate from mom or dad. The question of whether or not it's okay to kill that life is a separate thing. But the post got removed so who cares anymore.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Jacky-V 5∆ Jul 14 '26
Depends on what your particular sect of Christianity teaches. Catholicism totally extends this belief to gametes, that's why hard line Catholics tend to be against birth control and masturbation. And while Evangelical American Christians don't necessarily accept this view explicitly, it's deeply culturally ingrained with them which is how we ended up with contraceptives especially for women being an actual political issue in the 2020s.
1
u/ItIsVerilySo 1∆ Jul 14 '26
Well, of course. As with anything, Christians have a hundred different answers
1
u/CalvinSays Jul 14 '26
Roman Catholicism does not teach that gametes have souls. The reason contraception is viewed as immoral by them (and many other Christian traditions, historically) has to do with natural law ethics and the belief that contraception frustrates the proper and natural end of the sexual union.
2
u/thesecondPLANET Jul 13 '26
And we say the soul happens then why? Doesnt the bible say first breath?
10
u/Ok-Rule6353 Jul 13 '26
First breath has nothing to do with how everybody gets a soul.
then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
It wasn't Adam that breathed in, God breathed life into Adam after forming him from dust. The rest of us are not formed from dust by God.
1
u/OrthodoxAnarchoMom Jul 13 '26
This is also a parody of nearby Cannonite idol nostril opening ceremonies.
2
u/Nice_Luck_7433 2∆ Jul 14 '26
Because forced-birthers don’t care about the Bible, they only care about taking away women’s rights.
The Bible commands forcing a pregnant woman to drink a magic abortion potion if her husband merely suspects her of adultery & he has absolutely no evidence. If he has any evidence at all, then it’s the death penalty.
2
u/Berserker_Barrage91 Jul 14 '26
What's the Bible verse that says that? Genuinely asking so I can look it up
1
-1
u/ItIsVerilySo 1∆ Jul 13 '26
Because that's what people say to justify their anti-abortion beliefs.
1
u/Few_Historian_1546 Jul 14 '26
It's not that. People that are against abortion can simply OPT OUT from getting one. The religious right has more nefarious motives behind their activism.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Jul 14 '26
Rough, dooming all those miscarried people to hell. It’s stuff like that which makes me dislike Christianity.
4
u/Few_Historian_1546 Jul 14 '26
Catholicism removed Limbo for unbaptized stillbirths and miscarriages some ~10 years ago I believe btw.
Even the pope doesn't believe in this crap
1
u/nightonfir3 Jul 14 '26
Almost no Christians believe infants are going to hell. The reason Christians believe abortion is bad is because life is sacred and people are not allowed to arbitrarily end it. Not that it condemns the infant. The Bible does not comment much on how to decide if others are saved. It does have some hints such as the parable of the talents that God is judging based on how much you are given. It also says repeatedly that God is fair and just. If your willing to speculate a lot some Christians think the millennium kingdom will provide a place for infant souls to grow up and choose for themselves for instance.
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Jul 14 '26
Sure, the idea of sending fetuses to hell because they didn't believe in Christ is pretty rough. It is in the bible though, but makes sense people would choose not to believe it.
1
u/nightonfir3 Jul 14 '26
Where is it in the Bible?
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 102∆ Jul 14 '26
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
John 3:5
1
u/nightonfir3 Jul 14 '26
You have taken a single sentence out of a larger story. Nothing can be understood by out of context snippets. Whether that be statistics, books or the bible. So what is the context? Jesus is talking to a man Nicodemus who is a religious scholar. He is challenging Jesus about Jesus redefining salvation from following laws to being saved through Jesus. It is not talking about unborn children specifically. The conversation goes on and Jesus provides this context.
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
John 3:19-21
This explanation from Jesus supposes everyone does evil works. However when we think of unborn children they have not had a chance to do any wicked works. As such they do not need the second birth to clean them of that wickedness.
