A question on Abortion

[Job 33:6]

Before fertilization, you and I, as growing and developing human beings didn’t exist.

You were not a sperm or an egg. Your life as a human being began at fertilization. This is basic biology and has not really been debated for decades.

This isn't a matter of biology.

I also call ham, cheese and bread a "sandwich". And my sandwich could be said to begin existing when I put it together on a paper plate. But this is not creation as God creates life. This is just rearrangement of pre existing constituents.

Also, we don't know if, at the moment of fertilization, you and I began to exist. Because we are more than physical matter. And our existence is not dependent on physical matter of our bodies. Hence why we live on after our bodies fail, in heaven.

Much Like Jesus. His life and existence never depended on His physical form. But rather Jesus transcended the physical. Neither Jesus nor us cease to exist at death, no more do we come into existence by any materialistic determinant.

 

[SPF]

This isn't a matter of biology.

I also call ham, cheese and bread a "sandwich". And my sandwich could be said to begin existing when I put it together on a paper plate. But this is not creation as God creates life. This is just rearrangement of pre existing constituents.

So when did your physical being first begin to exist?

 

[Job 33:6]

So when did your physical being first begin to exist?

"Life", you and I, are not merely physical beings. Would you agree?

Your focus comes off as materialist, or naturalistic. As if physical matter is all that makes "us".

Genesis 2:7

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God went further and brought life to Adam by breathing the breadth of life into Adams nostrils. Not merely by rearranging dust. Adam had nostrils, Adam had physical form, but it wasn't physical form that gave Adam life.

 

[Job 33:6]

Another one, ezekiel 37:14

" I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.'"

God is doing more to create life than merely taking pre existing matter and rearranging it. God is breathing life into us. Placing His spirit into us, to bring us life. Even in cases where man has risen from the dead. It wasn't a matter of physical form that raised lazarus from the dead. It was God's breadth of life.

 

[SPF]

you and I, are not merely physical beings. Would you agree?

Your focus comes off as materialist, or naturalistic. As if physical matter is all that makes "us".

Of course. God created mankind as both physical and spiritual beings.

When Christ returns, He will redeem and restore both Believers and the Earth, and our final destination for eternity will be as both physical and spiritual beings, here, on earth.

And my focus is on what I am discussing, not running off on rabbit trails that shift the goal post.

Adam was a unique creation, the first. He was a fully formed, fully developed human being when God brought him to life. That process does not continue to this day.

Since Adam and Eve, God has used procreation, and fertilization, and a 25 year developmental period for human beings to grow.

So my question to you is basic, if you are denying that a new human being exists at fertilization - when precisely then does a new human being come to be? When did you first begin to exist?

Biology would tell us that our physical form began to exist at fertilization. That’s when you as a new and unique organism began to grow. If you are denying that this is when your physical self began, then please explain when your physical self began to exist!

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course. God created mankind as both physical and spiritual beings.

When Christ returns, He will redeem and restore both Believers and the Earth, and our final destination for eternity will be as both physical and spiritual beings, here, on earth.

And my focus is on what I am discussing, not running off on rabbit trails that shift the goal post.

Adam was a unique creation, the first. He was a fully formed, fully developed human being when God brought him to life. That process does not continue to this day.

Since Adam and Eve, God has used procreation, and fertilization, and a 25 year developmental period for human beings to grow.

So my question to you is basic, if you are denying that a new human being exists at fertilization - when precisely then does a new human being come to be? When did you first begin to exist?

Biology would tell us that our physical form began to exist at fertilization. That’s when you as a new and unique organism began to grow. If you are denying that this is when your physical self began, then please explain when your physical self began to exist!

There it is.

You recognize that people are spiritual beings (at least in part). Our spirits and the existence of our spirits, are not dependent upon physical events (such as conception or birth or sentience). The physical event of conception does not create a spirit (nothing in scripture suggests this). In which case, our creation, also, is not dependent on such events. But rather our creation is dependent upon God breathing the breath of life into us.

And I don't have an answer for when God breaths the breath of life into us. According to the book of Genesis, It wasn't until after Adam had nostrils that God breathed the breath of life into him. Based on this passage in Genesis, I could only guess that our physical life begins, at some point at or after the time that we have nostrils (or a nose), which would be sometime in the first trimester.

 

[SPF]

There it is.

You recognize that people are spiritual beings (at least in part). Our spirits and the existence of our spirits, are not dependent upon physical events (such as conception or birth or sentience). The physical event of conception does not create a spirit (nothing in scripture suggests this). In which case, our creation, also, is not dependent on such events. But rather our creation is dependent upon God breathing the breath of life into us.

And I don't have an answer for when God breaths the breath of life into us. According to the book of Genesis, It wasn't until after Adam had nostrils that God breathed the breath of life into him. Based on this passage in Genesis, I could only guess that our physical life begins, at some point at or after the time that we have nostrils (or a nose), which would be sometime in the first trimester.