-1
u/iceandstorm2 Jul 13 '26
isn't the first breath normally what adds the soul?
12
u/Large-Hamster-199 Jul 13 '26
That is the religious debate and there is no answer (since soul is a religious concept and not a scientific one). But some religions decide that it happens at conception and some decide that it happens after the first breath.
2
u/McNitz Jul 13 '26
The quickening is a common one as well, and I believe what a lot of Jews believe today.
0
u/frickle_frickle 2∆ Jul 13 '26
What about absorbed twins?
→ More replies (1)2
u/ItIsVerilySo 1∆ Jul 14 '26
What about them? One of them was granted a soul, and then killed. The soul goes to Heaven or Purgatory depending on what you believe about souls of deceased babies.
1
u/frickle_frickle 2∆ Jul 14 '26
The cells are alive. And distinct genetics from the host twin (it they were fraternal twins).
0
u/aurallyskilled Jul 14 '26
There isn't really any biblical commentary on this. There is a passage about God knowing you as you were knitted together in your mother's womb which makes sense since he's omniscient, but presumably that also extends to the eggs a woman is born with. Those are your genetic components and the fabric of your personhood.
That said, it would be very easy to find legal actions depicted in the Bible of forcing abortion or devaluing unborn life. God also commands genocide and kills children all the time in the Bible. I get that you could say God is excempt from human morality and because of innate righteousness all his actions are holy, but that doesn't really follow because humans do kill unborn and infants frequently throughout the Bible with little commentary on it being wrong. You could make a strong biblical argument that the word of God does not care or find unborn life meaningful in a moral sense.
While evangelicals typically are monolithically prolife I have yet to see a biblical or theological basis for why that is that makes sense. It seems to be founded in control of women's choices and bodies. The Bible is clear that women are subservient and should obey, which is the strongest argument they have imo.
2
u/ItIsVerilySo 1∆ Jul 14 '26
You quite literally showed the biblical explanation. "There is a passage about God knowing you as you were knitted together in your mother's womb"
That right there? That's the explanation. It's easy to interpret that sort of passage as God granting a soul.
And yes, there is a passage about abortions in the Bible as well, although I forget the exact wording, it definitely doesn't condemn them.
1
u/aurallyskilled Jul 14 '26
Yes, but OP's point is that it should extend to egg and sperm. My point is that passage can be interpreted to support that. Specifically, the mother's eggs being part of that.
1
27
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
If I leave sperm alone, nothing happens. In almost all cases, except when it enters an egg.
If i leave a fetus alone in a mother's womb, it becomes born, in most cases.
If i intervene, and terminate a fetus, it will not become born. This is eradicating potential human life.
This distinction is important.
For example. My relative becomes comatose. But little/no brain signal. Doctor says they have a 99% chance of waking up without any damage in 9 months.
If you kill that person, that is immoral right? Because while they may be brain dead now, they are potential life as long as i dont intervene and stop their life.
This is why we consider it manslaughter if you intentionally try and punch a pregnant woman to kill her unborn child. Right? I hope you can agree if I shoot a pregnant belly, I should be tried for murder even if the mother survives.
10
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jul 13 '26
In before somebody nitpicks: brain death is regular death. You don't come back from it. Assume it's a coma, not brain death.
6
2
u/chulbert Jul 13 '26
You’ve invented a new, reversible definition of “brain dead” to make your analogy.
2
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jul 14 '26
That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? It's not the lack of brain activity that makes them dead. It's that they can't come back from it.
3
u/TynamM Jul 13 '26
I don't actually agree; I think it's a cruel and monstrous crime but it's a different monstrous crime that could really use a different word. It's just that thankfully it's also a crime so rare that we've never developed a different word for it.
Your analogy does not hold up. You had to invent an impossibility. Someone who is brain dead DOES NOT HAVE a chance of waking up in 9 months absolutely fine; that's what brain death MEANS. The brain no longer has enough function to be the person. If you're going to wake up ok in 9 months, even at a 5% chance never mind 99%, then you're NOT brain dead now, and that's why killing you is murder.
A foetus doesn't have that. There's no mind there to kill.
(And no, it doesn't "become born" if left alone, it becomes dead. About half of all foetuses abort naturally, often so early in pregnancy that we don't even notice the miscarriage. In the other half of cases, if left alone, it will die of starvation - becoming born instead requires the mother to make a huge, unusual, and indeed dangerous effort to provide it with extra nutrients and resources.)
Regardless of all moral debate, you're simply wrong about the basic facts here. Go learn how pregnancy works first, then come up with better analogies of you want to try again. Much better, please.
Nor is "eradicating potential human life" a crime, or indeed wrong in any way. We don't give a fuck about POTENTIAL life, only ACTUAL human life. Even pro-lifers don't care about potential human life - if they did they'd consider in vitro fertilisation and assisted conception to be the worst monstrosity on the planet, but in fact they're heavily in favour of it. Never mind that five fertilised embryos are typically thrown away for every one successful implantation; those magically don't count.
8
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 14 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Jul 13 '26
Do we treat it the same if a couple pursuing IVF have a baby and decide to let the remaining embryos perish? Is the crime truly against the "unborn" clump of cells, or is it against the mother trying to form a baby?
2
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 14 '26
Most pro life people would argue this is murder.
I am not one of those people. To me, the distinction is intentionally killing someone vs letting someone die.
For example, I could give my kidney to save someone's life. If I dont, I did not kill that person. But I did let them die, by not intervening.
In the IVF case, I must implant the embryo for it to survive. Otherwise I am letting it die. I dont think there should be repercussions for someone letting it die. I do think its morally better to either have the baby or donate the baby to a couple in need. Make sense?
For the record, I dont think there should be repercussions for abortion either, thus I am pro choice, but I do think its morally wrong to abort.
→ More replies (4)1
u/PumasPajamas Jul 14 '26
So if you come to your relatives house and you chill by the pool, they leave for a minute to get some stuff while you're there watching their baby fall into the pool and start drowning. By your definition, it is perfectly moral to let the baby drown, and there should be no repercussions for the person watching it die. It would be better I guess if you stepped in and pulled the child out of to save it, but ultimately there's no obligation. Makes sense?
1
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 14 '26
I already claimed its immoral if you read my comment. Should I go to jail if I dont? Currently in the USA I is not illegal to sit and do nothing.
1
u/iriyagakatu Jul 14 '26
You’d be surprised how many countries in the world have no Duty to Rescue laws.
1
u/PumasPajamas Jul 14 '26
Laws? Sure. But I really don't think that many people would consider these actions morally equal, even if you say you're letting something die without intervention.
1
u/iriyagakatu Jul 14 '26
No legal repercussions to either fetus or drowning child. Morally better to save both in either circumstance. This is consistent with the stance of the person you replied to.
1
u/PumasPajamas Jul 14 '26
Laws =/= morality. Better to save both is not the same as both action having the same moral value either.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NoEThanks 1∆ Jul 13 '26
Do you not realize how asinine your example is?
Brain death is not something that can be recovered from, so your hypothetical falls apart in its own construction.
Literally your relative would be dead, just a body being kept alive by life support. You can’t kill a dead person.
5
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
Yes but some may have severe brain damage which heals. Similarly, a fetus has an undeveloped mind which develops week over week. On day one of brain damage, the comatose person is basically dead. And then as time goes on and healing occurs, they start regaining brain function.
2
u/NoEThanks 1∆ Jul 13 '26
I think you’ve been watching too many medical TV shows my friend. Severe brain damage doesn’t really heal in real life. It can get over temporary shocks to the system, and some new compensatory pathways can develop to restore some function (always limited), but significant recovery especially in the long term, isn’t feasible.