Again, the creation of Adam was a one-off. It is not the template for how any human being has come into existence since. You literally cannot use Adam as an example for how human beings come into existence today.

So let's address what we actually know, and then I would like to hear what you think. Biologically, we know that at fertilization a new, unique, living, and growing organism that did not exist prior to fertilization now exists. It's cells are dividing, it's growing. It will take this human organism 25 years to fully develop and mature.

You and I, as living, growing human organism did not exist until fertilization. That's just simple biology. It's not debated, it's not argued. Can you acknowledge that? Can you acknowledge that you as a living, growing, unique organism began at fertilization?

If you can't, then when did you as a new, unique, growing organism first come to be? Because you were never a sperm, and you were never an egg. Sperms and Eggs have no capacity to grow and develop into human beings.

And I don't have an answer for when God breaths the breath of life into us. According to the book of Genesis, It wasn't until after Adam had nostrils that God breathed the breath of life into him.

And also, this is problematic because God also didn't breathe the breath of life into Adam technically until he was fully developed. So why pick a nose? it seems arbitrary. Adam was fully developed human being when God breathed life into him. Are you prepared to say that it isn't until we are fully developed human beings that God breathes life into us?

 

[Job 33:6]

Again, the creation of Adam was a one-off. It is not the template for how any human being has come into existence since. You literally cannot use Adam as an example for how human beings come into existence today.

So let's address what we actually know, and then I would like to hear what you think. Biologically, we know that at fertilization a new, unique, living, and growing organism that did not exist prior to fertilization now exists. It's cells are dividing, it's growing. It will take this human organism 25 years to fully develop and mature.

You and I, as living, growing human organism did not exist until fertilization. That's just simple biology. It's not debated, it's not argued. Can you acknowledge that? Can you acknowledge that you as a living, growing, unique organism began at fertilization?

If you can't, then when did you as a new, unique, growing organism first come to be? Because you were never a sperm, and you were never an egg. Sperms and Eggs have no capacity to grow and develop into human beings.

And also, this is problematic because God also didn't breathe the breath of life into Adam technically until he was fully developed. So why pick a nose? it seems arbitrary.

The creation of Adam (Genesis 2:7), as far as I know, is all that we have to work with from a spiritual perspective. Hence why it is referenced. although God does breathe life into people in other parts of scripture including in cases where God has brought people back to life from the dead (Ezekiel 37:14). And these are not physical events, They have nothing to do with conception. They are purely spiritual or metaphysical events that cause life to come into existence.

I offer no other evidence or knowledge for when God breaths life into us.

And this isn't a matter of science. When God breaths life into us, is not something that biologists can say. Because it's not a physical matter. Biologists cannot explain how God brings life back to the dead either. It's just not something that biologists can do.

Physical biological actions do not define when God creates life. So your questions pertaining to biology are irrelevant.

Now, if we took on a perspective, purely from materialism or an atheist naturalistic perspective, then we could potentially come up with an answer for when life physically begins to exist.

But we aren't atheists. We can ask atheists if you would like though. My guess is that they would say that scientists have created life in petri dishes, and that life begins before conception.

Adam was fully developed human being when God breathed life into him. Are you prepared to say that it isn't until we are fully developed human beings that God breathes life into us?

And, it's not about how I personally feel about the topic. It's about what scripture says or doesn't say. If scripture states that God breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of Adam, That's all I have to work with.

I can't rightfully make the leap from nostrils to conceptions on a whim, for when God breaths that breath of life into us.

We could take on a purely materialistic perspective on the topic and could completely disregard God's breath of life. But if we stayed consistent with this naturalistic approach, belief in the metaphysical aspects of scripture would be dismantled. Or would otherwise become irrelevant and ignored.

 

[SPF]

I offer no other evidence or knowledge for when God breaths life into us.

You need to clarify. Biologically, our physical lives begin at fertilization. It is at fertilization that from what we can see, a new, living, and growing human organism has begun. So from a physical, living, point of view - all human beings since Adam begin living at fertilization.

Here's where I'm confused, are you saying that before God breathes life into us, we are dead? Because that's essentially what Adam was. God created his physical form, and it wasn't until God breathed life into Adam that He became alive, living.

So are you asserting that the growing, developing human being is somehow actually dead until God breathes life into it? Biologically that is a problematic thing to say, you know that right? How can a dead thing be growing and developing?

But we aren't atheists. We can ask atheists if you would like though. My guess is that they would say that scientists have created life in petri dishes, and that life begins before conception.

Do you have any evidence or any resources you can cite that show a scientist creating a human being without using fertilization as the ultimate method? I don't believe that's happened yet.

 

[Job 33:6]

It is at fertilization that from what we can see, a new, living, and growing human organism has begun. So from a physical, living, point of view - all human beings since Adam begin living at fertilization.