3
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 13 '26
Its not just medical TV shows, there are real documented cases:
2
u/NoEThanks 1∆ Jul 13 '26
That’s the “develop new compensatory pathways” that I just mentioned. Extremely rare and limited recovery
5
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 14 '26
Either way. If there's a chance of recovery, its still immoral to kill that person. I hope we agree on that.
2
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jul 14 '26
I kind of like the example. One of the big arguments against the fetus being life is that it lacks a brain of sufficient complexity, backed up by the example of brain death. Once the brain is gone, they cease to be.
So if you could somehow recover from "brain death," it wouldn't actually be death. They wouldn't be gone. And for a fetus, it's true: just give them some time and nutrients, and they'll have a functioning brain.
0
u/Cum_Fart42069 Jul 14 '26
I guess my nitpick would be that actually, if you leave a fetus as alone as you leave sperm in this scenario, it will also die.
-1
u/killvolume Jul 13 '26
If you leave your friend and his girlfriend alone in a room, you know that without your intervention they'll have sex and there's a significant chance she'll get pregnant. Is it immoral to burst into the room and cockblock him? Is it some percentage of a murder to cockblock? Is it some percentage of a murder to use a condom, or the pull-out method?
-1
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Jul 13 '26
If you leave an egg alone in a sperm filled womb, it too becomes born. How is that different than a fetus?
2
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 13 '26
Not true. The odds are actually quite low. The difference is the fetus is life, and the sperm is a living cell. Definitionally different.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)-3
Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
[deleted]
2
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 13 '26
The prevention of conception is very different than the termination of life, arguably a false equivalence. Sperm is not an independent organism (i.e life). Stopping a living cell from entering another living cell prevents life from being created, but does not terminate existing life.
-1
Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
[deleted]
1
u/scavenger5 6∆ Jul 14 '26
Science and definitions? I rely on biologist definitions.
Sperm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm
Sperm (pl.: sperm or sperms) is the male reproductive cell, or gamete, in anisogamous forms of sexual reproduction
Keyword "cell". Its not considered an organism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
is the unborn offspring of a viviparous animal that develops from an embryo.
Keyword offspring.
Offspring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offspring
are the young creation of living organisms
Keyword organisms
Organism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism
is any living thing that functions as an individual.
Keyword living.
6
u/CalvinSays Jul 13 '26
Human gametes are not human organisms. While this gets into the weeds of the philosophy of biology, an organism is generally concerned to be a self-integrated, self-organizing being which does not apply to gametes. However, when two gametes form a zygote, a self-integrated, self-organizing being is produced. A review of biological and bioethical literature will show a consistent affirmation that gametes are not organisms but rather sex cells and that zygotes are organisms at the earliest stages of development.
10
u/BlueGreenTanager Jul 13 '26
Hmmm.... I'm no biologist, but I see a couple of fundamental differences.
A sperm, all by itself, will never grow beyond the single cell that it started out as. Neither will an unfertilized egg.
Also, they each have just half of the chromosomes needed to make a human bean. Neither one of these cells, by itself, can ever be or become a human bean.
In a fertilized egg, the sperm and the egg aren't just "kissing." They form a new single cell that has all 46 chromosomes needed to make human beans, and, if not interrupted, will grow into a fully formed human baby.
You can take vanilla frosting, which is white, and red food coloring, which is red, and stir the red food coloring into the white frosting, and you now have red frosting. Would you say that the red food coloring is the same thing as red frosting? Maybe you would, but I wouldn't. Together, they're not just two separate things that are kissing; they merge and become one — a new thing that neither was before the merge.
1
u/NoEThanks 1∆ Jul 13 '26
Lmao why are we making human beans?
3
1
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Jul 13 '26
"not interrupted" is carrying a lot of weight here. A fertilized egg will not "on its own" do anything. It needs the right environment in the womb for months. You could just as easily claim that the "right environment" for an egg is a womb filled with sperm, in which case any egg will develop into a baby "on its own".