Here's where I'm confused, are you saying that before God breathes life into us, we are dead? Because that's essentially what Adam was. God created his physical form, and it wasn't until God breathed life into Adam that He became alive, living.

So are you asserting that the growing, developing human being is somehow actually dead until God breathes life into it? Biologically that is a problematic thing to say, you know that right? How can a dead thing be growing and developing?

Do you have any evidence or any resources you can cite that show a scientist creating a human being without using fertilization as the ultimate method? I don't believe that's happened yet.

As I've said before, I can take ham, cheese and bread out of my refrigerator, and can make a sandwich. And that sandwich begins to exist once put together. But this is not equivalent to creating and bringing physical matter into existence.

Just the same, saying that an individual human begins to exist, is not equivelant to saying that God has created that human in simultaneity. Especially giving that a human is more than just physical matter.

Lets recap:

The creation of Adam (Genesis 2:7), as far as I know, is all that we have to work with from a spiritual perspective. Hence why it is referenced. although God does breathe life into people in other parts of scripture including in cases where God has brought people back to life from the dead (Ezekiel 37:14). And these are not physical events, They have nothing to do with conception. They are purely spiritual or metaphysical events that cause life to come into existence.

When we talk about human life, We arent talking about a materialistic or naturalistic entity. God breaths the breath of life into us.

So all of these claims about human life beginning as a biological or physical event, are irrelevant and baseless.

And again, it's not about how I feel about the topic. It's about what is said, or not said, in scripture.

And this isn't a matter of science. When God breaths life into us, is not something that biologists can say. Because it's not a physical matter. Biologists cannot explain how God brings life back to the dead either. It's just not something that biologists can do.

Physical biological actions do not define when God creates life. So your questions and claims pertaining to biology are irrelevant and baseless.

 

[SPF]

As I've said before, I can take ham, cheese and bread out of my refrigerator, and can make a sandwich. And that sandwich begins to exist once put together. But this is not equivalent to creating and bringing a physical matter into existence.

Lets recap:

The creation of Adam (Genesis 2:7), as far as I know, is all that we have to work with from a spiritual perspective. Hence why it is referenced. although God does breathe life into people in other parts of scripture including in cases where God has brought people back to life from the dead (Ezekiel 37:14). And these are not physical events, They have nothing to do with conception. They are purely spiritual or metaphysical events that cause life to come into existence.

When we talk about human life, We arent talking about a materialistic or naturalistic entity. God breaths the breath of life into us.

So all of these claims about human life beginning as a biological or physical event, are irrelevant and baseless.

And again, it's not about how I feel about the topic. It's about what is said, or not said, in scripture.

And this isn't a matter of science. When God breaths life into us, is not something that biologists can say. Because it's not a physical matter. Biologists cannot explain how God brings life back to the dead either. It's just not something that biologists can do.

Physical biological actions do not define when God creates life. So your questions and claims pertaining to biology are irrelevant and baseless.

Ok, let's try it this way.

Do you believe that an 8 month old fetus, in the womb, is alive? If it is alive, why is it alive, and when did it become alive? If it is not alive, how is it that it's growing?

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, let's try it this way.

Do you believe that an 8 month old fetus, in the womb, is alive? If it is alive, why is it alive, and when did it become alive? If it is not alive, how is it that it's growing?

Scripture doesn't clarify on the moment in which God breaths the breath of life into a human being.

You keep asking questions regarding physical matter, as if physical matter is what defines when God takes this action.

Lets recap:

The creation of Adam (Genesis 2:7), as far as I know, is all that we have to work with from a spiritual perspective. Hence why it is referenced. although God does breathe life into people in other parts of scripture including in cases where God has brought people back to life from the dead (Ezekiel 37:14). And these are not physical events, They have nothing to do with conception. They are purely spiritual or metaphysical events that cause life to come into existence.

When we talk about human life, We arent talking about a materialistic or naturalistic entity. God breaths the breath of life into us.

So all of these claims about human life beginning as a biological or physical event, are irrelevant and baseless.

And again, it's not about how I feel about the topic. It's about what is said, or not said, in scripture.

And this isn't a matter of science. When God breaths life into us, is not something that biologists can say. Because it's not a physical matter. Biologists cannot explain how God brings life back to the dead either. It's just not something that biologists can do.

Physical biological actions do not define when God creates life. So your questions and claims pertaining to biology are irrelevant and baseless.

You're asking me questions, for which scripture provides no answer.

 

[SPF]

Scripture doesn't clarify on the moment in which God breaths the breath of life into a human being.

Actually, Scripture doesn't clarify that God continues to do that beyond Adam. Because again, Adam was a unique, one-off moment in history and is not representative of how human beings come into existence today.

Consider an 8 month old, healthy, unborn fetus. It's viable at this point. Do you think it's safe to say that it's alive? How could it be anything but alive? How did it get to that point if it wasn't alive? How could a dead human being grow into a viable, 8 month old fetus?