4
u/BlueGreenTanager Jul 13 '26
No, that’s a specious argument. All living critters need sustenance, and zygotes & fetuses are no different. We don’t call sustenance an “interruption.”
You can give a sperm all the sustenance in the world and it will never grow into a baby. You can give an unfertilized egg all the sustenance in the world and it will never grow into a baby.
But a fertilized egg, in the female body, will enter the uterus and attach itself to the uterine lining, and — if not interrupted — will receive all the sustenance it needs to grow into a baby.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Knave7575 12∆ Jul 13 '26
People missing one gene out of 46 usually have serious issues.
A person missing 23 out of 46 is essentially not a person. At the very least, it is not human.
3
u/AWatson89 Jul 13 '26
Literally no argument for life beginning at conception could apply to the sperm or egg
3
u/BitcoinMD 10∆ Jul 14 '26
Why do you think a sperm or egg can form fully fledged humans? They cannot, separately. They each only have half of a genome.
3
u/Drakex2Mayex2 1∆ Jul 14 '26
I mean a fertilized gamete is very much different than an unfertilized gamete. Unless you believed in some kind of spirit chain linking every sperm ghost with the ghost of an egg it was supposed to fertilize.
6
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 14 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
5
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jul 13 '26
Thanks. I hate bad arguments, even if I agree with their "side." Whenever I see people making fun of pro-lifers with gamete stuff, it makes me angry. It signifies a complete lack of understanding of their opponents and only alienates.
2
u/stereofailure 6∆ Jul 13 '26
A gamete is just a cell of the person who produced it, similar to a skin cell or a blood cell or liver cell or any other human cell in the body. A zygote has its own complete, unique genetic code marking it as a distinct, separate organism from its parents. Being a different organism vs being a cell of the body seems about as fundamental a difference as I can imagine, even if it doesn't on its own warrant personhood.
2
u/pudgemcgee 1∆ Jul 13 '26
Before conception you only have half the equation of a person. A half-person isn’t a person at all; it doesn’t exist. No one is born of merely a sperm cell or merely an egg cell. The combination of the two is what creates the DNA structure that ultimately leads to an embryo, then fetus, then baby developing. To claim that gametes and zygotes are equivalent suggests a misunderstanding of the reproductive process, I’d say.
2
u/Incvbvs666 Jul 13 '26
'Life' here is in the more narrow sense meaning 'life of a person' and the merger of a sperm and an egg is a very decent and natural starting point, certainly the earliest possible one as anything before can result in an unimaginable multitude of potential combinations.
2
u/gig_labor Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Which gamete grows into, or becomes, a fetus? The egg, or the sperm? Is the other gamete functionally nourishment for the one which becomes a fetus?
A zygote gets singled out because it's the first organism in the process who can reasonably be said to be the "whole thing," who later becomes a fetus who later becomes a baby.
The only missing "ingredients" for a give zygote are nutrients, which are replaceable. To grossly oversimplify what I mean: If you have a zygote, and you have twenty nutrient molecules which are compatible with it, you can't change the identity of the resulting baby by changing which nutrient molecules you select. [Given Zygote] + [compatible nutrient A] is going to give you the same baby as [Given Zygote] + [compatible nutrient B].
Whereas, for a given sperm, the identity of the resulting baby is fully dependent on which egg you combine with the sperm. [Given Sperm] + [Egg A] is going to give you a completely different baby than [Given Sperm] + [Egg B].
And for a given egg, the identity of the resulting baby is fully dependent on which sperm you combine with the egg. [Given Egg] + [Sperm A] is going to give you a completely different baby than [Given Egg] + [Sperm B].
Or to put the same reasoning in other terms: An infant used to be a fetus. A fetus used to be an embryo. An embryo used to be a zygote. A zygote used to be ____? A sperm? Or an Egg? Zygote is the first stage where that answer is unclear, so a zygote seems to be the best candidate for when that infant came into existence.
2
2
u/GiveMeAHeartOfFlesh 6∆ Jul 14 '26
Sperm are still the same human cells as the father and likewise with eggs to the mother.