Clearly an 8 month old fetus is alive, right? It's growing. It's developing. It's clearly alive. right? If it's not alive, then is it dead? How can a dead thing grow and develop?

I'm still trying to understand your position as it doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually, Scripture doesn't clarify that God continues to do that beyond Adam. Because again, Adam was a unique, one-off moment in history and is not representative of how human beings come into existence today.

Consider an 8 month old, healthy, unborn fetus. It's viable at this point. Do you think it's safe to say that it's alive? How could it be anything but alive? How did it get to that point if it wasn't alive? How could a dead human being grow into a viable, 8 month old fetus?

Clearly an 8 month old fetus is alive, right? It's growing. It's developing. It's clearly alive. right? If it's not alive, then is it dead? How can a dead thing grow and develop?

I'm still trying to understand your position as it doesn't seem to make sense.

Again, the question of when life is placed into the physical body, through the breath of God, is not dependent upon any physical events.

So you're continual questions regarding when life begins as it pertains to months of development of a fetus are irrelevant.

Scripture doesn't clarify on the moment in which God breaths the breath of life into a human being.

You keep asking questions regarding physical matter, as if physical matter is what defines when God takes this action.

Lets recap:

The creation of Adam (Genesis 2:7), as far as I know, is all that we have to work with from a spiritual perspective. Hence why it is referenced. although God does breathe life into people in other parts of scripture including in cases where God has brought people back to life from the dead (Ezekiel 37:14). And these are not physical events, They have nothing to do with conception. They are purely spiritual or metaphysical events that cause life to come into existence.

When we talk about human life, We arent talking about a materialistic or naturalistic entity. God breaths the breath of life into us.

So all of these claims about human life beginning as a biological or physical event, are irrelevant and baseless.

And again, it's not about how I feel about the topic. It's about what is said, or not said, in scripture.

And this isn't a matter of science. When God breaths life into us, is not something that biologists can say. Because it's not a physical matter. Biologists cannot explain how God brings life back to the dead either. It's just not something that biologists can do.

Physical biological actions do not define when God creates life. So your questions and claims pertaining to biology are irrelevant and baseless.

You're asking me questions, for which scripture provides no answer.

 

[SPF]

Again, the question of when life is placed into the physical body, through the breath of God, is not dependent upon any physical events.

Are you actually attempting to refer to ensoulment? Let me try wording it this way, and let's see what you think.

When a woman is 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus, what we are saying is that for 8 months, she has been carrying a living, growing, human being. Biologically, this is certainly the case. I don't think you would disagree that an 8 month old, healthy fetus is not a human being.

What then is the "breath of life" Is that our soul? Are you referring to ensoulment?

If so, then would you be willing to acknowledge that the beginning of the physical body of a human being takes place at fertilization, but the physical body of a growing human being isn't technically a human being because it doesn't have a soul yet, and ensoulment takes place at some point after fertilization, but before actual birth?

 

[Job 33:6]

"Actually, Scripture doesn't clarify that God continues to do that beyond Adam."

God typically isn't considered a "sit it and forget it" kind of God who would do something once at creation and then walk away. I believe that deism is the word for this.

If God were not placing the breath of life into
each if us individually, it would imply that we inherit the breath of life from our parents (either the soul is coming from God or it is coming from something physical). Presumably through sperm and egg. As if the sperm and Egg contains two halves of our soul (though if men and women have many sperms and eggs, it's unclear how this division works out. And God sits by idling, and simply watching us create new souls through sexual intercourse. As opposed to God being active in creation and personal to our conception.

 

[SPF]

"Actually, Scripture doesn't clarify that God continues to do that beyond Adam."

God typically isn't considered a "sit it and forget it" kind of God who would do something once at creation and then walk away. I believe that deism is the word for this.

If God were not placing the breath of life into
each if us individually, it would imply that we inherit the breath of life from our parents (either the soul is coming from God or it is coming from something physical). Presumably through sperm and egg. As if the sperm and Egg contains two halves of our soul (though if men and women have many sperms and eggs, it's unclear how this division works out. And God sits by idling, and simply watching us create new souls through sexual intercourse. As opposed to God being active in creation and personal to our conception.

I'm not sure who you're talking to, because you're not actually responding to what I said. It's amazing the responses you come up with.

If you don't want to actually have a meaningful conversation say so. Getting you to engage and respond to the actual questions is virtually impossible.

Here's what I'm hoping you can clarify with your unique view of life. Human beings are both physical and spiritual beings. Physically speaking, it appears that our beginning is at fertilization, and then after fertilization, we spend 9 months growing in the womb, and then spend another 24 years growing outside the womb. That appears to be the process by which human beings grow and develop.

It sounds like you're saying that even though we may physically begin growing and developing at fertilization, that we aren't actually a human being when that process begins. Is that correct? We become a human being at some point after fertilization but before birth. Is that correct?

Would you say that the "breath of life" is ensoulment? If not, what actually is the "breath of life"?

 

[Job 33:6]

@SPF

"It sounds like you're saying that even though we may physically begin growing and developing at fertilization, that we aren't actually a human being when that process begins. Is that correct? We become a human being at some point after fertilization but before birth. Is that correct?"

You keep asking the same question without understanding the response.

As I've said before. "Human" is just a term we use to describe pre existing matter that has taken a particular form. Much like with a sandwich, we, the observers, make the willfull choice to identify "human" however we please. A sandwich doesn't come into existence from non existence when I combine lunch meat and bread. But rather I simply take pre existing lunch meat and bread and reform it. I am not bringing anything into existence in the process of making a sandwich, and people are not bringing other people into existence when we have babies. We are simply taking what already exists and reforming it. God creates life, people do not create life, we merely reform it. A physical human being never actually comes into existence (with the exception of perhaps Jesus) from beyond physical existence, at conception (remember the law of conservation of matter, matter is not created or destroyed by human activities). We simply see constituents of what we call humans, come together (DNA) and we then decide to call them human. Growth and development of our constituents could be said to pre exist fertilization. And our constituent don't change from non human to human, but rather it is the observer that chooses to call our constituants different names based on form.

So the answer is "no" to both of your questions.

We would be better off describing physical nature not with arbitrary terms like "human" and "non-human", but rather simply by talking about matter. Does our matter, or even our DNA, begin growing and developing at fertilization? Well no, it doesn't (development of our genetic code long predates conception). And when we decide to call our DNA "human", is really just an arbitrary choice made by an observer, as opposed to something created and brought into existence by God. It is irrelevant if we begin calling our DNA human at conception, versus at 1 month or 4 months or 8 months etc. What is relevant is what God creates, not what we personally choose to call it.

"Would you say that the "breath of life" is ensoulment? If not, what actually is the "breath of life"?"

I think this would be fair to say. Or something of the like. Where something metaphysical is created by God and that creation joins physical matter.

 

[SPF]

Well, for anyone else still following along. I'm not entirely sure what Koatiite's convoluted position is, other than it's ignorant of both biology and theology. Here's a recap of what we know, followed by some inferences we can safely make.

We know that God created mankind as both physical and spiritual beings. Mankind alone of all of God's creation is created in His Image. We alone possess the Imago Dei. All humans are inherently morally valuable because of our being created in God's Image. Our moral worth and value stem not from ourselves and have nothing to do with anything about us. Our moral worth and value stem from being made in God's immutable, perfect character.

Thus, we can say that no person possesses more inherent moral worth and value than another, and discriminating against another person and claiming that they are less morally valuable from a being standpoint is wrong.

Second, thanks to advancements in science and biology, we've known for decades now that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. We know that sperm contain 23 chromosomes and that ovum contain 23 chromosomes. On their own, neither the sperm nor the egg will ever be anything more than a sperm and an egg. At fertilization however, we can literally see now the creation of a new human being.

Human development takes about 25 years, with the first 9 months of it taking place inside of a mother's womb. Yet it's important to recognize that at no point are we ever not a human being. We look exactly what we should look like at every stage of our development. Our moral worth and value is not based upon our level of development, but again, is based in the immutable character of the God in whose Image we are formed.

Given the biological reality of a human being coming into existence at fertilization, and the Biblical reality of all human being's possessing moral worth and value - when it comes to the topic of abortion, Christians should be more unified in our position, knowing that the 98.5% of abortions, which are performed for convenience reasons, are immoral and wrong.

One important thing to note from Scripture is that nowhere in Scripture is it ever suggested that there is a time where a living human being does not have a soul. Or when there is a time where a living human being is not created in the Image of God.

There is no good reason to think that from our very beginning that we wouldn't have a soul, and that ensoulment would take place at some point after conception.

Adam's creation is a unique, one off example that is simply not analogous to how the rest of us came into the world. However, if we were going to attempt to utilize Adam as analogous, the conclusion would lead us to the idea that from conception we have a soul. Let me explain.

If say that what happened was that God first formed Adam's physical body. So there is Adam, lying on the ground, fully formed, fully developed. He's not alive yet because God hasn't brought him to life. Scripture tells us that God breathed life into Adam. Ok, so Adam comes to life. When did Adam receive his soul? Scripture isn't explicit, but I think we can assume it happened simultaneously with his body coming to life.

If that's the case, then the most likely reality is that when a new human being is created at conception, that they also have a soul at that moment. Because again, there is no indication in Scripture that there is ever a living human being, without a soul.

And since we know biologically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, I don't see why our default belief wouldn't be that we also have a soul at conception.