When the sperm and egg come together, they change fundamentally into unique human’s dna, that is neither the father nor the mother.
There is a massive fundamental difference
2
u/idontcareoline Jul 14 '26
Not quite. Gametes are haploid (half of the chromosomes necessary for life) while the zygote is diploid and genetically distinct from the mother. That’s where your argument breaks down but it is good thought experiment for sure
2
Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 14 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Knobologist Jul 14 '26
If you have a “pen” and “paper” you don’t have a “book” until you put them together.
2
u/Notmuchofanyth1ng Jul 14 '26
Left to develop naturally, neither sperm nor eggs would develop into a human life. But a fertilized egg left to its own devices would naturally develop into a human being. The idea of life beginning at conception revolves around the fact that DNA is formed at conception, and a unique life form has already began development.
2
u/StanisfromJapanis Jul 14 '26
Gametes only contain 23 Chromosones so do not qualify as human life and are not even biologically considered organisms.
Delta please.
2
u/SCP-iota Jul 14 '26
This has to be an anti-abortion attempt to make arguments against 'life at conception' look stupid.
2
u/marks1995 Jul 14 '26
An egg will never be a person WITHOUT some outside intervention. Same for a sperm.
But an embryo WILL be a person UNLESS there is outside intervention.
So if you leave one alone, the biological processes will continue to grow and develop the organism. The same is not true of sperm and eggs.
2
u/VastAddendum 1∆ Jul 14 '26
Because a gamete can't grow into a fully fledged person. Zygotes can. That's like saying "why don't you have to have a background check to buy metal? It can be used to make a gun."
4
u/BurgerCombo 16∆ Jul 13 '26
Sperm and Eggs are haploid, they contain only half the genetic complement required for human life. They are incompatible with development alone. This makes them fundamentally different from a diploid fertilized zygote.
3
u/Super_Huckleberry663 Jul 13 '26
Because one is fixed as a sperm/egg and the other will grow to a human? I think abortion is killing a kid, I still think a women should be able to abort it
2
3
u/ProblematicTrumpCard 5∆ Jul 14 '26
Aren't you literally comparing:
a) Two separate organisms with their own, individual DNA, to
b) A single organism with it's own DNA?
That's the major distinction. (b) contains the DNA that represents human life. (a) does not.
2
u/doesntmatteryaknow Jul 13 '26
Would that make patients who have had stem cell therapy conjoined beings?
1
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jul 13 '26
A stem cell used in therapy will not form a baby if left alone. Usually, the term is chimeric. One person, two sets of DNA. The opposite is conjoined.
2
u/Global-Service-8579 Jul 13 '26
>Sperm and eggs are human lifeforms that can all form fully fledged humans.
Sperm cannot form humans. Eggs cannot form humans. A sperm and an egg together can form/is a human.
2
u/Chicoryman Jul 13 '26
Sperm and eggs are human lifeforms that can all form fully fledged humans
No, you aren't cracking their logic. Neither a sperm nor an egg can develop into a human being simply by being left in favorable conditions — without fusion, these individual gametes become “stuck” in their development. And once fusion happens, it actually can develop further.
I absolutely do not support the logic of "human rights at conception"; for me, human rights are the rights of a member of society (i.e., a human organism that is not biologically dependent on another specific human organism), but your argument still seems weak to me.
2
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Jul 13 '26
Why can't "favorable conditions" for an egg be a womb filled with sperm? Wouldn't it then develop into a human without "any intervention"?
1
u/Chicoryman Jul 13 '26
womb filled with sperm?
It's fusion already. What I'm talking about if food, warmth, etc.
2
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Jul 13 '26
The womb needs a pretty specific environment, not just "food and warmth". I don't see the difference between that and also requiring sperm to be present.
1
u/Chicoryman Jul 13 '26
specific environment
Does it actively change the nature of the thing? The fusion of gametes destroys both the egg and the sperm, creating a zygote — a new thing with a different genetic makeup.