But hey, let's say for the sake of discussion that we don't actually have a soul at conception, and that at some point in our development God gives it to us. If that's the case, then we do at least know that it happens prior to birth. We know that because in Luke 1, we know that John the Baptist was actually filled with the Spirit while still in his mother's womb. He also "leaped" for joy while in his mother's womb. Surely nobody would believe that John the Baptist could have been filled with the Spirit in the womb and not be a living human being with a soul! So worst case scenario, ensoulment happens after conception, but before birth.

However, again based upon Adam, and based upon the rest of Scripture, I think the default position would be that all living human beings always have a soul.

For anyone interested in some basic biology, and doesn't want to be confused by any other poster's ignorant, convoluted, uneducated ideas. Here's a good read:

I. A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down�s or Turner�s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.

1) Gametogenesis

As the human embryologist Larsen2 states it, gametogenesis is the process that converts primordial germ cells (primitive sex cells) into mature sex gametes�in the male (spermatozoa, or sperms), and in the female (definitive oocytes). The timing of gametogenesis is different in males and in females. The later stages of spermatogenesis in males occur at puberty, and continue throughout adult life. The process involves the production of spermatogonia from the primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary spermatocytes, and finally spermatids�or mature spermatozoa (sperms). These mature sperms will have only half of the number of their original chromosomes�i.e., the number of chromosomes has been cut from 46 to 23, and therefore they are ready to take part in fertilization.3

Oogenesis begins in the female during fetal life. The total number of primary oocytes�about 7 million�is produced in the female fetus� ovaries by 5 months of gestation in the mother�s uterus. By birth, only about 700,000 - 2 million remain. By puberty, only about 400,000 remain. The process includes several stages of maturation�the production of oogonia from primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary oocytes, which become definitive oocytes only at puberty. This definitive oocyte is what is released each month during the female�s menstrual period, but it still has 46 chromosomes. In fact, it does not reduce its number of chromosomes until and unless it is fertilized by the sperm, during which process the definitive oocyte becomes a secondary oocyte with only 23 chromosomes.4

This halving of the number of chromosomes in the oocytes takes place by the process known as meiosis. Many people confuse meiosis with a different process known as mitosis, but there is an important difference. Mitosis refers to the normal division of a somatic or of a germ cell in order to increase the number of those cells during growth and development. The resulting cells contain the same number of chromosomes as the previous cells�in human beings, 46. Meiosis refers to the halving of the number of chromosomes that are normally present in a germ cell - the precursor of a sperm or a definitive oocyte - in order for fertilization to take place. The resulting gamete cells have only half of the number of chromosomes as the previous cells�in human beings, 23.

One of the best and most technically accurate explanations for this critical process of gametogenesis is by Ronan O�Rahilly,5 the human embryologist who developed the classic Carnegie stages of human embryological development. He also sits on the international board of Nomina Embryologica (which determines the correct terminology to be used in human embryology textbooks internationally):

"Gametogenesis is the production of [gametes], i.e., spermatozoa and oocytes. These cells are produced in the gonads, i.e., the testes and ovaries respectively. ... During the differentiation of gametes, diploid cells (those with a double set of chromosomes, as found in somatic cells [46 chromosomes]) are termed primary, and haploid cells (those with a single set of chromosomes [23 chromosomes]) are called secondary. The reduction of chromosomal number ... from 46 (the diploid number or 2n) to 23 (the haploid number or n) is accomplished by a cellular division termed meiosis. ... Spermatogenesis, the production of spermatozoa, continues from immediately after puberty until old age. It takes place in the testis, which is also an endocrine gland, the interstitial cells of which secrete testosterone. Previous to puberty, spermatogonia in the simiferous tubules of the testis remain relatively inactive. After puberty, under stimulation from the interstitial cells, spermatogonia proliferate ... and some become primary spermatocytes. When these undergo their first maturation division (meiosis 1), they become secondary spermatocytes. The second maturation division (meiosis 2) results in spermatids, which become converted into spermatozoa."6

"Oogenesis is the production and maturation of oocytes, i.e.; the female gametes derived from oogonia. Oogonia (derived from primordial germ cells) multiply by mitosis and become primary oocytes. The number of oogonia increases to nearly seven million by the middle of prenatal life, after which it diminishes to about two million at birth. From these, several thousand oocytes are derived, several hundred of which mature and are liberated (ovulated) during a reproductive period of some thirty years. Prophase of meiosis 1 begins during fetal life but ceases at the diplotene state, which persists during childhood. ... After puberty, meiosis 1 is resumed and a secondary oocyte ... is formed, together with polar body 1, which can be regarded as an oocyte having a reduced share of cytoplasm. The secondary oocyte is a female gamete in which the first meiotic division is completed and the second has begun. From oogonium to secondary oocyte takes from about 12 to 50 years to be completed. Meiosis 2 is terminated after rupture of the follicle (ovulation) but only if a spermatozoon penetrates. ... The term �ovum� implies that polar body 2 has been given off, which event is usually delayed until the oocyte has been penetrated by a spermatozoon (i.e., has been fertilized). Hence a human ovum does not [really] exist. Moreover the term has been used for such disparate structures as an oocyte and a three-week embryo, and therefore should be discarded, as a fortiori should �egg�."7 (Emphasis added.)