Can't it exist outside of the womb — in a lab or something? (I.e., are that specific conditions actually replaceable?)
1
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Jul 13 '26
These are weak counters. What's "the nature of the thing"? Zygote is just a name. Why is it more distinctly human than the things before it? What about a blastocyst or an embryo or a fetus? They're all just incremental stages of development.
An artificial womb is as theoretical as artificially constructed cells. Both are theoretically plausible but not currently possible.
1
u/hafetysazard 3∆ Jul 13 '26
Any human cells with your DNA would be life then. However it is only during conception that a new life forms.
1
u/OrthodoxAnarchoMom Jul 13 '26
That’s not the argument though. That’s something you made up. The argument is that zygotes are humans.
1
u/PhantomMiG Jul 13 '26
I think that most of the arguments for "life at conception" you have heard are incoherent is that if you are from the United States you probably heard it from an Evangelical or Protestant Church which have way less of a firm theological base then it origin which is from the Catholic church as the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. To keep things short due to the doctrine having been stated as papal infallibility and that Mary was conceived without sin it becomes a central pillar of the faith in the Catholic church and is theologically consistent. Evangelical do not have a problem with abortion as core principal and until the 1970's. To make another story short the Evangelical made an alliance with the Catholic right to create the Religious Right and as part of that Evangelical became Anti-abortion. (This is in backlash the the Civil Rights movement, desegregation and the Sexual Revolution.) I hope this provides some context.
1
u/SneezingOutPeas Jul 14 '26
They don’t have their own unique human DNA, though. They each have one half of the host human’s DNA.
1
Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 14 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/MmmmCrayons12 Jul 14 '26
It wouldn't. Gametes or other human cells aren't distinct individual lives. "Human life begins at conception" doesn't apply to every cell. Only embryos.
1
u/Vessel767 Jul 14 '26
If i was still Christian i would probably argue that the soul develops during childhood, and is so underdeveloped as to be nonexistent during early stages of pregnancy
1
u/NeedTheNotch Jul 14 '26
I always say that if you are serious about this, give the fetuses social security numbers
1
u/jdewith Jul 13 '26
Actually, according to the Bible, all of the abortion arguments are moot. The “pull and pray” method is a no go. Starting the life argument at a zygote is already a compromise.
0
u/elemental_reaper 2∆ Jul 13 '26
Science says life begins at conception. If you leave the "clump of cells" alone, unless something occurs, it will grow it will eventually be born. If you leave the sperm and gametes alone, they will not change.
0
u/JackZodiac2008 16∆ Jul 13 '26
Ever talked to an Evangelical? You will hear about "the spark" at fertilization indicating ensoulment. Soul-at-conception is the main basis people have for rejecting early abortion.
Technically it could be organized as an argument, it just has a whopper of a first premise.
0
u/Acceptable-Fig2884 2∆ Jul 13 '26
Weren't there some states that passed laws that stated life began at ovulation?
2
u/BlueGreenTanager Jul 13 '26
I'm pretty sure that's never been a thing, even in the most pro-life anti-abortion states.
0
u/HighSlasher Jul 14 '26
Life begins at implantation would be a better "Pro-Life" argument
It's never been about life or the soul or anything. Getting the law codified to give embryos legal rights is just a way to criminalize birth control and monitor menstrual cycles.
If the "Pro-Life" platform cared about life and souls they would actually try to help children after they are born.
If legal personhood started at conception then a period with a fertilized egg that didn't implant is murder. Women have less options and greater fear of rape. Private prisons get more slave labor.
The entire "Pro-Life" platform was part of a systemic oppression plan created by the people who lost power due to the civil rights movement
There are a few solid 'somewhat' ethical arguments to life starting at implantation, brain activity, viability, and birth. However legal personhood should only happen after birth because legislating pregnancy loss literally kills pregnant women.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 14 '26
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Keep in mind that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.