Thus, for fertilization to be accomplished, a mature sperm and a mature human oocyte are needed. Before fertilization,8 each has only 23 chromosomes. They each possess "human life," since they are parts of a living human being; but they are not each whole living human beings themselves. They each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes necessary and characteristic for a single individual member of the human species. Furthermore, a sperm can produce only "sperm" proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can produce only "oocyte" proteins and enzymes; neither alone is or can produce a human being with 46 chromosomes.

Also, note O�Rahilly�s statement that the use of terms such as "ovum" and "egg"�which would include the term "fertilized egg"�is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and is therefore very misleading�especially in these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as "scientific" myths. The commonly used term, "fertilized egg," is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. What is being called a "fertilized egg" is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being.

2) Fertilization

Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O�Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis�each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts�each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn�t become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14 Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, for anyone else still following along. I'm not entirely sure what Koatiite's convoluted position is, other than it's ignorant of both biology and theology. Here's a recap of what we know, followed by some inferences we can safely make.

We know that God created mankind as both physical and spiritual beings. Mankind alone of all of God's creation is created in His Image. We alone possess the Imago Dei. All humans are inherently morally valuable because of our being created in God's Image. Our moral worth and value stem not from ourselves and have nothing to do with anything about us. Our moral worth and value stem from being made in God's immutable, perfect character.

Thus, we can say that no person possesses more inherent moral worth and value than another, and discriminating against another person and claiming that they are less morally valuable from a being standpoint is wrong.

Second, thanks to advancements in science and biology, we've known for decades now that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. We know that sperm contain 23 chromosomes and that ovum contain 23 chromosomes. On their own, neither the sperm nor the egg will ever be anything more than a sperm and an egg. At fertilization however, we can literally see now the creation of a new human being.

Human development takes about 25 years, with the first 9 months of it taking place inside of a mother's womb. Yet it's important to recognize that at no point are we ever not a human being. We look exactly what we should look like at every stage of our development. Our moral worth and value is not based upon our level of development, but again, is based in the immutable character of the God in whose Image we are formed.

Given the biological reality of a human being coming into existence at fertilization, and the Biblical reality of all human being's possessing moral worth and value - when it comes to the topic of abortion, Christians should be more unified in our position, knowing that the 98.5% of abortions, which are performed for convenience reasons, are immoral and wrong.

One important thing to note from Scripture is that nowhere in Scripture is it ever suggested that there is a time where a living human being does not have a soul. Or when there is a time where a living human being is not created in the Image of God.

There is no good reason to think that from our very beginning that we wouldn't have a soul, and that ensoulment would take place at some point after conception.

Adam's creation is a unique, one off example that is simply not analogous to how the rest of us came into the world. However, if we were going to attempt to utilize Adam as analogous, the conclusion would lead us to the idea that from conception we have a soul. Let me explain.

If say that what happened was that God first formed Adam's physical body. So there is Adam, lying on the ground, fully formed, fully developed. He's not alive yet because God hasn't brought him to life. Scripture tells us that God breathed life into Adam. Ok, so Adam comes to life. When did Adam receive his soul? Scripture isn't explicit, but I think we can assume it happened simultaneously with his body coming to life.

If that's the case, then the most likely reality is that when a new human being is created at conception, that they also have a soul at that moment. Because again, there is no indication in Scripture that there is ever a living human being, without a soul.

And since we know biologically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, I don't see why our default belief wouldn't be that we also have a soul at conception.

But hey, let's say for the sake of discussion that we don't actually have a soul at conception, and that at some point in our development God gives it to us. If that's the case, then we do at least know that it happens prior to birth. We know that because in Luke 1, we know that John the Baptist was actually filled with the Spirit while still in his mother's womb. He also "leaped" for joy while in his mother's womb. Surely nobody would believe that John the Baptist could have been filled with the Spirit in the womb and not be a living human being with a soul! So worst case scenario, ensoulment happens after conception, but before birth.

However, again based upon Adam, and based upon the rest of Scripture, I think the default position would be that all living human beings always have a soul.

For anyone interested in some basic biology, and doesn't want to be confused by any other poster's ignorant, convoluted, uneducated ideas. Here's a good read:

I. A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down�s or Turner�s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.

1) Gametogenesis

As the human embryologist Larsen2 states it, gametogenesis is the process that converts primordial germ cells (primitive sex cells) into mature sex gametes�in the male (spermatozoa, or sperms), and in the female (definitive oocytes). The timing of gametogenesis is different in males and in females. The later stages of spermatogenesis in males occur at puberty, and continue throughout adult life. The process involves the production of spermatogonia from the primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary spermatocytes, and finally spermatids�or mature spermatozoa (sperms). These mature sperms will have only half of the number of their original chromosomes�i.e., the number of chromosomes has been cut from 46 to 23, and therefore they are ready to take part in fertilization.3

Oogenesis begins in the female during fetal life. The total number of primary oocytes�about 7 million�is produced in the female fetus� ovaries by 5 months of gestation in the mother�s uterus. By birth, only about 700,000 - 2 million remain. By puberty, only about 400,000 remain. The process includes several stages of maturation�the production of oogonia from primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary oocytes, which become definitive oocytes only at puberty. This definitive oocyte is what is released each month during the female�s menstrual period, but it still has 46 chromosomes. In fact, it does not reduce its number of chromosomes until and unless it is fertilized by the sperm, during which process the definitive oocyte becomes a secondary oocyte with only 23 chromosomes.4

This halving of the number of chromosomes in the oocytes takes place by the process known as meiosis. Many people confuse meiosis with a different process known as mitosis, but there is an important difference. Mitosis refers to the normal division of a somatic or of a germ cell in order to increase the number of those cells during growth and development. The resulting cells contain the same number of chromosomes as the previous cells�in human beings, 46. Meiosis refers to the halving of the number of chromosomes that are normally present in a germ cell - the precursor of a sperm or a definitive oocyte - in order for fertilization to take place. The resulting gamete cells have only half of the number of chromosomes as the previous cells�in human beings, 23.

One of the best and most technically accurate explanations for this critical process of gametogenesis is by Ronan O�Rahilly,5 the human embryologist who developed the classic Carnegie stages of human embryological development. He also sits on the international board of Nomina Embryologica (which determines the correct terminology to be used in human embryology textbooks internationally):

"Gametogenesis is the production of [gametes], i.e., spermatozoa and oocytes. These cells are produced in the gonads, i.e., the testes and ovaries respectively. ... During the differentiation of gametes, diploid cells (those with a double set of chromosomes, as found in somatic cells [46 chromosomes]) are termed primary, and haploid cells (those with a single set of chromosomes [23 chromosomes]) are called secondary. The reduction of chromosomal number ... from 46 (the diploid number or 2n) to 23 (the haploid number or n) is accomplished by a cellular division termed meiosis. ... Spermatogenesis, the production of spermatozoa, continues from immediately after puberty until old age. It takes place in the testis, which is also an endocrine gland, the interstitial cells of which secrete testosterone. Previous to puberty, spermatogonia in the simiferous tubules of the testis remain relatively inactive. After puberty, under stimulation from the interstitial cells, spermatogonia proliferate ... and some become primary spermatocytes. When these undergo their first maturation division (meiosis 1), they become secondary spermatocytes. The second maturation division (meiosis 2) results in spermatids, which become converted into spermatozoa."6

"Oogenesis is the production and maturation of oocytes, i.e.; the female gametes derived from oogonia. Oogonia (derived from primordial germ cells) multiply by mitosis and become primary oocytes. The number of oogonia increases to nearly seven million by the middle of prenatal life, after which it diminishes to about two million at birth. From these, several thousand oocytes are derived, several hundred of which mature and are liberated (ovulated) during a reproductive period of some thirty years. Prophase of meiosis 1 begins during fetal life but ceases at the diplotene state, which persists during childhood. ... After puberty, meiosis 1 is resumed and a secondary oocyte ... is formed, together with polar body 1, which can be regarded as an oocyte having a reduced share of cytoplasm. The secondary oocyte is a female gamete in which the first meiotic division is completed and the second has begun. From oogonium to secondary oocyte takes from about 12 to 50 years to be completed. Meiosis 2 is terminated after rupture of the follicle (ovulation) but only if a spermatozoon penetrates. ... The term �ovum� implies that polar body 2 has been given off, which event is usually delayed until the oocyte has been penetrated by a spermatozoon (i.e., has been fertilized). Hence a human ovum does not [really] exist. Moreover the term has been used for such disparate structures as an oocyte and a three-week embryo, and therefore should be discarded, as a fortiori should �egg�."7 (Emphasis added.)

Thus, for fertilization to be accomplished, a mature sperm and a mature human oocyte are needed. Before fertilization,8 each has only 23 chromosomes. They each possess "human life," since they are parts of a living human being; but they are not each whole living human beings themselves. They each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes necessary and characteristic for a single individual member of the human species. Furthermore, a sperm can produce only "sperm" proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can produce only "oocyte" proteins and enzymes; neither alone is or can produce a human being with 46 chromosomes.

Also, note O�Rahilly�s statement that the use of terms such as "ovum" and "egg"�which would include the term "fertilized egg"�is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and is therefore very misleading�especially in these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as "scientific" myths. The commonly used term, "fertilized egg," is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. What is being called a "fertilized egg" is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being.

2) Fertilization

Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O�Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis�each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts�each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn�t become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14 Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

Clearly you don't understand what is being said to you. I'll accept this as a failure to respond.